This morning Frank Rich has the temerity to write:

What I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the can't-miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore. That Mr. Gore, some may recall, was not the firebrand who emerged from defeat, speaking up early against the Iraq war and leading the international charge on global warming. It was instead the cautious Gore whose public persona changed from debate to debate and whose answers were often long-winded and equivocal (even about the Kansas Board of Education's decision to ban the teaching of evolution). . .

Come on Frank. Are you going to be the old Frank Rich again?

Via digby, a bit of pontificating and puffing, from Our Media:

Anonymous: You said that Mayor Giuliani aced the Sunni/Shia question. What event in history was he referring to when he said "and then of course there was a slaughter of Shiites in the early part of the history of Islam, and it has infected a lot of the history of Islam, which is really very unfortunate"

Chris Cillizza: I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the Sunni and Shia. In the coverage I watched following the debate, it appeared as though Giuliani was factually correct about the differences between the two groups. That was all I was referencing. And, from a political standpoint, I think Giuliani dodged a major bullet with that question. I wonder how many of the ten men on that stage last night could have come up with something approximating a right answer on that question.

Now, for all I know, Rudy did ace the question. I do not know the history of the Sunni/Shia split in detail. But the problem is Cilizza and Our Media pretend that they do. Thus, Cilizza claimed "Rudy aced it" when in fact, he has no idea if Rudy aced it. His clarification was most revealing however - Rudy dodged a major bullet even though, for all Cilizza knows, Rudy got the answer completely wrong.

This is what passes for political discourse in our country. We are doomed.

Time magazine gives space to Juan Williams to attempt to shut down criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Jaun Williams, like O'Reilly, is an employee of Fox News. Williams writes two things that struck me as pathetic and ridiculous. The first:

That twisted assumption led me to say publicly that the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics.

Um, so Juan, you feel comfortable smearing poeple while at the same time taking umbrage that you were smeared by ONE commentator on CNN?

But the out-of-context attacks on O'Reilly picked up speed and ended up on CNN, where one commentator branded me a "Happy Negro" for allowing O'Reilly to get by with making racist comments without objection.

Well, shame on that commenter Juan, but shame on you for smearing people yourself. For smearing people like Eugene Robinson:

Via Glenn Greenwald, Fox News contributor retired Col. David Hunt writes:

Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead Friday , September 28, 2007

By Col. David Hunt

Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs.

. . . Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army — well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for, and now these courts martial. . . .

I condemn this offensive smear. Will the Right? Will the GOP? Don't hold your breath.

Via Atrios, HuffPo reports:

Although MSNBC did apologize to [Congresswoman Marsha] Blackburn [R-TN] on air, subsequent reporting from the Tennessee Commercial Appeal showed that Bohannon had declared Bon Aqua, TN as his legal residence before enlisting. Bon Aqua falls within Blackburn's district.

Blackburn's spokesman questioned the veracity of the report. "I don't know if he was living there," Lambert said. "I don't agree with that, the Department of Defense notified us that he was a member of the 8th district. We have a document saying that he was living in the 8th district." Lambert said he could not produce the document he referred to out of respect for the family.

Meanwhile, an official casualty identification from the Defense Department's website lists Lambert's home as Bon Aqua.

What remains unchallenged is that Blackburn did not know who the last soldier in her district was who had died in Iraq, while she knew a whole lot about the Move On ad. I think that was Schuster's point. But 'hey, look over there!' is an old
GOP favorite tactic.

Jon Soltz of Vote Vets responds to Rush Limbuagh's attack on US soldiers who served in Iraq who oppose continuing the Debacle:

Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers." I'd love for you, Rush, to have me on your show and tell that to me to my face. First, in what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life - not even one at Mickey D's - and somehow he's got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves? . . .

Time for a Congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh. Yes, I am serious. This is how the game of politics has to be played.

Update [2007-9-27 19:53:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: Dems firing hard at Limbaugh.

Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS has reignited debate on the question of President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service. The allegedly fake documents (I think they were faked) overshadowed what I believe was an overwhelming case that Bush obviously was derelict in his duty. Eric Boehlert revisited the issue:

The simple, yet apparently elusive, truth is that CBS' report on Bush and the National Guard could have (and should have) been broadcast without the controversial memos. And if it had been, the results would have been exactly the same. Meaning, the documents were irrelevant because they provided texture (the supposed frustration of Bush's commander), not new facts about Bush's service. Yet journalists pretend the memos are the National Guard story and that without them, questions about Bush's military dodge disappear. Why do they think that? Based on the coverage last week, it's clear that journalists who mocked Rather still don't have the slightest clue what the established facts of the Guard story are.

More.

To accompany this post earlier today.

The big story for Rudy Giuliani today is "The Phone Call"

This site has been very clear where it stands on Rudy Giuliani. But this phone call story demonstrates every thing that is wrong with the Media. Who cares about the stupid phone call?

Rudy's speech itself to the NRA made no sense at all. It is not just that it was a flip flop on the issues, it simply made no sense. But the only political story to come out of that speech is "The Phone Call." The Media is broken and it seems it can not be fixed.

Kevin Drum highlights this Why Is Bob Herbert Boring? piece by T A Frank that I find ok, but lacking in self examination. Consider this:

All fair enough. Nevertheless, many of my sources who criticized Herbert's column underscored their admiration for the work of writers like Jason DeParle and Katherine Boo, who also illuminate the lives of the poor. Granted, these writers operate outside of the column format—in longer articles and books—but their ability to generate interest in Herbert's chosen subjects suggests that elite readers aren't incontrovertibly apathetic about the lives of those less fortunate.

The idea that Jason DeParle and Katherine Boo are big agenda setters seems laughable to me. Sounds like the people who mentioned them were name dropping in the way people do to seem deeper than they are.

I have read Bob Herbert since he was a columnist at the Daily News and no one doubted Herbert was an influential columnist or thought he was boring then. Of course, he wrote about New York mostly then.

Frankly, I think Drum and Frank let themsleves and the "elite" of this country off the hook. The problem is them. Not Bob Herbert. And yes, I am a Bob Herbert fan and read almost every column he writes.

P.S. Will Washington Monthly be doing a "Why Is Nick Kristof Boring?" column? Just wondering.

At midnight tomorrow night, the New York Times will end its hugely unpopular Times Select program, which required readers to pay to read their columnists.

It's been two years since I've read Maureen Dowd. I've only seen Frank Rich's column when another blogger has posted it. Sometimes, there would investigative pieces put behind the wall that I would have liked to have read and blogged about. Sometimes I read them on Lexis the next day. Mostly, I forgot by then.

The Times Select program had to be one of the worst decisions ever -- both business-wise for the Times and for news consumers.

Now that it's over, I'll be spending more time at the site.

Yes! The Sopranos gets its due and wins the Emmy for Best Drama Series.

But what was up with the censors? They were way too fast on the trigger. Sally Field did not deserve to get censored. Here's the video [Via Think Progress.]

After giving a tribute to the mothers of soldiers in harm's way, she said "If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" [cut]. The sentence uncensored: "If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be god-damned wars in the first place."

Congrats also to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show for winning the award for Best Variety, Music or Comedy Series and Al Gore, whose Current TV won an award for Creative Achievement in Interactive TV.

Overall, though tonight's Emmy Awards were terrible.

More...