From the Washington Post.

I wanted to think that partisanship wasn't going to raise its ugly head this soon, but it's apparent that the Democrats, and their toadies in the media, are already looking for some hole in Bush's popularity. You don't hear about this in the mainstream press, but the entire Democratic machine is currently bent on the 2002 elections. Mission: take back the House, and seal their control of the Senate. Main tactic: make sure Bush has no coattails when 2002 rolls around.

Most Democratic politicians are patriotic, as far as it goes, and want to see us succeed in Afghanistan. Still, it cannot have entirely have escaped their notice that if Bush screws this up, combined with the economic problems, then this could be the "Decade of the Democrat."

Some excerpts from the article by Howard Kurtz:

After six weeks of generally sympathetic coverage, the anthrax-obsessed press is turning on the Bush administration.



In a spate of stories and segments, top officials are being depicted as bumblers who failed to move aggressively against anthrax-tainted mail while offering shifting explanations of the danger.



Coverage of the war in Afghanistan remains fairly positive [!!], although Pentagon reporters are asking tougher questions about errant bombs, civilian casualties and the lack of tangible progress.



..."The press is looking for a scalp," an administration official insists.



No. The press is looking for a REPUBLICAN scalp. Good God, we've been fighting this war for THREE WEEKS!

Network anchors are also being more aggressive. "It seems to me that people are giving us a lot of information before they really know what the facts are," Ted Koppel told Postmaster General John Potter on "Nightline."

Oh yeah. The media NEVER gives us information before they know what the facts are. How Koppel could say something like this with a straight face is more than I can understand.

"You must be aware that a lot of people around the country are saying, 'Listen, they bungled this thing,' " [Dan] Rather told Ridge on "60 Minutes II."

Really? How many are "a lot?" Maybe a "lot" of people who hang out at the same parties that Rather goes to.

Kurtz also points this out, along with the discrepancies between the media spin and reality:

But the public doesn't necessarily agree. An ABC News poll found that 92 percent of Americans think their own mail is safe. In a USA Today survey, 77 percent said they are confident the government can respond effectively to a major outbreak of anthrax. And 60 percent say the media are overreacting to the anthrax threat.

(Boldface mine) Read that again and again as often as necessary.

The media tide began to turn after an anthrax-laden letter was found in Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle's office and authorities said there was no need to test workers at the D.C. postal facility that handles Capitol Hill mail. Two postal workers died soon afterward.



At a White House briefing, CNN's Major Garrett asked: "If things had been done differently, those postal workers who are now dead may, in fact, have received treatment sooner and could possibly have survived"

...The Houston Chronicle even observed: "Many postal workers in Washington are black and much of the Capitol Hill work force is white."



I wondered how long it would take for them to play the race card.

...The media honeymoon is clearly over.

And, another example of creative headline propaganda:

Footnote: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld isn't a fan of USA Today headlines. At least the banner headline that said, "Rumsfeld: Bin Laden May Get Away."



The story, however, quoted Rumsfeld as saying only that he didn't know whether the military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Rumsfeld said it would be "very difficult" because "it's a big world. There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him, and I just don't know whether we'll be successful."

Rumsfeld jabbed the paper, saying: "I have a feeling the headline writer wasn't in the meeting." But Executive Editor Bob Dubill says, "The headline was accurate. We were extra careful and attentive to covering all the journalistic bases."



Bullshit. The headline writer was almost certainly at the meeting, and the headline was written with a specific political purpose in mind.

I'm going to keep rubbing people's noses in this as long as I have to.