Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2007

Fair and Balanced at CNN — Where Every Top Tier Democrat Candidate for President Gets To Plant A Question in the GOP Debate — (Edwards Got Two)

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — WLS @ 5:01 pm

Posted by WLS:

I know I’m last in the pool on this here, but I had this caption floating around in my head and it seemed too good to let it get away without using it.

To differentiate myself a little from Patterico and DRJ below, I’m going to expound a little on points raised yesterday by Hugh Hewitt and this morning by Glenn Beck about the fiasco that was CNN’s decision-making process on which videos to select.

The biggest indictment of CNN and the YouTube “format” is the apparent fact that the 33 chosen videos — including 4 6 8 obvious plants (and maybe some not yet so obvious):

1) in any way represented the best of the 5000 video questions they claimed were submitted, and

2) that the selections, in the view of the Clinton News Network, represented questions about issues that presented anything remotely resembling an intellectually honest effort to bring about a debate by GOP candidates for the benefit of GOP voters.

Imagine the reaction of Hillary Clinton and her “Gotcha” sensibilities if in the Dem YouTube debate, an “undecided voter” had posed a question like this:

Mrs. Clinton, as an advocate of womens’ rights, including a women’s right to choose, please explain the clear legal threat to those rights by an extremist Supreme Court majority that finds it proper for Congress to outlaw a procedure where the mother is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation, and the doctor inserts grasping forceps through the mother’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the baby, gripping a body part with the forceps, and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even if resistance causes the baby to tear apart — for example, a leg might be ripped off the baby as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the mother — with the process of removing the baby piece by piece continuing until it has been completely removed, with the doctor making as many as 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to remove the baby in its entirety (or at least in pieces) though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes.

If elected, how would you guarantee a woman’s right to have a baby within her uterus carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey?”

So yesterday’s debate was supposed to address issues of concern to GOP voters?? And not to spotlight issues that divide GOP voters and appeal to advocates of certain points of view in the Dem. party?

More specifically, the questions that were picked with respect to immigration were meant to highlight WEAKNESSES of each candidate to whom they were directed:

Question One — To Giuliani about “sanctuary cities”

Question Two — To Thompson about amnesty in immigration reform

Question Three — To Tancredo about need for guest workers

Question Four — To Huckabee about tuition breaks for children of illegals.

This “debate” went on in this same vein for nearly its entirety. No fewer than 16 of the 33 questions, in my opinion, were posed for the purpose of forcing a candidate to deal with an issue on which that candidate is well known to have a blemish with some segment of the GOP, or would otherwise be put on the spot without genuinely enlightening the electorate in any meaningful way. I list all 33 questions below.

It’s like an entire debate filled with questions equivalent to the “Drivers’ licenses for Illegals” which tripped up Hillary. Many of the topics were simply of no interest the the overwhelming majority of GOP voters based on surveys — and those that were, posed questions in such a way as to make sport with the answer rather than encouraging a debate.

According to this June 2007 survey of GOP leaning voters listed the following issues as “Very Important To Their Vote”:

Terrorism — 77%

Economy — 68%

Taxes — 65%

Iraq — 64%

Immigration — 63%

Health Care — 56%

Energy — 52%

Abortion — 43%

Environment — 37%

So, last night CNN serves up the following number of questions on the following topics:

Spending/Taxes/Nat.Debt — 7

Immigration — 4

Gun Control — 3

Iraq — 3

Abortion — 2

Gays — 2

Religion — 2

VPres. Power — 1

There were also 6 questions I just classify as “Other”, including one of the “planted” questions from Dem activists: Lead Paint on Toys from China; Black on Black crime; Mars exploration; African-Americans not voting for GOP; Confederate Flag; Infrastructure spending.

There were also a questions that were clearly set-ups to embarrass a couple of candidates — two to Ron Paul: first, the one about North American Union conspiracies, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-Lateral Commission, and the second on whether he would run as a 3rd party candidate.

A couple questions to Giuliani had preambles to the question that were likely objectionable to many GOP voters, so they set up straw men — like the one that began with how much damage the Iraq war has done to US prestige abroad, how would he restore US prestige. Tancredo got the same treatment when the only question that suggested support for a guest worker program was given to Tancredo, who is probably the most strident on illegal immigration.

Other clear “gotcha” questions that were directed right to the candidate most likely to have difficulty answering:

Question 10 — “Farm subsidies” question goes first to Romney, who is beginning to show weakness in Iowa. Why not ask that of McCain?

Question 16 — “What crime should be charged for abortion” goes first to Ron Paul, the most vocal opponent of abortion, and a practicing OB/GYN.

Question 17: “Signing Federal Abortion Ban” goes first to Giuliani, the one GOP candidate who is on record as being pro-choice but also stating that it should be a political question solved in state legislatures. Why not ask Ron Paul that question?

Question 18: “What Would Jesus Do About Death Penalty” goes to Huckabee, the ordained minister. Why not ask Duncan Hunter?

Question 19: “Belief in literal truth of Bible” goes first to Giuliani, among the most secular of the GOP candidates. Why not ask Huckabee that question?

Question 25: “Gays-in-Military” planted question goes to Duncan Hunter, long on record as opposing gays in the military.

Question 26: “Accept Log Cabin Republican support” planted question goes to Huckabee, the leading social conservative candidate. Why not ask that question of Giuliani?

All this, yet Hillary Clinton vilifies Tim Russert for asking her to defend her own words to a newspaper editorial board over an issue that the governor of her own state put her in the hotseat over, and the entire Democrat field refuses to even go on Fox News for a debate while the GOP subjects themselves to this farce AND the evolving farce that is MSNBC.

Ok, now I feel better. Too bad it’s too late for anyone to even care about this.

Update: Holy crap — Patterico has 165 comments already on this subject. I’m so embarrassed. I’ve got one. Thanks, Christoph.

149 Responses to “Fair and Balanced at CNN — Where Every Top Tier Democrat Candidate for President Gets To Plant A Question in the GOP Debate — (Edwards Got Two)”

  1. Excellent post, WLS. Every. Single. Word.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. I’m glad you posted this, WLS, because it made me think about certain aspects I had not focused on.

    First, this wouldn’t have bothered me near as much if CNN had done something equivalent at the Democratic debate. It’s good to ask the hard questions that an opponent would like to ask – that’s a big part of a debate. The problem is that CNN lobbed softballs to the Democrats and threw fastballs way inside to the GOP candidates.

    Second, CNN has been deceptive in both debates by making the viewer think the questions came from average people. That stinks. If I ever watched CNN, I would vow to never watch again.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  3. Christoph,

    Thank you for posting about Jason Coleman’s website last night. I noticed it and Patterico noticed it, and we appreciate your contribution very much.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  4. WLS, Pat got more comments because he left some holes in his post for people to argue about. I think yours is so thorough–and damning–that all the air is sucked out of cyberspace.

    From the lefties, that is.

