Dan Froomkin, The Accidental Liberal

In his own words:

There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column. But I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency.

One valuable hint that's been neglected in the discussion started by Deborah Howell is the orientation of Froomkin's fans. They are not members of  the League of Excitable Moderates. Edited comments addressed to political editor John Harris:

Considering what tools you and the rest of the folks at the WaPo have been for Bush and his cronies...If John Kerry were president and he lied America into a war and then lost the war, killing over 2000 American soldiers and 30,000 civilians (as Bush acknowledged today!) and horribly wounding tens of thousands more, there is no limit to the punishment he would deserve for that....mr.harris apparently believes his job is to be bush and company's lap dog and to lap all the offal they dish out. for shame...The true editors and ombudsmen of The Post are people like Kevin Drum, Duncan Black and John Amato.

In the blogosphere, people on the left link to Froomkin because they think he's standing up to Bush. People on the right link for what they see as the latest unfair liberal attack.

But according to skeptics at Jay Rosen's PressThink, and maybe Jay himself, I'm supposed to believe Froomkin isn't a liberal columnist. He must be the most misunderstood man in America.

Below the fold ("Continued") is every Dan Froomkin column since September 26. The heds alone will give extra-super-sensitive detectives some clues about Froomkin's political bias.

But I agree that's not enough. So: Find me a column--any column--built around examining Bush's best motives or most eloquent advocates.

[Insert cricket sounds here]

In Fact-Checking the President, Froomkin calls down a squad of truth-tellers belittling claims of progress in Iraq, but he virtually ignores anyone supporting Bush's case--including the rather large collection of milbloggers who write every single day about their long-term optimism. Nor has he cited poll numbers showing the vast majority of Iraqis say their lives are good and will get better.

In Checking the Hard Facts, on Dec. 8, he approvingly quotes John Murtha on Bush having no credibility. But Froomkin has yet to mention the revelation that Murtha never would have called for the withdrawal if only Bush had--invited him to the White House?

On Oct. 14 after Harold Pinter won a Nobel, Froomkin informed us that Pinter's own Web site offers a window into the author's feelings about American militarism...

Back on March 31, in a link helpfully saved by the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Froomkin concludes his column on Terri Schiavo:

Later, blogger Digby wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . . .

"Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on Medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. . . .

"Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is 'stepping in to save Terry Schiavo' mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain."

This is what liberals talk about when they talk about Bush.

In Not Going Anywhere, Froomkin disdains what to my conservative ears sounds like a pretty good presidential drum roll:

There were several straw-man arguments [by Bush]. For instance:

"Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, quote, 'Stay the course.'

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean, 'We will not allow the terrorists to break our will,' they're right.

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean, 'We will not permit Al Qaida to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America,' they're right, as well.

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean that we're not learning from our experiences or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong."

My understanding is that by "stay the course" at least some of his critics mean remaining obstinately and indefinitely in a quagmire, where our presence just makes things worse.

Some of his critics! If only we could find one to read... A man can dream.

Froomkin's live chats do not exactly weaken the case. In this one on Dec. 7, Froomkin enlightens us:

Plainwell, Mich.: Dan,

Thanks for all the straight forward information you share with us on a regular basis. My question: What more can be done to raise up the cabal that exists in the writings of the New American Century Project? Is the media afraid of revenge or being set up again?

Dan Froomkin: Well, I often send people to the Project for the New American Century Web site when they ask me: Why did we really invade Iraq? It offers a great primer in the new American imperialist philosophy shared by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the leaders of the ostensible "cabal."...

That's just regular ole Dan, tellin' it like it is. And thank goodness for "ostensible"--otherwise we might get the wrong idea.

I feel like I'm trying to prove the existence of gravity.

Linked to Wizbang's Carnival of Trackbacks

Update: Another round Dec. 19 by Jay & Dan Froomkin at PressThink here, and by me in the comments here.

Bush Takes Questions (By Dan Froomkin, December 13, 2005; 1:36 PM)

 

Bush Talks About the Bubble (By Dan Froomkin, December 12, 2005; 1:39 PM)

 

Bush Meets Blacks Behind Closed Doors (By Dan Froomkin, December 9, 2005; 5:36 PM)

 

Checking the Hard Facts (By Dan Froomkin, December 8, 2005; 1:00 PM)

 

A Holiday Video With a Bite (By Dan Froomkin, December 7, 2005; 1:18 PM)

 

No Questions (By Dan Froomkin, December 6, 2005; 1:36 PM)

 

Revealing Stories (By Dan Froomkin, December 5, 2005; 1:15 PM)

 

The al-Jazeera Dodge (By Dan Froomkin, December 2, 2005; 1:54 PM)

 

Fact-Checking the President (By Dan Froomkin, December 1, 2005; 12:36 PM)

 

Not Going Anywhere (By Dan Froomkin, November 30, 2005; 1:03 PM)

 

Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone (By Dan Froomkin, November 29, 2005; 12:42 PM)

 

What's the Plan? (By Dan Froomkin, November 28, 2005; 4:39 PM)

 

The Trust is Gone (By Dan Froomkin, November 23, 2005; 12:45 PM)

 

Cheney's Challenge (By Dan Froomkin, November 22, 2005; 1:33 PM)

 

Trash Talk (By Dan Froomkin, November 18, 2005; 2:33 PM)

 

Cheney Unleashed (By Dan Froomkin, November 17, 2005; 2:00 PM)

 

The Scoop on Woodward (By Dan Froomkin, November 16, 2005; 12:57 PM)

 

Republicans Want Answers, Too (By Dan Froomkin, November 15, 2005; 2:47 PM)

 

Bush's Third Campaign (By Dan Froomkin, November 14, 2005; 3:33 PM)

 

Much Ado About Tuesday (By Dan Froomkin, November 10, 2005; 3:36 PM)

 

An Important Indictment (By Dan Froomkin, November 9, 2005; 4:18 PM)

 

Bush's Tortured Logic (By Dan Froomkin, November 8, 2005; 11:59 AM)

 

Cheney's 'Dark Side' Is Showing (By Dan Froomkin, November 7, 2005; 1:21 PM)

 

Another Thunderbolt from Wilkerson (By Dan Froomkin, November 4, 2005; 12:45 PM)

Time for Some Blood-Letting? (By Dan Froomkin, November 3, 2005; 12:21 PM)

 

Changing the Subject -- Back (By Dan Froomkin, November 2, 2005; 12:12 PM)

 

The White House Stonewall (By Dan Froomkin, November 1, 2005; 2:40 PM)

 

All the Prosecutor's Hints (By Dan Froomkin, October 31, 2005; 3:30 PM)

 

Moment of Weakness (By Dan Froomkin, October 28, 2005; 12:03 PM)

 

Strategic Retreat (By Dan Froomkin, October 27, 2005; 4:36 PM)

 

Rove's Last Campaign (By Dan Froomkin, October 26, 2005; 2:54 PM)

 

The Cheney Factor (By Dan Froomkin, October 25, 2005; 1:39 PM)

 

Rearranging the Chairs (By Dan Froomkin, October 24, 2005; 1:15 PM)

 

Fitzgerald Launches Web Site (By Dan Froomkin, October 21, 2005; 1:00 PM)

 

Former Insider Lashes Out (By Dan Froomkin, October 20, 2005; 1:12 PM)

 

Waiting for the Sword (By Dan Froomkin, October 19, 2005; 1:15 PM)

 

The Prosecutor Zeroes In (By Dan Froomkin, October 18, 2005; 3:21 PM)

 

Brace for Impact (By Dan Froomkin, October 17, 2005; 12:51 PM)

 

Caught on Tape (By Dan Froomkin, October 14, 2005; 3:00 PM)

 

A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks (By Dan Froomkin, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM)

 

Coming to a Boil (By Dan Froomkin, October 12, 2005; 1:21 PM)

 

Photo Op Bites Back (By Dan Froomkin, October 11, 2005; 1:15 PM)

 

While Dan's Away (By Dan Froomkin, October 5, 2005; 3:02 PM)

 

Miller's Big Secret (By Dan Froomkin, September 30, 2005; 12:03 PM)

 

Is Bush Losing Congress? (By Dan Froomkin, September 29, 2005; 12:09 PM)

 

Can't Win for Losing? (By Dan Froomkin, September 28, 2005; 12:42 PM)

 

The Politics of Distraction (By Dan Froomkin, September 27, 2005; 1:19 PM)

 

Desperately Seeking Swagger (By Dan Froomkin, September 26, 2005; 5:41 PM)

 

Comments

[Richard B. Simon]

I am not sure how Froomkin sending someone in a live chat to the Project for a New American Century's website is "liberal."

This is, in fact, the think tank whose members include most of the folks who now run our nation's foreign policy -- and it is clear that what you find at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It does, indeed, call for the U.S. to engage in "full spectrum dominance" over the globe -- including in space -- and to rule through "command-and-control."

There is no other word for that than "imperialism." That's not to judge the value of imperialism, but to call a spade a spade.

Note that the signatories to this document include the architects of the War in Iraq -- including Paul Wolfowitz, who is now the head of the World Bank, as well as our current acting UN Ambassador, John Bolton.

That's not to mention I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

If calling a spade a spade is liberal, then shoot. We should all be more liberal.

My "liberal" take on the Froomkin affair:

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2005/12/internet-as-epistemology.html

[Christopher Fotos]

Hi Richard. You can look at any one item and construct an argument. I don't think that can plausibly be done if you look at everything. If you read Froomkin on a regular basis, it comes through crystal clear (well--to me)

[RIchard B. Simon]

Howdy, Christopher,

Thanks for engaging.

It's probably so that Froomkin, if anything, has a left- rather than a right-bias. After all, bias is the sum of all our experience -- what we bring to the table before we sit down to discuss the issues.

But the way "liberal bias" is bandied about these days, it is as if it is some sort of pox that pre-empts critical thinking.

It just is not so. I find Froomkin to be pretty fair and highly accurate. Perhaps that's my own bias in action.

I teach critical thinking and have spent a lot of time studying how messages are delivered. Much of what Mr. Bush does -- and especially during last year's election -- is straight out of the textbook I use on propaganda. Disturbingly so, in fact.

My students, using our textbook, predicted everything about Bush's stage set at his New Orleans address based on the emotional response he would want to create in his audience in order to regain his credibility and improve his approval ratings, which were tanking after Katrina. They predicted the church behind him, they predicted the statue (of Jackson -- they said "a historical monument", and they predicted that Bush would speak from a historical site. That's powerful stuff.

It's also true that Bush has good speechwriters -- and I have to tell you, I don't disagree with what we are doing in Iraq. I am very hopeful about what's going on over there today. I hope that this experiment in Iraq works -- draining the swamp over there is a good idea.

But the way team Bush made the case for this war was dishonest. You don't have to have a "liberal bias" to know that anymore.

It is unfortunate that the country has become so divided that one cannot think critically about the President without being labeled an enemy of the President.

It was Bush who did this to the country. Rather than maintaining the unity we had after 9/11, he used the War as a tool in the 2002 elections to gain control of Congress.

They beat the Democrats over the head with the war -- never considering that Democrats in Congress represent more Americans than Republicans do.

They divided the country before going to war -- and created this climate. That virtually guaranteed a Vietnam type experience. That's why the opposition to the War is so strong, to the point of endangering the mission.

The Administration's actions show that it's more important to send Republicans to Congress than to maintain unity in Wartime -- and then the President speaks about the need to maintain unity in wartime. That is fundamentally dishonest.

And it's the kind of dishonesty that Froomkin brings to light.

Froomkin is, indeed, going after Bush. That is the job of a free press. To report on news, and also to report when things look fishy.

And there are some pretty fishy things about the Bush Administration. Much of it is in its handling of the press -- and these are issues that, as raised by this flap over Froomkin, the White House Press Corps do not feel free to raise ... because the Administration will limit their access. It is clear that the Administration has complained about Froomkin -- and perhaps threatened to limit the Post's access.

This is how it works in totalitarian regimes -- not in America. But that is what is going on. Clearly.

In any event, Froomkin's column is part media criticism and part analysis. He is covering the coverage, which is pretty important -- and looking for patterns in the coverage.

What it comes down to, I suppose, is that the President's supporters seems to believe that any information that is critical of the President is unfair, wrong, treasonous, or that dirty word, "liberal." It could not possibly be correct or accurate. They are convinced that there is no such thing as truth -- only bias.

That is unfortunate.

And it is not good for our country.

Thanks for listening.

[Christopher Fotos]

My students, using our textbook, predicted everything about Bush's stage set at his New Orleans address based on the emotional response he would want to create in his audience in order to regain his credibility and improve his approval ratings, which were tanking after Katrina. They predicted the church behind him, they predicted the statue (of Jackson -- they said "a historical monument", and they predicted that Bush would speak from a historical site. That's powerful stuff.

No offense, but so what? The symbols stand for what he believes in. Are political leaders obligated to undercut their own message? There's a media for that!

And no, coming from a liberal perspective absolutely is not an impediment to critical thinking. I just think it's funny when people say Froomkin doesn't frame his attacks mainly from the left.