Lest we forget, the Christmas Eve, 1992 pardons of Bush 41. Open Thread below...

Download | play Download | play

Every once in a while Chris Wallace surprises me. You can see the hint of journalist rather than the White House sanctioned propagandist. Chris asked Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee about his 1992 statements questioning whether we might consider quarantining AIDS patients as a potential public health risk, and Huckabee tried to dance around it, claiming that back then we just didn't understand the risks. Now, if Mike had made those statement 10 years earlier in 1982, that might have been believable, but as Chris Wallace points out:

But Governor, forgive me, I don’t think that’s right. All the way back in 1985- this wasn’t political correctness--the Center for Disease Control, seven years before you made your statement, said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact.

Oops. As PERRspectives points out, even Ronald ("AIDS? What's that?") Reagan refuted Huckabee's extremism--in 1987.

AttyTood:

There's sometimes a thin line between the debate that usually should be held -- with at least a small amount of distance -- after a public tragedy like the Virginia Tech massacre, and raw, ugly politicization.

But this could be the worst politicizing ever:

President Bush's staff has talked to Virginia Tech officials about the possibility of Bush visiting campus this week, Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said at a press conference this evening.

There's nothing like a senseless bloodbath to build back that low approval rating, is there?

Swopa has more:

Bush is expected to give brief comments - roughly 5 minutes - at the campus gathering. Boy, that's a long way to go for a five-minute speech, isn't it?

Oh, but wait... I forgot the more important part:
Bush plans to give three television interviews on campus before returning to the White House, Perino said.

Take a gander at Debbie Schlussel to get an idea of truly disgusting politicization of this tragic event. On the "huge assumptions made to further getting her Muslim hate on" spectrum, Schlussel (here's the link, but remember, you'd be giving her hits she doesn't deserve plus you're probably going to want to take a shower afterward), decides--absent any reporting that would indicate as such--that the shooter HAD to be a "Paki." When commenters tell her that's an offensive slur, Debbie doesn't take it so well. Neither does the news that it's a Chinese student on a legal visa (note: later reporting identified him as S.Korean Cho Seung-Hui, who has lived in the US since 1992). Because you know, we shouldn't take in so many foreign students AND the students should be able to carry guns on campus to protect themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you conservative thinking at its finest.

Chicago Dyke at Corrente has shared a conversation she had with a friend who is a member of the White House press corps. It's a very interesting insight into a job of which we have no little opinion (or criticism). One particular passage stuck out for me:

I can tell you what drives me nuts about some of the things I read - with the caveat that this is a silly exercise, because I'm about to paint a stereotype that doesn't apply even to a majority of bloggy criticism.

On the Right, I'm driven nuts by the notion that what my spouse does or did professionally means that my fair coverage of the current Something Bad for Bush is a biased hit piece, and the idea that because some percentage of reporters voted for Clinton in 1992 means, all reporting out of Iraq is really the hallucinations of Marxist seditionists. On the Left, I'm driven nuts by the notion that my failure to include Event X while writing about the current Something Bad For Bush is clear evidence of being a toadie for Karl Rove, and that my failure to jump up at a press conference and tell Bush he has blood on his hands means that I'm just another cog in the GOP machine. On both sides, it drives me crazy that people equate explaining with defending. On both sides, it drives me crazy to see plain-jane mistakes get dressed up as darkly motivated attacks.

What do you think? While it's clear that there are some in the media that inject their own biases into stories, and there are some flat out lazy journalists, is it dishonest of us to ascribe more malevolent motives when we don't see stories covered the way we think they should be?

Dinesh D'Souza is living high on the hog in SD...:

Since Dartmouth, the conservative fray has been quite remunerative for D'Souza. Six years ago, he and his wife bought their home in Fairbanks Ranch. The nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where they keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS. A circular drive fronts the French country stone house...read on

for someone who pens right wing---extremist views:

Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace, a sorry example of a publishing culture more concerned with the sensational than the sensible...read on

They certainly take care of their own, don't they?

Check out ABC's Evangelical wunderkind and his resume over at IMDB before1998:

No poster. no actors, no writers, no production notes, no running times..

Jay Rosen has a great take on Novak. He clearly highlights the 6/29 Ed Henry segment on "Inside Politics" which I felt was an important piece of information also. ( Of course Jay does a wonderful job of analyzing it )

I've posted it a few times, but watch it now with Jay's analysis.

The NY Times follows up with the Rove-Novak 92' connection: "In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary."

The article describes their friendship through the years and shows how leaking information is nothing new for Karl.

Contrary to USA Today op-ed, Casey was not denied speaking slot at 1992 Dem convention for opposing abortion rights:

As Media Matters for America has pointed out on numerous occasions (here, here, here, here, and here) Casey was denied speaking time in 1992 over his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, not his anti-abortion views. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.

This one fallacy really bugs me.