Well, no kidding.Think how newspapers might read if they
                      covered everything else with the reflexive cynicism our esteemed
                      Washington press corps devotes to national politics:Vanity,
                      Exhibitionism Dominate Miss America Pageant; Football Coaches Cheat to
                      Win: Education, Character-Building Mostly Hype; Physicians Motivated by
                      Greed, Study Shows;Perry County Shotgun Nuptials Announced.

                                 Think I'm exaggerating? Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
                      took the Senate floor after the Washington Post reported that Bush had
                      told a New Jersey Republican audience that he wasn't getting exactly the
                      Homeland Security bill he wanted because Senate Democrats are not
                      interested in the security of the American people.

                                 It wasn't one of Bush's malapropisms. As Mark Crispin Miller
                      has pointed out in his invaluable book The Bush Dyslexicon, Junior speaks
                      quite clearly when he's belittling somebody. On TV, he gave every indication
                      of being quite pleased with himself and meaning exactly what he said.

                                 Visibly angry, Daschle, himself an Air Force veteran,
                      demanded an apology.  "The Democratic-controlled Senate is...not
                      interested in the security of the American people?" he asked. "You tell
                      Senator Inoue [D-Hawaii, who lost an arm fighting in Italy during WWII]
                      he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell
                      those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested
                      in the security of the American people. That is outrageous-outrageous."

                                 As Daschle showed by citing a list of examples, including
                      White House political director Karl Rove's infamous pledge to use the
                      war on terrorism as a campaign issue, Junior and his surrogates had been
                      edging ever closer to the line recently--hinting that any opposition to,
                      or serious deliberation about, any administration plan involving national
                      security indicated lack of patriotism. If he were't so resentful of French
                      speakers, Junior's motto would be Louis XIV's "L'ETAT C'EST MOI."
                      [I am the state.]

                                 Now me, I had two reactions to Junior's remarks. First, anger.
                      There are laws against saying exactly what I actually thought, but suffice it
                      to say I'd have loved to see somebody smack his smirking face with a
                      banana cream pie. Second, grim satisfaction. Bush had finally let his arrogant
                      condescension show in the plainest possible way. If Democrats had any sense,
                      they'd make him pay. Bigtime, as Dick Cheney might say.

                                 Of course, if the White House had any sense, Junior would
                      have faced to his blunder like a man. All he needed to do was admit he'd
                      blurted out something dumb and apologize.But that's out of the question.
                      Junior cannot admit error. The transcript of White House press secretary
                      Ari Fleischer evading roughly ten pointed questions from an AP reporter
                      who kept reading him Bush's statement and asking if the president meant
                      it makes hilarious reading.

                                 The only remaining defense was to question Daschle's
                      sincerity. In the two-dimensional diorama of Washington politics, mixed
                      motives can always be portrayed as suspect. As always, the Washington
                      press gladly turned to mind-reading. From Donald Lambro in the
                      Washington Times to Frank Rich in the New York Times, pundits assayed
                      Daschle's real motive.

                                 Typical was CNN's Connie Chung. But was he (Daschle)
                      performing this explosion speech for the White House, she asked or was
                      it really for his Democratic colleagues, or was he just recognizing the
                      fact that the Democrats don't have a position on the war and would
                      rather talk about the economy?

                                 It got worse after Al Gore delivered a long, thoughtful
                      speech in San Francisco questioning the sudden burst of urgency over
                      attacking Iraq and wondering if the timing was connected to White House
                      Chief of Staff Andrew Card's admission that from an advertising point of
                      view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day. Gore
                      argued that a unilateral attack on Iraq would shatter the international
                      coalition needed to defeat al Qaeda, create a power vacuum in the Middle
                      East and lead to war with Iran, Syria and other nations threatened by
                      U.S. military presence there.

                                 Now here was a Democrat with a strong position on the war.
                      Fleeing substance, pundits ignored it. All but universally, they turned
                      instead to Gore's presumptive 2004 candidacy and attacks on his
                      personality. They do that, as Bob Somerby never tires of saying on his
                      dailyhowler.com website, because it's easier than thinking, and because
                      mind-readers can never be proven wrong. Also, I think, to assert caste
                      superiority over politicians, and demonstrate who they'd like to imagine
                      really runs our democracy.