SIVACRACY.NET

Here is what I wrote yesterday on Media Matters:

... On to serious matters. It's been two days since the presumptive nominee of a major political party declared the most popular and successful government program in American history to be "a disgrace." Pierce brought it up first yesterday here on Altercation. But I thought we should take another moment and reflect on what a monumental statement this was.

Here is what John McCain's declared: "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."

Is McCain's statement about Social Security any more stunning, revolutionary, revealing, and just plain wrong than, say, President Ford declaring that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination?

Yet still, two days later, I have yet to see McCain held accountable for these statements in a major media outlet. The Washington Post, in its typical cynical voice, focused a four-inch inside story on the gaffe on McCain's feeble attempts to back off the comments. But where is the front-page attention? Where is the 24-hour-news obsession? When his opponent made a reasonable statement that he would revise his plans for withdrawal from Iraq after visiting with commanders -- something that we would expect any semi-competent commander to do -- he generated searing headlines in every major newspaper in the land -- as if he had actually said anything different from what he has been saying for a year. But McCain, never one to decline the benefit of the doubt on misstatements and gaffes, got a free ride on a declaration of war on Social Security.

No, it's beyond an attack on Social Security. It's a revelation that McCain has no clue how Social Security works and is willing to reveal his stunning ignorance in a public forum, knowing he will pay no price for it. Once again, the watchdogs are sleeping.

Read the great Todd Gitlin on the matter here.

Our good friend Boehlert already told us about the Dittohead fluff job that The New York Times Magazine did on Rush Limbaugh last Sunday. But did you notice the section on Rush's sensitivity to being labeled a racist? Apparently Rush takes accusations of his racism very seriously, if we are to believe the article.

Amazingly writer Zev Chafets never mentioned the incident in 2003 when Rush, sitting in with his pals Chris Berman and Steve Young on ESPN's NFL GameDay, said of Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Donavan McNabb:

Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Limbaugh said this about a first-round pick who had already made three Pro Bowls, been to two NFC Championship games, and had been the runner-up for MVP. He said this years after Doug Williams had won a Super Bowl and earned the MVP award. He said it years after Warren Moon and Randall Cunningham had excelled at every level. After Rush's diatribe, which left Young and Berman speechless (they criticized him later that night after their partner, Tom Jackson, scolded Limbaugh harshly), McNabb went on to beat the Buffalo Bills and a season later lead his team to the Super Bowl, only to lose barely to a team that illegally spied on opponents' signal systems.

Limbaugh? He got busted for drugs. Nice work.

How could you write a comprehensive account of Limbaugh's influence on American culture and politics and slight his overt racism? How could the Times' editors have allowed this?

Are you as exhausted as I am of fighting for some basic intelligence and fairness in this media environment?