Last night on Brit Hume, he showed some polling results indicating that Iraq was no longer the first news item that jumped to peoples' minds when thinking of what was news:

The extent to which the success of the troop surge in Iraq has driven the war off the front pages is clearly illustrated in a new survey.

The Pew Research Center reports just 16 percent of respondents say Iraq is the first news story that comes to mind now. That's down from 55 percent in mid-January.

In fact, 33 percent say there is now too little coverage of the war — that's 10 points higher than the result in June.

And the specific stories getting too little coverage? Sixty-three percent say the challenges of returning service personnel. And 61 percent want to know more about the personal experiences of the troops.

"Too little coverage of the war"? Now why might that be? What's happened in the last few months that might account for a reluctance on the part of the press to cover the war adequately?

[VOICE="Homer Simpson"]
That was a rhetorical question.
[/VOICE]

If it doesn't bleed (at least if it doesn't bleed the blood of Americans or innocents) it not only doesn't lead, it doesn't get reported at all. My immediate thought upon hearing this was how frustrated they must be that there's so little news (at least as they define it--something that makes Bush look bad) to report. In a turnabout of the old saying, to them, good news is no news.

Ralph Peters has similar thoughts.

This is exactly what I expected - and probably is what the Democrats/Liberals banked on. The war is only news if it is going badly - so the safe bet is always anti-war. If it goes well, then you were against it but noone cares. If it goes poorly, then you were for it and you are under a microscope. The choice is obvious, if you don't care about the country.

Personally, I do not think any of the anti-war loonies will be called to account - people will just shrug and go on. Of course, I also don't think that the Democrats will hold onto power - I just don't think they will lose it on account of the war.

This story highlights another vivid example of why the MSM is held with such contempt. They really are loathsome.

I think David is right. The Bumblecrats are not going to retain power. You can't squander two years of power and use it as a platform for re-election.

My concern is who gets elected from the other side. There's an awful lot of difference in thinking and attitude from end to end with the Republican candidates. I like the more conservative and libertarian guys. But most Americans aren't that way. They vote to the middle.

Or should that be spelled mUddle?