We Want War! More More War!

I realize that I've been linking to Ezra Klein a lot, but here's another good post from him on John McCain. As readers of this blog are aware, St. McCain hates war. Ezra points out:

Between 1995 and 2008, McCain has advocated full-scale war in Kosovo, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. He has repeatedly sought to ratchet up tensions with Russia and China, and has advisers who've called for air strikes on Syria. And those are only the instance I can remember offhand. His horror of war has led him to advocate no fewer than four full-scale wars in the past decade or so. And his recognition of its dangers has spurred him towards an aggressive, threatening stance against two of the largest, most powerful countries on earth.

Good point. These are interesting stands for an individual to take, especially when that same individual seeks to reassure voters of their hatred of war. Ezra also links to a great column by Spencer Ackerman that's currently up on the Washington Independent site. Spencer articulates how McCain's foreign policy is basically the same as W's, except for one little caveat, IT'S WORSE!!!

Huh?

Everyday I always wander over to the New Republic website to see what's up. I often find a number of good articles, but I also usually find a lot of crap from Marty Peretz, Jamie Kirchick, and a bunch of other wankers. Today, I read a truly puzzling piece by Sacha Zimmerman. Zimmerman's little ditty is one part lament and one part diatribe. Bascially Sacha is all worked up that MSNBC canceled Tucker. I know, boo hoo, right? This is, of course, the lament portion of her article. Her argument for Tucker goes like this:

Whatever bad memories you may have of Tucker Carlson's "Crossfire" days, the most recent iteration of his show on MSNBC allowed him to return to expressing the kind of nuanced insight that first got him noticed as a young conservative writer. Carlson has certainly inflamed his share of liberals (among other things, he called the NAACP "a sad joke that should be shut down" and called Bill Clinton a "sanctimonious jerk"), but then he's not exactly reliably conservative, either. In the olio of dependably left- or right-wing voices on cable television, Carlson went his own way-and it's too bad the audience didn't go there with him. He retracted his initial support for the Iraq war, believes gay marriage is good because the institution of marriage is good, is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and won't abide any discussion of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians no matter what their side of the aisle. In the Obama parlance of our times, Carlson was "post-partisan." It made him an excellent choice to exchange blows with opinion leaders on the topics of the day. Of course, this is also exactly why the iconoclastic Carlson doesn't fit into MSNBC's left-wing makeover.

Touching. But wait, MSNBC is going left-wing? That's news to me! Zimmerman accuses MSNBC of having no conservative pundits. Pat Buchanan isn't a conservative? What about Joe Scarborough? Buchanan is as right-wing as they come. I'll admit that Scarborough is fairly independent and criticizes Republicans from time to time, but he's definately a conservative. Also, MSNBC is certainly not a liberal news outlet. Stroll on over to Media Matters and you'll find plenty of evidence that challenges Zimmerman's claim. Anyways, now that we've thoroughly debunked MSNBC's "liberal bona fides", let's move on to the subject of the supposedly liberal David Gregory.

Here's Zimmerman's analysis of Gregory:

After cutting his teeth on the O.J. Simpson circuit, Gregory began his White House press corps duties with the kind of gusto and drama rarely seen in the stuffy halls of power. Zachary Roth depicted a classic Gregory "hissy fit" in an otherwise flattering profile in this magazine last year in which Gregory famously called White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk." But Gregory has also initiated shouting matches in almost every exchange he had with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and generally allowed histrionics to set the tone for his coverage. Despite his often piercing and on-point questions, this behavior has cemented David Gregory as a liberal-media-conspiracy incarnate in the eyes of conservatives and a kind of tough-questioning hero to many on the anti-Bush left. The conservative Accuracy In Media even started a letter-writing campaign aimed at shunning Gregory. But no matter your view--and no matter Gregory's personal political beliefs--the decision to use the journalistic lightning rod further distances MSNBC from the cause of good political analysis.

First, to be fair, let's also give credit where credit is due. I agree with Zimmerman when she states that his true talents lie in the art of the interview. Gregory asks pointed questions and he doesn't back down. I'll also agree that his weakness is in reporting. He often rushes through crucial elements of a story and repeats claims from politicians without context. However, he's no liberal. Gregory has repeatedly allowed Republican talking points to filter through his reports and interviews. Whether this is a function of an agenda or ignorance on Gregory's part is subject to debate. I suspect a combination of both, but admittedly, that's the safe, PC choice.

I guess what puzzles me the most about Zimmerman's piece is I don't understand what she's going for with it. It's not all rant, and it's not all lament. It's just a crazy hodge podge of both. What do you want Sacha? I guess maybe she wants more connies on MSNBC because she feels that will lead to smarter political analysis. As I stated above, MSNBC has plenty. Keith Olbermann is basically the only liberal on the channel, because I don't know what Dan Abrams is other than all over the place. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a lack of diversity in viewpoint, just make sure that your aware which side isn't being represented.