    Paul (36cd46)

  5. The debate showed the depths to which the dhimmierats and their allies in the MSM have dropped. No wonder the MSM enjoys the same esteem as the stuff you step in on a hot summer day, very smelly and sticky. While the dhimmierats enjoy an approval rating (11%) lower than OJ did during his murder trial.

    But it does reflect on the intelligence of the GOP candidates and their party’s organization to be so easily set up.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  6. But it does reflect on the intelligence of the GOP candidates and their party’s organization to be so easily set up.

    No, IMHO it just indicates their disdain for the voters at large. Collectively they could have a real debate and set the rules then dare the media NOT to cover it. If they didn’t, post it on the candidate’s websites. But neither party does that. Why? Or have a wealthy Republican or Democrat buy the television time for them. But they don’t. Why?

    The cynical side of me says they count on short attention spans just as much as the Democrats. All anyone is talking about on the right today is “the plant the plant”. Any traction the second tier candidates may have gained is long gone. I’m sure Romney and Guiliani are not unhappy about that.
    All that will be remembered a year from now is that “the bloggers caught the CNN plants and isn’t it great how the blogosphere is uncovering the truth”.

    voiceofreason (f3a01f)

  7. Other clear “gotcha” questions that were directed right to the candidate most likely to have difficulty answering

    That sentence says it all. Which is why CNN put Democrats on the air during a Republican debate.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  8. CNN does this because they know they can get away with it. No consequences.

    JD (00210f)

  9. One teeny little quibble. CNN makes no claims to be either fair or balanced. They claim — or used to claim — to be “The Most Trusted Name in News”

    Ironically, they can be trusted.

    To do just what they did. At every opportunity.

    stoo (a1830d)

  10. Stoo’s got a point there…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  11. Now I know that every time I see someone with an Obama, Hillary or Edwards’08 T-shirt or bumper sticker, I am in fact looking at an undecided Republican voter.

    Living in L.A. I see a lot of these items. I had no idea I was surrounded by so many conservatives. Perhaps I should engage them in conversation and help them decide.

    MagicalPat (9d5a48)

  12. Perhaps I should engage them in conversation and help them decide.

    Just start up the conversation with WLS’s description of abortion. That ought to win them over quickly….

    voiceofreason (f3a01f)

  13. Hey WLS,

    Get a load of this comment on the Patterico post.

    The commenter, one p_lukasiak, accuses you of starting “out in tin-foil-hat territory, and just goes deeper.” The last sentence:

    So, I’m still waiting for an unfair question — from what I saw, the candidates were thrilled for the chance to answer the questions directed at them — despite the paranoid raving of WLS.

    Paul (36cd46)

  14. 8/33 = 24%

    Imagine CNN’s anger if:
    “Lead Free” Gasoline contained 24% leaded gasoline.
    “100% Beef Hot dogs” were 24% sawdust.
    Diebold voting machines had a 24% tabulating error.

    Bottom line: CNN delivers a defective and unreliable product.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  15. With one of the plants having been a part of CNN’s Democratic debates, the evidence is gaining that CNN was in on the fix.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. okay, please explain to me exactly why there was something fishy (meant to highlight WEAKNESSES) about the following

    Question One — To Giuliani about “sanctuary cities”

    Rudy loved that question. What weakness did it highlight? That he was so tough on violent criminals and so dedicated to keeping the streets of New York safe that undocumented foreigners were allowed to report violent crimes without being reported to immigration? Rudy was able to deny that NYC was a sanctuary city, and point out that his chief rival had a whole bunch of sanctuary cities in his state when he was governor. The fact that Rudy went too far, and got personal with the “sanctuary mansion” stuff cannot in any way be blamed on the question itself.

    Question Two — To Thomspon about amnesty in immigration reform

    Come on. Don’t pretend that you don’t know that Thompson has been taking every possible opportunity to say “no amnesty” — he’s been promoting his “immigration reform” program with “No Amnesty” as its centerpiece. Maybe you consider this one of Fred’s “weaknesses”, but he considers it one of his strengths.

    Question Three — To Tancredo about need for guest workers

    Oh yeah. This is a BIG Tancredo weakness. Its such a huge weakness that not only did he gladly declare that he was against guest worker programs, he took the opportunity to say he was pretty much opposed to ALL immigration. That’s the whole rationale of his candidacy — and you wanna tell me that its his “weakness?”

    Question Four — To Huckabee about tuition breaks for children of illegals.

    Gosh, an actual “weakness” question…but one that Huckabee was thoroughly prepared for, and handled with aplomb — and an issue that his opponents would likely have raised themselves. This was a gift to Huckabee, because it let him address a “weakness” on his own terms.

    This “debate” went on in this same vein for nearly its entirety. No fewer than 16 of the 33 questions, in my opinion were posed for the purpose of forcing a candidate to deal with an issue on which that candidate is well known to have a blemish with some segment of the GOP, or would otherwise be put on the spot without genuinely enlightening the electorate in any meaningful way.

    With all due respect (and I actually mean that, because you at least recognize that the whole “drivers license” thing was a waste of time) three of the first four questions don’t actually highlight any “weaknesses”, and all four were questions that the candidates were well prepared for. And while I certainly agree that the undocumented workers issue is not a priority for most voters — even GOP voters — the candidates themselves have been talking about it a lot anyway.

    There was really only one “bad” question — the Kerr one. What it boiled down to was “I’m gay. Now insult my four decades of service to this country by explaining to America why I was unfit to serve.” There’s was really no way to gracefully respond to it — and to make matters worse, CNN put him in the audience.

    Did the questions ignore issues of importance to Republicans, and over-emphasize things that aren’t priorities for Republicans? Yup. But that’s the case of all of the debates that have been done in conjunction with corporate news organizations for both parties.

    Bottom line here is that both the left and the right think that these CNN/MSNBC/FOXNEWS debates suck. And while you seem to think there is some vast conspiracy theory, and the left just think that people like Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert are just moronic jerks (but yeah, Fox is a vast right wing conspiracy :-) ), thats not important. What is important is getting substantive debates organized (you can have Grover Norquist put yours together, we’ll get Eli Palliser) that will be covered by, but not run by, the cable networks.

    Its too late to do anything about it for this campaign, but once you’ve gotten over the trouncing the Dems are gonna give you in 2008 :-), it might not be a bad idea to try and reach across the The Giant Orange Evil and the rest of the left blogosphere, and make it happen.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  17. The other post has got far too long, so I’m going to cheat and respond to that thread here. All numbers below refer to comments at this post. #104:

    When did the GOP want to STOP demonizing gays and lesbians for political gain?

    I just have to ask… Excluding filth like Phelps, can you give me one example of this?

    Why are you excluding Phelps? Since when has he been a Republican? As far as I know he is and always has been a Democrat, just like his fellow nutcase Lyndon LaRouche. The Democrats don’t have to like him, and I don’t hold them responsible for him, but he’s their nutcase, not ours, and we certainly have no need to apologise for him or to try to hide from him. #107:

    you’re the ones who think that there is some grand conspiracy here — how intellectually challendged are YOU, that you seem to think that there was some kind of plot to make sure that Democrats got to ask questions that Republican candidates were happy to answer?

    The conspiracy needn’t be grand or even petty – it could just be one person at CNN, but something caused all those questions from Democratic activicsts to be picked. That didn’t happen by random chance. #125:

    (btw, I don’t know which of the questioners you are referring to when you say they’ve been on CNN, but if its Kerr, he’s a lifelong Republican.

    Liar. If he’s a lifelong Republican, what’s he doing on Hillary’s steering committee? This seems to be a favourite lefty tactic, pretending that someone attacking Republicans is a longtime Republican himself, in order to give the impression that the Republican he’s attacking must be really really bad. I caught on when they claimed that Richard Clarke was a Republican, who’d been driven away from the GOP by Bush’s policies. Since then I never take such claims on faith, and I’m not doing so this time. Your fake general is a Democrat until you prove otherwise.#140:

    I mean, what is really the point of the “Kerr is not a real general” comment above.

    The point is that he used a courtesy title to make his question seem more important that it was. He was arguing from authority, that was the whole point of having him on to ask it, and it turns out that that authority is not what it was painted as. #168:

    Their questions weren’t picked because of their party affiliation, their questions were picked because CNN thought that the presentation and the issues raised by the questions themselves were appropriate for the debate.

    Oh yeah? Then how did it just so happen that out of 33 questions, at least 8 – and who knows how many more? – were by Democrat activists? That didn’t happen by accident, you know. If the CNN person picking them really didn’t know that they were by Democrat activists, then the only other possible explanation is that the person was looking for the sort of question that’s likely to be asked by a Democrat and unlikely to be asked by a genuine undecided Republican. And that would make things even worse for CNN, not better. #186:

    New York was never a “sanctuary city”, nor did Rudy ever propose that it become one.

    Yes, it was, and remains so. It is illegal for any city employee to report an illegal alien whom he happens to discover in the course of his work for the city; if he does so he risks being brought up on charges and fired. That’s the definition of a sanctuary city. No, it wasn’t Rudy’s idea – it goes back to Koch. But Rudy supported and upheld it throughout his tenure.

    Milhouse (027917)

  18. Oh, and yes, Romney was governor of a state with several sanctuary cities. But what was he supposed to have done about it? Send in the National Guard? Giuliani, on the other hand, could simply revoke the order and NYC would no longer be a sanctuary, just as Bloomberg could do tomorrow morning if he wanted to.

    Milhouse (027917)

  19. Why are you excluding Phelps? Since when has he been a Republican?

    Because he’s an uber-nutjob fundie asshole, and I’m forever having to appologize on behalf of christians for his hate-filled bullshit.

    I wanted to just keep him out of the damned answer, and not have to get into the whole “Look, what he’s saying isn’t actually what 99.999% of christians think” thing.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  20. Well stop apologising for him. He has no connection to any Christian organisation, fundy or otherwise. He has no followers whatsoever outside his own family. The only reason he gets away with calling his family a Baptist church is that nobody’s figured out a way to legally stop him. A Wiccan circle could call itself a Shi’ite mosque with as much accuracy. And, getting back to the topic, he is not and has never been a Republican, so he doesn’t have to be excluded from any discussion of Republicans – he was never included in the first place.

    Milhouse (027917)

  21. Milhouse #18,

    I’m not an apologist for Giuliani but immigration and sanctuary cities weren’t the hot button topic back then that they are today, especially in the Northeast.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  22. just a short correction — Kerr was a registered independent (not a democrat, nor a republican as I’d earlier claimed). And while he hasn’t given a cent to Clinton, he does make a habit of supporting republicans, including right-wing (albeit, pro-LBG) nutcase Ilieana Ross-Lehitan. He even gave money to her!!!

    Why is he supporting Hillary…well all your guys suck on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and she doesn’t. And he spent his military career in the closet, and feels pretty strongly about the issue.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  23. he does make a habit of supporting republicans

    So the Kerry stearing commity thing was work for the republicans? Sneaky…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  24. p_lukasiak #16:

    There’s a whole lot in the post you didn’t comment on. Why? Cat got your tongue?

    Do you think the question for Hillary posted by WLS that you ignored also a fair question, since you see no unfair questions except for Kerr’s?

    Paul (36cd46)

  25. Has any newspaper written anything about the odd fact that most of the questioners for both the Dem and Rep gab fest were Dem activists?

    Quite a coink-i-dink, I would say.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  26. Lukasiak, all of “our” guys “suck” on a Clinton administration policy initiative.

    I already noted my amusement at Hillary running against a policy written by her husband.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. No, it wasn’t Rudy’s idea – it goes back to Koch. But Rudy supported and upheld it throughout his tenure.

    as I noted in the other thread, my statement is based on what Rudy himself said last night. I’ll be happy to say that the GOP front-runner is a liar, however, if that’s what it takes to convince you of my efforts to be intellectually honest.

    The point is that he used a courtesy title to make his question seem more important that it was. He was arguing from authority, that was the whole point of having him on to ask it, and it turns out that that authority is not what it was painted as.

    The question he asked didn’t become more important because of his title. It was a crappy question regardless of his title.

    So, again, what relevance — other than to discredit Kerr personally — does posting the information about his use of a courtesy title have to do with this discussion? The argument you’ve been making is that CNN should have caught his ‘in name only’ affiliation with the Clinton campaign — not that CNN should have investigated his military background. (and trust me, I’m the LAST person you want to discuss the subject of people who aren’t completely honest about their military records)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  28. There’s a whole lot in the post you didn’t comment on. Why? Cat got your tongue?

    basically, because the whole “abortion” question thing was stupid (it would be disqualified on the basis of tastelessness — just like a question that was equally graphic detailing the consequences of a back-alley abortion would be), and the rest of the post was pretty much the same as the beginning, which I’d already responded to.

    satisfied now?

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  29. I’ll be happy to say that the GOP front-runner is a liar, however, if that’s what it takes to convince you of my efforts to be intellectually honest.

    Are you happy to address the rest of WLS’s post…you know, the parts you ignored…like the question to Hillary (is it fair as worded, since you see no unfair question except for Kerr’s?)

    Paul (36cd46)

  30. I already noted my amusement at Hillary running against a policy written by her husband.

    I note with a complete lack of amusement the overt misogyny in the above statement.

    I don’t know if you’ve heard about this yet, but for the last couple of years women have actually been allow to have and express their own political opinions, and not just nod their heads in agreement with their husbands.

    If you can’t contain your obsessive hatred of Hillary Clinton long enough to at least pretend that you are capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion, please don’t respond to me any more.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  31. Lukasiak, CNN posted his supposed rank. Showing information that contradicts that is fair game. Your continued attempt to run that bull manure from Hillary’s playbook about “smearing” got old a long time ago. Your fondness for that smokescreen is just more evidence for us regarding your “intellectual honesty”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. satisfied now?

    No. You just skated over it without addressing it. Simpy calling the whole thing stupid isn’t addressing it.

    which I’d already responded to

    So where’s your SPECIFIC response to each of the questions after #4. Simply throwing a “stupid” blanket is evasion, and you know it.

