"Esteemed" media figures Bill Moyers and Helen Thomas are the face of modern liberalism, and that face is firmly affixed to the head of the Democratic Party, as proven by the landslide election of liberal Nancy Pelosi to the Democratic House leadership position.
Pelosi is far left under any reasonable measure, and she's now at the helm of the House Democrats, ostensibly representing the interests of Americans throughout the nation, including every blue and red county in every blue and red state in the Union. This defiant move by House Democrats after their midterm repudiation is tantamount to the entire party flipping the electorate the bird.
Since the Democrats have decided to remain left, it's important for people to understand what the Left represents. (I know, the election results show that people already understand it, and I appreciate that, but further reminders can't hurt.)
We can gain deeper insight into the liberal mindset by examining recent pronouncements of two of the Left's journalistic icons, Moyers and Thomas, both of whom have been quite vocal as to their discontentment with the current direction of this country.
Thomas, after a half-century at United Press International, is now writing columns for Hearst News Service, where she no longer has to masquerade as an unbiased reporter. She has since been open about her adulation for Bill Clinton and her contempt for President Bush.
She introduced Clinton at a conference as "the man from Hope, and that is what he has given us, hope ... He (has) also brought unprecedented prosperity to our nation ... We miss him." As for Bush, she sneered, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral -- such a policy would have legitimized Pearl Harbor."
Thomas is also upset that Bush "continues to insist that we need to ... ban certain late-term abortions ... " Does that mean she believes abortion should never be prohibited? How's that for a moderate view? And she concluded a recent column decrying "Bush's proposals" as "simply dangerous ideas," reminiscent of The New York Times' Bob Herbert's last column.
PBS's Bill Moyers, a former senior news analyst for the CBS Evening News (is that mainstream enough for you?), seems to agree. In his latest commentary, Moyers began by contrasting modern Republicans with those of the 1950s, when he started in journalism, who "were a reasonable lot." "That brand of Republican is gone," he said. "The entire federal government" is "united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate."
What does Moyers fear about Bush's perceived mandate? Well, it includes "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives ... using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich ... giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment ... secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life ... And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture."
Calm down there, Bill. It would be nice if your hysteria were better grounded in the facts. President Bush, though he will appoint constitutionalist justices, does not have the power "to force pregnant women to give up control of their own lives," if by that you mean "to make abortion illegal." The most the Supreme Court could do is hold that the Constitution is unambiguously silent on the matter (which it is) and return the issue to the states to be decided by their democratically elected legislatures. Are you afraid of how they would vote, too, Bill? Are they also dangerous?
And "using the taxing power to transfer wealth ... to the rich?" What a bald distortion! Lower and middle-income groups get a greater percentage cut than the biggest producers under Bush's plan. Plus, any money they save from the tax cuts will be money they earned themselves, not transfers from the poor or the government, neither of which produce wealth.
Republicans eviscerating the environment? To what end, so their children and grandchildren will be contaminated? And judges with a political agenda? That's what conservatives have been railing against for years and what leftists have been defending, Bill. This is madness.
I suppose we could write these off as the rantings of frustrated journalists, but that would be a mistake. These opinions are representative of mainstream liberalism and national Democratic politics. Please don't talk to me about "dangerous."