Author: Greg Saunders

First it was Newsweek, and now Time Magazine is getting into the dumbed-down cover for the American edition game. On the left is the cover here in the U.S., on the right is the cover of the Europe, Asia, and South Pacific editions. (Larger versions here and here) :

Replacing the more-newsworthy story about a Taliban resurgence with a human interest story that you’d expect to find in Reader’s Digest is pretty egregious, but the stories at the top are even more revealing. Last week’s Keane-inspired Reagan cover story that’s finding its way into the international editions is nicely balanced out by a Rudy Giuliani puff piece. But that’s not as bad as the juxtaposition on the opposite corner. While the rest of the world is presented an interview about “Africa’s Moment of Need”, Americans are patronized with a Desperate Housewives reference. It’s as if the editors of Time magazine think we Americans are too stupid and shallow to care about “real news”. Ugghh..

It’s funny that an article about how everything the Republican party touches turns to shit could somehow be a hidden gift to conservatives everywhere, but Time magazine has somehow accomplished it with their cover story “How The Right Went Wrong”. The first sign that the article would be a thinly-disguised love letter to a conservative Never Never Land is the cover itself which sports a Photoshopped Reagan portrait that’s just begging to be turned into a velvet painting.

Good question, Time. What would Ronnie do? My guess is he’d probably thank you for making him a martyr with unvarnished praise like this :

Reagan restored a sense of America’s mission as the “city on a hill” that would be a light to the world and helped bring about the defeat of what he very undiplomatically christened “the evil empire.”
. . .
Conservatives are in many ways victims of their successes, and there have indeed been big ones. At 35%, the top tax rate is about half what it was when Reagan took office; the Soviet Union broke up; inflation is barely a nuisance; crime is down; and welfare is reformed.

You can almost hear John Ashcroft singing in the distance as Time breathlessly exhorts “the Reagan legacy”. Jeez, guys, why don’t you just skip the middleman and just write the entire 2008 GOP campaign script for them? The one time when the article actually tells the truth about the Reagan years, it’s done as an aside.

The principles that propelled the movement have either run their course, or run aground, or been abandoned by Reagan’s legatees. Government is not only bigger and more expensive than it was when George W. Bush took office, but its reach is also longer, thanks to the broad new powers it has claimed as necessary to protect the homeland. It’s true that Reagan didn’t live up to everything he promised: he campaigned on smaller government, fiscal discipline and religious values, while his presidency brought us a larger government and a soaring deficit. But Bush’s apostasies are more extravagant by just about any measure you pick.

The conservative movement of Ronald Reagan was never about fiscal discipline or shrinking the size of the government, but to make sure all that money went to the “right” people. You’d think the fact that the Reagan presidency didn’t actually accomplish the things his acolytes insist he did would be worthy of more than a footnote. The more damning part about the article is the insistence that the actions of Bush and the rest of the GOP leadership over the last six years have somehow been at odds with what the Gipper would have done (WWRD?).

George Bush isn’t some conservative poseur, he’s the proverbial student that’s become the master. On just about every level, George Bush has improved upon Reagan. Bush has presided over political patronage that reaches every level of the government (and even into the realm of war profiteering). The Administration has had deficits that not only dwarf the gargantuan debt of their spiritual leader, but serve as a tribute to their spendthrift leader (“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter….this is our due.”) And as the ultimate act of one-upsmanship, not only has the President pissed away every penny that comes into the treasury and buried the country under a mountain of red ink, but Bush was able to do so while continuing to cut taxes for the super rich. Beat that, Bonzo!

Eric Boehlert’s great piece at Media Matters asks the following hypothetical questions:

All of which begs the questions, why do Fox News execs spin so furiously whenever they’re the ones accused of having a bias? Why do they consider it “sad” and “pathetic” to be tagged as Republican? Why do Fox News employees find the label “conservative'” so insulting? Why does Fox News indignantly demand news outlets print corrections if they simply report that Fox News has a Republican tilt?

The answer here is that Fox News can’t fight back against charges of bias the way other news organizations do. When Howard Kurtz, for example, was criticized in an online chat at the Washington Post, he trotted out the old line “I get criticized from both sides, which tells me I must be doing something right”. For the traditional media, that’s their (lazy, logically-flawed, foolish…) go-to excuse to get out of any charges of political bias, but that would never, ever work for Fox News. Even their most ardent defenders would crack a rib laughing at the notion that anyone would ever accuse Fox of having a liberal bias. They can’t play the “both sides hate us” card, so they have to resort to Plan B : throw a temper tantrum like the overgrown children that they are.

House minority leader John Boehner, who recently said of Democrats “I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.”, got all weepy today over the “solemn” debate on the President’s politically-motivated Iraq war escalation. Later, as part of his contribution to the debate, Boehner noted that “al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home”. Of course, Rep. Boehner would never try to be divisive now, would he?

At least, that’s the implied message of Snickers’ current ad campaign that made it’s debut at the Superbowl. John from Americablog has been all over this story. The commercial shown during the game was juvenile and slightly offensive, but the rest of the campaign is horrifying. The website (which has been pulled down) featured three alternate versions of the commercial, including this one in which the mechanics’ reaction to accidentally kissing is to gay-bash each other :

But even more disturbing are the video “extras” from the website in which NFL players are visibly disgusted by the two men kissing and letting the audience know why homosexuals “ain’t right”.

So…how is embracing bigotry supposed to sell chocolate? I don’t really get the connection.