    Paul (36cd46)

  33. And once again, you run the same style of attack by claiming that it is “overt misogyny” to point out that the very policy you applaud Hillary ( and slam Republican candidates ) for was written by Bill.

    That noise you heard was your “intellectual honesty” screaming in pain.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. If you can’t contain your obsessive hatred of Hillary Clinton long enough to at least pretend that you are capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion, please don’t respond to me any more.

    If you can’t specifically address points without resorting to a “stupid” blanket statement, please don’t comment anymore.

    Paul (36cd46)

  35. Lukasiak, CNN posted his supposed rank. Showing information that contradicts that is fair game.

    to what end, other than discrediting Kerr. Up until this was discovered, CNN’s failure to examine Kerr’s military history was never brought up. Are you really trying to say that CNN should have done an extensive enough background check on everyone whose questions they were considering using to determine not just that Kerr was using a courtesy title, but to fully investigate under what circumstances it was appropriate for him to use that title?

    Is that REALLY what you are suggesting? Because if you’re not suggesting that, we’re back to square one…. what purpose–other than discrediting Kerr personally — is served by publicizing his use of a courtesy title?

    No. You just skated over it without addressing it. Simpy calling the whole thing stupid isn’t addressing it.

    But I didn’t “simply call it stupid.” I explained WHY it was stupid — the tastelessness of the question itself — AND discussed the fact that tastelessness was not a ‘partisan’ consideration by drawing an equivelence to a related type of question.

    Now, I really should have been able to just say it was stupid, because the level of tastelessness was so obvious a disqualifying factor that most people would figure it out right away.

    But now not only have I explain why it was stupid, I’ve explained how I explained that it was stupid.

    Satisfied YET?

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  36. thank you lukasiak,
    The paranoia was getting pretty thick.

    How about this conspiracy? Karl Rove or some “strategist” decided use the tried and true tactic of exposing the weaknesses of candidates early, allowing the candidates to answer on their own terms (as you pointed out).
    -That way each candidate could answer the questions during a primary election, in a controlled way in front of a friendly audience (the people who are going to watch Republican primaries and decide which Republican to vote for) and give an answer that wasn’t going to be spun during the debate by an opposition candidate.

    -The “planted” questions were of course planted (well, chosen from the group of vids) by a republican operative working for CNN. The subsequent “discovery” of all those ravingly obvious plants would be used to build the meme of Democrats as question planters (ie. cheaters).
    -also any answers to really sticky questions that might make the candidates look bad (like the one pointing out the idiocy of dont ask dont tell or any anti-gay policy during a war)would be generally washed away by the noise of the 24/7 right wing outrage machine (see Michelle Malkin’s post about the outrage machine, she is right of course but that cuts both ways).
    See? See? It was a right wing conspriacy by CNN, the tool of the conservative owned corporate media.

    The problem with speculation about some dirty tricks is that you can make up and get riled up about anything you feel like.

    EdWood (c98bd7)

  37. And once again, you run the same style of attack by claiming that it is “overt misogyny” to point out that the very policy you applaud Hillary ( and slam Republican candidates ) for was written by Bill.
    That noise you heard was your “intellectual honesty” screaming in pain.

    Just as soon as I praise Bill Clinton for a policy tha I have personally opposed from the very beginning, feel free to call me intellectually dishonest.

    Do you really have this hard a time understanding that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are two separate people? That Hillary is allow to have her own opinions, and that I can agree with her and disagree with Bill Clinton?

    Is that reason that difficult a concept to grasp?

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  38. Just in from seeing Sweeney Todd (a masterpiece which no one should miss) and you people are still btiching and moaning.

    GET A LIFE!!!!

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  39. When a noted troll tells you to “get a life” it can only mean. . . I don’t know, something. There are layers of irony there that I don’t want to start peeling.

    JVW (477e5a)

  40. The language of my hypothetical question comes nearly word for word from the Kennedy majority opinion of the Supreme Court last term in the partial birth abortion case. I changed a few words (like “fetus” into “baby” and “woman” into “mother”) and changed the punctuation to make it one run-on sentence.

    But its just the kind of “wedge” question designed to divide Democrats against EACH OTHER as were many of the questions which CNN chose to use last night — questions like asking Giuliani, a clearly secular public figure — whether he considered the words of the Bible to be literally true.

    wls (d93e70)

  41. Look at the ends the leftists will go to in order to defend overt partisanship by CNN.

    JD (00210f)

  42. wls – Unfortunately, with the likes of lukasiak and David E, we are not likely to encounter an actual discussion of what occurred. They couldn’t care less what CNN did, so long as the narrative was served.

    JD (00210f)

  43. What narrative? The one you just thought up, no doubt.

    The only narative you’ll acept is one of absolute fealty to the Republican party, propelled by mindless cargo-cult-like worship of its fantasy UberDaddy Ronald Reagan.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  44. David E – Those must have been magic mushrooms on your dinner.

    There will be no actual fallout from this. Fox will run a couple of stories on it. Maybe some local papers in flyover country will comment on it on their op-ed page, and then it will be swept away as yet another example of why the MSM simply cannot be trusted.

    JD (00210f)

  45. DE takes a break, comes back and tells everyone to “get a life” and then posts every ten minutes since then…
    I dunno what that means but the mirror is still down the hall.

    SteveG (4e16fc)

  46. JD,
    It has been reported by the major newspapers and is showing up on ABCnews and CBSNews. Google it and 1.2M references are available.

    What is regrettable is that some in the right side of the blogosphere are dancing around the fire like they have discovered gold and the debate itself is already forgotten. This is not the watergate breakin in terms of a story.

    Rush and the usual suspects use MSM derangement syndrome skillfully to keep the masses angry and loyal to their program/site.

    I could have missed them but have seen few suggestions as to what should be done to make the debates more informative and useful.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  47. Guys, guys… back at my usual happy hunting ground, I have a term of endearment for David E. (who opines there frequently): The master baiter.

    And yes, David has admitted he enjoys baiting us. My hunch is that it’s pretty much the same here.

    qdpsteve (cd214a)

  48. lukasiak is apparently good at making shit up if people remember his shady role in the Rathergate scandal. Severe BDS in this one. He and David E. should also be good ideological pals.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  49. daleyrocks – I do not remember his role in Rathergate. Do inform us.

    VOR – Great. When my local news coverage, Katie Couric, and the other nightly news shows tell everyone about the blatant dishonesty of CNN and their Dem plants, I will concede that you are right. As is, I listened to 2 stations tonight, both of which described the Republicans debate as the candidates attacking each other. The Dem debate – differences in policy positions. No mention, not a word, about any of this. And Republicans attack. Dems debate policy positions.

    Bullshit. We do not have to accept this shit.

    JD (00210f)

  50. JD,
    I don’t watch the network news. It is however covered on their websites. This is not the story of the century but the reaction among some republicans is telling.

