Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Correction to This Article
Earlier versions of this column incorrectly identified Rem Rieder as the editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. He is editor of the American Journalism Review. This version has been corrected.
Page 3 of 4   <       >

Media Limbo

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

But Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush plays the terror card and turns the tables:

"Given that the only possible beneficiaries of such an action are the terrorist enemies of the United States, I believe that we should urge the Senate to censure Senator Feingold for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I would ask for his expulsion from the Senate, but as that requires a 2/3 vote its a non-starter -- the Democrats, for whom political power is the be-all and end-all of existence, simply would not vote to harm one of their own. Censure, though, only takes a majority vote. There are 55 Republican Senators, and even a few Democratic Senators who haven't driven off the anti-war cliff.

"It is way past time that we started holding Democrats accountable for their actions. For too long they have been able to slander President Bush, the Bush Administration, the American military and our allies in the War on Terrorism with no consequences for their destructive actions. How many people are dead today because the Democrats have chosen to use the war as a partisan political issue? How many more will die in the future because of it?

"Every time a senior Democrats gets up in public and calls for an immediate withdrawal, or accuses American soldiers of abuses, or slanders the motives and statements of President Bush, it encourages the enemy."

Uh, I wonder how many Republicans wondered about the impact on the enemy when Clinton was being impeached?

Can I just grumble a little about this USA Today /CNN poll?

"President Bush's 'approval rating' has sunk to a new low according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released Monday.

"The latest results show only 36% of those polled saying they 'approve' of the way Bush is handling his job. Bush's previous low was 37%, set last November.

"Sixty percent of those polled said they 'disapprove' of Bush's performance. That matches an all-time worst rating hit last November and again two weeks ago."

Bush is at a new low compared to USA's last poll. CBS has Bush at a new low compared to the last CBS poll. Etc., etc. All true, but they give the collective impression that Bush is sinking week to week. Why do they only compared figures to their own past surveys, when they're fully aware of the others?

This is less than shocking for anyone who has followed the career of George Clooney , but the Oscar winner is using the L-word again:

"I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.


<          3        >


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive