On The Cumulative Effect Of Reality

by DemFromCT

While I always enjoy Dan Froomkin's  afternoon columns on the WaPo site, yesterday's resonated especially well.

When a nation is attacked, its people tend to rally around their leader. President Bush's job approval ratings, for instance, shot up more than 30 percent in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But the seemingly incessant litany of deadly attacks on American troops in Iraq appears to be increasingly turning the public against the president and the war he launched.

The signs of such a turnaround remain faint in the mainstream media coverage of public discourse about Iraq. Something -- maybe the administration's insistence that questioning its policies undermines American troops -- has somehow cowed many of the predictable voices of dissent into silence.

But go to Brook Park, Ohio, home base for the 14 Marine reservists who were killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq Wednesday, and you hear some expressions of anger at the president.

And ask the American people in general what they think of how Bush is running the war -- and whether they trust him anymore -- and the verdict is becoming clearer and clearer.

Froomkin not only covers the polls, he also covers the Novak melt-down.

Media Matters has the video ; CNN has the transcript .

George Rush and Joanna Molloy write in the New York Daily News: "Novak told us later: 'He said I was trying to please the editorial writers of The Wall Street Journal. I thought that was an unacceptable questioning of my integrity. I overreacted.

" 'I've gotten into a lot of shouting matches with James when I'm unable to outshout him. I just got a little frustrated.'

Ironic that Novak's fall from grace should be the same as Bush's... lying about how Iraq's intelligence was fixed to fit the intent of Bush's policy. But ultimately the chickens will come home to roost. After all, it was a brilliant philosopher who once said,"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Actually for one of the best "what was Novak thinking? analyses you'll see anywhere, check out Jay Rosen at PressThink:

Why Robert Novak Stormed Off the Set

Old Novak rules: sorry fellas, can't talk. New rules: Novak chooses. This, I believe, is the cause of what happened on air. The legitimacy of Novak's exemption from questioning had collapsed earlier in the week. Ed Henry was ready with that news. Novak was not ready to receive it.

Herein is a detailed description of the calculating culumnist's determination that he could not public questioning and protect himself from Fitzgerald. Novak's melt-down was as spontaneous as a WH anonymous leak in his column, which is to say not at all.

And if it were just in the end stress (see comments in Rosen's piece semi-defending Novak against the nasty, mean fire-eating Carville from folks who apparantly have never seen Crossfire and know nothing about Novak's own partisan nastiness), well, serve up the popcorn 'cause you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Comments

[NG]

I wrote this post on another blog the other day, but it fits in so well here, that I have to post it again!

It is one thing when you have a war against a clear enemy represented by some political entity/state. It is quite another to be fighting against the shadows with no clear political allegance. Are these insurgents representing a political entity? Are they Iraqi freedom fighters acting like the American revolution militiamen? Are they Islamic religious extremists? Are they Islamic world freedom fighters? How can you fight shadows and win?? Not knowing who the real enemy is leads to killing innocents and making more enemies. A vicious downward death spiral. It is somewhat like Vietnam, but only worse because there is no obvious political state involved whatsoever!!

I think Americans are getting really anxious and confused about this loss of life to shadows with no information coming from our political-military leaders showing any credance whatsoever over time! Time is not the friend of this administration anymore. Even in the conservative central area of PA where I live in, people are beginning to turn on Bush and his lack of objective goals and clarity while more and more men die. I believe the entire Bush house of cards could come tumbling down with the right impulse at any moment. Such an impulse might be something like a military family member, especially a wife or mother, going public with her belief that Bush sacrificed her loved one for no good reason and without a proper planned strategy leading to any clear outcome. A bizarre form of political manslaughter if you will. I think that might be the last straw.

What do others think about this impulse potential being near?

[DemFromCT]

It's there... I hear it from the moderate and conservative R's I know. But the media, cable especially, has to cover it.

And there's still a need for an alternative. Right now, the American people don't see one.

[DemFromCT]

from the WaPo:

Economic News Isn't Helping Bush
Job Growth Up Sharply in July, but Polls Show Dissatisfaction

And when the energy bill doesn't help gas prices, this helps Bush how?

[emptywheel]

It's coming soon, that's for sure. Question is how BushCo will react. There's always the Iranian option (although the Franklin indictment will make that somewhat more difficult). Venezuela maybe?

[Mike S]

The media seems to be turning on Rove, maybe Miller as well. Maybe thry're starting to figure out that people willing to write anything, true or not, to further their own agenda are hurting them more than Bozell and tr blowhards combined.