    As I’ve said before the party that begins to act the most like mature adults will be the one that wins the WH next November. The “conservatives” are acting much like the “left” after the 2000 election – conspiracy in everything, it is all rigged, and doggone it, it’s just not fair.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  51. »How did Mary Mapes know Paul Lukasiak?

    It’s pretty obvious how parts of Rathergate happened. Mary Beth Cahill (who phoned Ben Barnes about his 60 Minutes appearance) and other seniors in the Kerry campaign viewed the TexANG story as the natural foil to SwiftBoatVets. They worked through the latter part of August 2004 to orchestrate a counter-attack against the Swifties with a renewed attack on Bush as a Fortunate Son, who was unjustly aided in getting into the TexANG, and, once there, was a slacker. To execute this strategy, Cahill enlisted Ben Barnes, one of John Kerry’s biggest fundraisers, who was the Texas Lieutenant Governor around the time of Bush’s service, and who was willing to say that he had been the conduit of illicit influence (as he said in this video of a May 27, 2004 speech).

    The Kerry campaign’s interest in CBS was not exclusive: they were one of the Old Media swarm looking for Bush hit pieces. Cahill and the Kerry staff were working overtime peddling the TexANG story at this time. The Boston Globe had a number of stories bracketing the CBS report and the Thornburgh/Boccardi Panel identified four or more similar stories that ran before the 60 Minutes broadcast.

    The only thing separating CBS from the rest of the Old Media pack was that they got the forged documents and ran with them. Even after the Rathergate report, it is unclear how this happened.

    By way of background, we believe that Bill Burkett wrote the Killian memos on or just before August 20, 2004. This is based on a number of factors that we have studied: you can read about them here. Chief among them is a book review that Burkett did of Paul Lukasiak’s Deserter that Burkett wrote on August 13, 2004. The book contains errors of military terminology soon to appear in the Killian memos. Further, Burkett said on August 13, “I have found no documentation from LTC Killian’s hand” — documentation that suddenly appeared in Burkett’s possession in the form of the Rathergate memos a week later. Also note that Burkett said on August 21 that he had just supplied documents to the Kerry campaign.

    One key fact is missing from the Thornburgh/Boccardi report: how did Philadephia caterer Paul Lukasiak know of Mary Mapes or vice versa — since that was how Mapes got in contact with Burkett on August 23. In some ways, this could be the most interesting fact of Rathergate. If Mary Mapes did not know Lukasiak, someone had to make that introduction. If she knew him, then the story would appear more innocent. The Thornburgh/Boccardi report is zero help on this critical issue (p. 59):

    On Monday, August 23, Mapes learned that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett was rumored to have important documents regarding the President’s TexANG service. Paul Lukasiak, who operates a website on which he posts disparaging analyses of President Bush’s TexANG service, told Mapes that another blogger, Linda Starr, had seen new TexANG documents regarding President Bush.

    If someone directed Mapes to Lukasiak, we should know who that person is: it could be a critical piece of the Rathergate puzzle. If Mapes knew Lukasiak, that’s less interesting, though it may speak to the question of bias on Mapes’ part that she was acquianted with the author of Deserter.

    This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 11th, 2005 at 10:09 am and is filed under General, New Media, MSM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  52. The CNN Republican Debate-Talk About Ringers!

    Well, CNN, the “most trusted name in news”, has done it again. In the aftermath of last night’s Republican debate, hosted by CNN, it has now come to light that many of the “undecided” voter-questioners, as CNN called them, were actually Democratic operatives, or as we say in sports, “ringers”. From my impression of the debate, many of these questioners came into the debate with their hidden agendas-to try to make the candidates look bad, or flood them with questions that were not hot-button issues for Republican voters.

    The most egregious example was retired Brigadier General, Keith Kerr, who upon his retirement, came out of the closet as a gay. His question to all the candidates was why they would object to a gay serving in the military-not exactly a prime issue among Republican voters. In addition to the YouTube-posed question, CNN went to the expense of flying the gentleman to the debate and inviting him to make what was, in effect, a speech. Now it turns out that he is a former campaign worker for the Clinton campaign! CNN now says, they never knew that Kerr was associated with the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign also denied any knowledge. Yeah, right. A simple Google search could have prevented that gaffe.

    In addition, there was an “undecided” young lady who asked a question, As it turns out, she is an Edwards supporter. Then there was the gentleman who implied that he was a Log Cabin (Gay) Republican, who asked about whether the candidates would accept the support of the aforementioned group. (I thought Huckabee gave the best answer to this one.) This guy is an Obama supporter.

    Look, I have no objection to all the candidates being subjected to hard questions if they want to be president. However, CNN misrepresented the profiles of the questioners (whom they selected). What if Fox News held a debate for the Democrats (which the Dems refused to participate in) and had Rush Limbaugh’s brother asking hard questions? Oh, the outrage!

    As for the performances of the candidates: In my opinion, Romney looked a little uncomfortable in his heated exchanges with McCain (over torture) and Giuliani (over illegal alien workers). McCain made his argument against torture in a most effective manner, putting Romney on the defensive, even though I agree more with Romney’s position. While McCain was forceful at times, he apparently put off some other observers who think he is too contemptuous of opposing views. I would tend to agree.

    While I admire Giuliani in many ways, I do think he is making that mistake New Yorkers often make. (If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.) He talks incessantly about his days in New York. I think it is starting to wear.

    Huckabee, I think, once again did well, and continued to rise to the top tier of candidates. I am troubled, however, by his eagerness to give in-state tuition to the children of illegal aliens, while not committing to give the same break to children of vets who come to Arkansas to go to college.

    The best answers of the night in my view, came first, from Tancredo, in response to a question about funding to go to Mars. He basically dismissed it as a luxury we cannot afford. Then, there was Hunter, responding to a question from a young Muslim woman who wanted to know what the candidates would do to improve the image of the US in the Muslim world. After listening to a couple of other tortured responses, Hunter reminded the questioner that whenever another region in the world (including Islamic regions)was in crisis or faced with disaster(i.e. tsunami in SE Asia), the US was first to respond. Hunter then declared that he would never apologize for America. Bravo! (Side note: Maybe the young lady should ask what the Muslim world can do to improve its own image around the world in light of the on-going terror.)

    Ron Paul, while playing the role of the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich, did in fact, perhaps unwittingly, make a significant statement on the question of abortion. He stated (I am paraphrasing) that in 30 years as an OB-GYN, he had never seen a case of abortion as a result of a medical emergency. Interesting indeed-and worthy of follow-up.

    As for Thompson, he did fine, but I still question how much he wants to be president. He just seems to be content to stand there and not go all out to win a debate.

    Not being a professional political pundit, I don’t know who really won this debate. I suspect that Huckabee will continue to rise based on his overall performance. Loser? Why CNN of course. Tom Delay commented tonight on Hannity and Colmes that this performance just proves that the mainstream media is working in concert with the Democratic Party. I find it hard to disagree.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    fouse, gary c (d43d4a)

  53. VOR – from Mergovign

    The Democrats are the party of fraud and deceit, and the MSM is their oiled and pliant servant.

    I think that everyone who suggests letting it slide because we should “expect” it from them, or it’s more “adult” to let someone shit on your lawn without complaint, needs to SERIOUSLY go back and take Econ 101 over again.

    If you reward a behavior, you will get more of it.

    Republicans HAVE BEEN “lying back and trying to enjoy it” for decades. It’s long past time to fight back. Don’t just let a journalist get away with misleading statements, planting fake questioners, lying about their own standards, asking “have you stopped beating your wife” questions – hang it around their damned necks, force them to answer for their frauds or give them nothing.

    Oh, dear, they might say you’re rude. Well, guess what, you’re a pretty damned long way down that road already.

    Playing “nice” with the MSM has gained you nothing. It has kept a Dem party filled to the brim with liars, crooks, frauds, and crazed idiots in power.

    DO NOT PLAY THEIR GAME. They make and change the rules any time they want. The only reason we’re anywhere near a plurality is because the Dems have been off their damned nuts for years. If we had a press corps that wasn’t utterly locked in place on the left, it wouldn’t even be close.

    You are NOT EVER going to get the MSM to play it straight by letting them get away with playing it crooked.

    Unfortunately, this is apparently the hardest possible lesson to learn.

    I am a little aghast at how many people are defending or minimizing CNN’s perfidy here. CNN needs to be reminded that the blood of innocents is on their hands for their bootlicking behavior to Hussein so they could keep their office in Baghdad going. They have a long history of lies and fraud, and they have forsaken the right to be taken any kind of seriously…

    It’s warming up to be a real crapfest of an election, if this is who you’ve got “reporting” the “news.”

    JD (00210f)

  54. All this is not particularly new. Bush41 was on Larry King one night, and a high profile Democrat operative just “happened” to get through on the call line. Any screener would have recognized the name.

    Tregonsee (539ad5)

  55. JD,
    There is too much difference in our ages to even begin to counter your post. Will this be your first or second presidential election you vote in?
    You exhibit a fair amount of naivety.

    The Democrats are not anymore evil than the GOP. And frankly, until conservatives are willing to go into a lower paying profession such as journalism the “MSM bias” will never really change. The same can be said for our teachers as well – complain about them but never be one of them because pay trumps convictions….

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  56. If someone directed Mapes to Lukasiak, we should know who that person is: it could be a critical piece of the Rathergate puzzle. If Mapes knew Lukasiak, that’s less interesting, though it may speak to the question of bias on Mapes’ part that she was acquianted with the author of Deserter.

    enough with the paranoid conspiracy theories.

    In the course of my research on Bush’s military records, I contacted soldier’s advocate Col David Hackworth, to ask for help in understanding the jargon found in military regulations. He referred to to Roger Charles — who unbeknownst to me, was a military consultant for 60 Minutes II.

    Charles realized that what I’d done was significant — while lots of people knew intuitively that Bush was (colloquially) AWOL, no one had proven it by comparing Bush’s records to the contemporaneous laws, regulations, and polices and procedures from that era.

    Rogers brought my work to the attention of Mary Mapes, who had looked into Bush’s military years prior to the 2000 elections, and had concluded that Bush had skipped out — but she lacked the elements to put together a story at that time (no one was willing to go on the record.)

    AFAIK, when Rogers first mentioned my research to Mapes in the spring of 2004, she had no intention of pursuing the Bush/National Guard story further. I do know that what I’d come up with (the hard evidence that proved that Bush had ignored his military obligations as defined by the laws/regulations of that period) piqued her interest — but at the time she was swamped with the Abu Ghraib story — and then the show went on hiatus.

    Mapes (as well as a couple of other mainstream media reporters) had also been asking me about “other documents” which were rumored to exists. And I’d heard from people who said they had access to such documents, but I ignored them because their information was always “confidential.” But when someone made a public blog posting describing in detail an unreleased Bush document, I brought that posting to Mapes attention. She followed up, and the Killian memos story was born. (ironically, the document described in the blog posting had nothing to do with the “Killian memos” that were released.

    And that, children, is the story of my involvement in the “Killian memos controversy”. No grand paranoid conspiracy, Its the tale of a reporter who had the story nailed down, but got sloppy in the presentation of the story.

    In many ways, its kinda like what happened with Iraq’s WMDs — people who thought they knew the truth were willing to promote as “fact” anything(like the ‘aluminum tubes’ stuff) that was consistent with their beliefs. But unlike with the WMD story with was built entirely on the basis of conjecture and assumptions, Mapes had the story right — the Killian memos were her “aluminum tubes”.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  57. I am a little aghast at how many people are defending or minimizing CNN’s perfidy here.

    why do you insist on these paranoid theories, when “utter incompetence” is a much better explanation.
    These aren’t “news organizations” — the obsessive coverage of pure crap (Natalie Holloway, Jon Benet, Anna Nicole Smith, OJ, Michael Jackson) is really all the evidence you should need to realize that we aren’t talking about “journalism”, and that truth of any story, and the importance of the details, is completely subordinate to whether its “good television”, and how to make it “good television”.

    The truth is that facts do have a “liberal” bias. Conservatives like things the way they are — and tend to ignore new information that indicate that change is needed. Liberals, on the other hand, embrace that new information, recognise patterns and significances (some of which aren’t really there) and advocate change based on these new facts. As additional facts come along, they tend to support the liberal position simple because in most cases, you can extrapolate from existing information.

    Global warming is a perfect example. The theory behind global warming has been around for decades. As more and more information became available, more and more liberals started calling for change, while conservatives resisted those changes. As a result, what should never have been a ‘partisan’ issues devolved into one, and the more facts that came out, the more obvious it was that ‘the liberals’ were right. But every time new information was reported, conservatives saw it as evidence of a ‘liberal media’ — it wasn’t; it was just new information that supported the conclusion that global warming was a serious problem.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  58. Oh good grief.

    We still can’t stay on target, can we.

    The issue is, should DEMOCRATS lie to get into REPUBLICAN debates?

    An honest person would say “Of course not. That’s contemptible.”

    A Democrat says “that’s admirable.”

    You make the call.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  59. while lots of people knew intuitively that Bush was (colloquially) AWOL, no one had proven it by comparing Bush’s records to the contemporaneous laws, regulations, and polices and procedures from that era.

    BDS is not intuition. AWOL is not a colloquialism.

    Mapes had the story right

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    Pablo (99243e)

  60. VOR – Get off of your high horse. I am 38 years old, and need you to patronize me about as much as I need CNN to make shit up.

    Its the tale of a reporter who had the story nailed down, but got sloppy in the presentation of the story.

    Fake, but accurate. Nice.

    The truth is that facts do have a “liberal” bias.

    Statements like that are enough for everyone to ignore you from this moment on, and point towards your absolute lack of any desire to actually discuss, and objectively shows your inability to separate your partisan bias from the truth.

    JD (00210f)

  61. The truth is that facts do have a “liberal” bias.

    Parody.
    Is that why “liberals” can’t seem to address facts?

    This is a perfect example:

    As more and more information became available, more and more liberals started calling for change, while conservatives resisted those changes. As a result, what should never have been a ‘partisan’ issues devolved into one, and the more facts that came out, the more obvious it was that ‘the liberals’ were right

    This demonstrates a hilarious ignorance of the topic. Liberals are not “right” about the theory that man is causing the globe to warm significantly. How do we know this? Well, global temperatures have not increased over the last decade and there is no proof of this theory.
    None. Zero evidence.

    Now, if “facts have a liberal bias” why do you believe in something a) that really isn’t occurring, and b) can’t be shown to be true?

    THe Ace (12e3ad)

  62. Statements like that are enough for everyone to ignore you from this moment on, and point towards your absolute lack of any desire to actually discuss, and objectively shows your inability to separate your partisan bias from the truth.

    Partisan bias. Odd that I’ve voted R in 95% of the elections I’ve voted in the last 30+ years.
    38? Just goes to show that age is not always an indicator of sophisitication.
    And when attributing comments to me to make your rather childish suggestion “Let’s shun VOR” try attributing ones that I actually made.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  63. Liberals, on the other hand, embrace that new information, recognise patterns and significances (some of which aren’t really there) and advocate change based on these new facts.

    Is that why liberals get hysterical in their denials about the progress taking place in Iraq?

    Or is that why liberals get hysterical in their reaction to genitically modified foods here and in Europe?

    Or is that why liberals are actively trying to stamp out any facts that are inconvient to their global warming theory?

    Or is that why liberals embraced ESC research despite the fact it produced few results (no clinical trials) and John Edwards said at a campaign event when John Kerry is elected people like Chris Reeve will walk again?

    Or is that why the left continues to engage in conspiracy theories regaring 9/11 (facts don’t support a missle hit the pentagon you know)?

    Or is that why liberals literally freak out when race and IQ are mentioned? (Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians.)

    THe Ace (12e3ad)

  64. why do you insist on these paranoid theories, when “utter incompetence” is a much better explanation

    Except you can’t explain in any manner what so ever how 1/3rd of the questions at a Republican debate came from known Democratic activists when over 5,000 video’s were submitted.

    Coming from the “Bush knew about 9/11″ crowd no less…

    THe Ace (12e3ad)

  65. VOR – I directed the first section to you. The rest were quotes from that lukasiak idiot. I did not ask whom you voted for. Again, I can live without the patronizing, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    JD (00210f)

  66. This is a riot.

    THE AWOL PROJECT IS A PART OF THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY

    Heh. Says the guy who’s doing his damndest to show AWOL and yet names his book about it “Deserter”. Because of the reality basedness.

    What are you going to do with yourself come Jan ’09, Paul?

    (This link provided only because of the demand that the content not be linked. Well, and so you can see the sort of jumping to the desired conclusions that is part and parcel of the “reality”)

    Pablo (99243e)

  67. Thanks for that link Pablo. I feel dirty. Must go shower.

    JD (00210f)

  68. “BDS is not intuition. AWOL is not a colloquialism.”

    I use AWOL because it is a colloquial means of expressing the fact that Bush didn’t show up when he was required to by law. With people who had draft-deferments like Bush, there were administrative procedures that precluded the “criminal” accusation of AWOL — basically, if you stopped showing up to fulfill your legal obligations as a reservist, you were supposed to be stripped of your draft deferred status, and ordered to serve on active duty (and you didn’t have the right to an attorney, etc. when this was done.) If you then didn’t show up for active duty, you could be charged with being AWOL under the UCMJ — at whick point the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded to those accused of a crime in a military setting came into play.

    Bush stopped showing up — and while his commanders had some discretion in terms of letting Bush slide, Bush’s dereliction went way beyond any discretionary powers afforded to his commanders.

    That is all established fact, based on the laws, regulations, and policy and procedures in place at the time we’re talking about. The case is so airtight that even Bush’s chief defender, Col Albert Lloyd, had to admit that Bush didn’t fulfill his statutory/contractural obligations to the military.

    There is also a whole lot of extremely strong “circumstantial” evidence that points to the conclusion that Bush never showed up training his defenders claim was done in Alabama (the payroll records reveal that Bush wasn’t paid until months after the training supposedly occurred, but there were procedures in place that, had he shown up, would have resulted in no significant delay in his getting paid) — and conclusive evidence that — because he was not training within his specialty — he should never have been credited with the pay and points he did received after May 1974.

    This is all documented — you can say that it doesn’t matter what Bush did anymore, and that doing the research is a symptom of BDS — but the facts are the facts.

    Fake, but accurate. Nice.

    why is it that when Bush takes us into war based on evidence that was not merely fake, but inaccurate, it doesn’t bother you. I mean, Bush’s “fake and innacurate” evidence had lead to the deaths of thousand of American troops, and to the serious injury of thousands more — and nobody died because Mary Mapes got sloppy. Yet you will obsess about Mapes, and ignore what Bush and his cronies did. This is a lethal double standard.

    Statements like that are enough for everyone to ignore you from this moment on, and point towards your absolute lack of any desire to actually discuss, and objectively shows your inability to separate your partisan bias from the truth.

    unsurprisingly, you don’t bother to address the non-partisan argument I use to support that statement. The whole point of “conservatism” is maintaining (“conserving”) the status quo, and not making changes — liberals, on the other hand, have no problem with change, and will embrace new information that indicates that change is necessary.

    Conservatives should be no less concerned about the impact of global warming than liberals are — we all share the same planet. But conservatives resist making the changes that the evidence of global warming demands be made — to the point where the Bush administration will literally censor the scientific evidence that supports the need for change.

    And the fact is that more and more conservatives (especially Christian conservatives who take serious the Biblical prescription to act as stewards of God’s creation) are finally getting on the “global warming” bandwagon because the evidence is overwhelming — but because liberals embraced the need for changes, every time a new piece of evidence was reported, it was “liberal” because it supported the liberal position.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  69. Let me get this umm straight, the gay general from Marin County who was a plant potted directly by the Clinton campaign, isn’t even a real general?
    ha ha ha ha ha

    How much is Clinton paying you to miss sleep tonight lukasiak?

    You know I love this part right here, ” Liberals, on the other hand, embrace that new information”.

    You must mean facts like those polar ice caps melting…

    … on Mars. Oh wait. Liberals didn’t exactly embrace that new information. In fact it only appeared as a news blurb on the Nat Geo potporrie page. No story in the Times or Newsweek. No feature article inspite of a spate of new space missions to all the various planets.
    Skipped right by the new megastorm on Jupiter – even though it is the only real time climate change that people can observe with their own eye in the solar system.
    I can imagine why liberals didn’t embrace that novelty.
    Or maybe the old faithful geyser — erupting on an ice moon circling Saturn. And Saturn’s megastorm, and slow magnetic braking which is actually changing the length of the day on the ringed planet.
    I can guess why liberals didn’t embrace that news either.
    People might start talking and put two and two together.

    Go slink back to Camp Clinton you phony. Ask for better material next time.

    papertiger (fb6ec3)

  70. Heh. Says the guy who’s doing his damndest to show AWOL and yet names his book about it “Deserter”. Because of the reality basedness.

    I’ve never written a book — are you out of your mind?

    The first piece I did in the series was called “Deserter”, because when you look at the regulations, policies and procedures relevant to the time after Bush was discharged from the Air National Guard, the evidence shows that Bush blew off his obligation to find another unit — and under the procedures established by the Air Force, would have been ordered to show up. And unlike the Texas Air National Guard, we have considerable evidence that the Air Force itself was insisting that Bush fulfill his commitment — and when he did not do so, the Air Force began taking action (specifically, placing him in an “inactive” status — which was something that occurred on in extreme cases with those who had an outstanding Military Service Obligation.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  71. With people who had draft-deferments like Bush

    Proof that he had a “draft deferment”?

    The case is so airtight that even Bush’s chief defender, Col Albert Lloyd, had to admit that Bush didn’t fulfill his statutory/contractural obligations to the military.

    Proof of this please?

    There is also a whole lot of extremely strong “circumstantial” evidence that points to the conclusion that Bush never showed up training his defenders claim was done in Alabama

    If it’s “airtight” why is the evidence “circumstantial”?

    Further, why do you care? Clinton dodged the draft, said he loathed the miliatary and you were utterly silent.

    Your silly posts are at this point no longer with responding to. The lies, obfuscation, and the intellectual dishonesty on your part are all appalling.

    THe Ace (12e3ad)

  72. are finally getting on the “global warming” bandwagon because the evidence is overwhelming

    Don’t you find it the least bit odd that you make statements like this but there is actually no evidence you can produce on the topic?

    Why do you think that is?

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  73. #66 Yeah, sure, let’s make up an explanation…
    CNN confused a Primary Debate between candidates from one party with a National Debate with candidates from 2 parties. So when they were vetting the questions they took some that, in some people’s opinion, were less important to Republican voters.
    That would seem to me to be the only real problem with taking any questions from Democrat affiliated persons it that they may not reflect the interests of Republicans and allow Republicans to decide who they want to represent them in the general election.
    I noticed by the way that some people are shifting from “CNN is in a conspiracy” to “the video submitters lied about their affiliations”.
    If we want to stick with conspiracies though, I still like mine (#36) the best.

    EdWood (984d4c)

  74. Or maybe the old faithful geyser — erupting on an ice moon circling Saturn. And Saturn’s megastorm, and slow magnetic braking which is actually changing the length of the day on the ringed planet.

    none of which has any actual relevance to the global warming issue, of course.

    (I mean, seriously — the very idea that one can consider “weather” conditions on other planets whose geographies and atmospheres are completely unrelated to our own planets is — well, its simply unbelievable stupid to think that its relevant to the global warming debate.

    And it is this attempt to include completely irrelevant phenomenon within the global warming debate that demonstrates that “facts are liberal”. The only thing that you’ve done is make it clear that relevant facts are liberal — and that once they placed an idea into an ideological framework, conservatives will embrace the most bizarrely irrelevant fact to resist acknowledging that they were wrong. (everyone does this to one extent or another, of course, but you’re taking it to bizarre lengths.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  75. I use AWOL because it is a colloquial means of expressing the fact that Bush didn’t show up when he was required to by law.

    AWOL is not a colloquialism. It is a military legal term with a specific meaning. It is a charge, generally followed by a finding. You use “AWOL” because it’s incendiary, and you have BDS.

    I’ve never written a book — are you out of your mind?

    Is Bill Burkett out of his mind? Or is this quote from #52 inaccurate?

    Chief among them is a book review that Burkett did of Paul Lukasiak’s Deserter that Burkett wrote on August 13, 2004. The book contains errors of military terminology soon to appear in the Killian memos.

    Book, article…the point remains the same. Do you know what desertion is, Paul? That isn’t a colloquialism either. It is also a legal term with a specific meaning. It does not resolve with an honorable discharge.

    Pablo (99243e)

  76. none of which has any actual relevance to the global warming issue, of course.

    Because they’re not also planets revolving around the same sun or anything.

    Pablo (99243e)

  77. Proof that he had a “draft deferment”?…Proof of this please?

    if I provide you with the proof, will you accept the fact that Bush did not fulfill his military obligations? Because there is really no point in my discussing this with you if you are committed to things that are simply not true.

    If it’s “airtight” why is the evidence “circumstantial”?

    Do you see the word “also”. There are some things (like Bush’s failure to even come close to meeting his obligations while a member of the Texas Air National Guard, or that he failed to fulfill his obligations to the Air Force to find another unit in which to serve after he left TXANG) that are “airtight”. There are other aspects where the case is not airtight — but there is strong circumstantial evidence (e.g. that Bush never actually showed up for the training he supposedly did in Alabama).

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  78. Facts are liberal, and then, not content to simply walk away from such a disingenuous statement, lukasiak tries to defend it. Good Allah, what did you have for breakfast?

    JD (00210f)

  79. p_lukasiak

    but the facts are the facts – no, circumstantial evidence is circumstantial evidence.

    “The whole point of “conservatism” is maintaining (”conserving”) the status quo, and not making changes” — The only people I see make this claim are liberals denigrating conservatives. If you observe closely, Paul, there are plenty of things conservatives want to change, such as welfare state policies, government interference in business, taxes, and a whole host of others. Your contention is ludicrous.

    You are the Jason Leopold of Rathergate.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  80. Book, article…the point remains the same. Do you know what desertion is, Paul? That isn’t a colloquialism either. It is also a legal term with a specific meaning. It does not resolve with an honorable discharge.

    Do you know what murder is? If you kill someone in cold blood, but never get charged with the crime, is it still “murder”?

    The fact that someone is not accused of a crime does not mean there is no conclusive evidence that a crime has been committed. (I mean, seriously — people like you with Clinton derangement syndrome are the last people who should be acting like crimes never get committed that are never charged.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  81. The joy of this is p_lukasiak is the only person that really knows the truth. He knows better than the Texas Air National Guard. The records, they are all forged or purged. The US military – wrong. but p_lukasiak. He is a trustworthy bloke. He got to the core of what Burkett couldn’t. He got what Mapes and Rather couldn’t. He knows.

    JD (00210f)

  82. Again – p_lukasiak knows better that the military. I am sure that if somebody would just listen to him, President Bush would be brought up on charges tomorrow.

    JD (00210f)

  83. Do you know what “honorable discharge” is, Paul? The fact that you get one is far more conclusive evidence of fulfilled service than anything you’ve got. Or, that Mary Mapes had.

    And who said anything about Clinton? That was you who brought up draft dodging, wasn’t it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  84. Pablo – Don’t you know that the military routinely hands out honorable discharges to people that are AWOL and/or deserters? It is common, common I tell you. Just ask lukasiak.

    JD (00210f)

  85. One would think that the more serious the accusation, the greater the proof required. However, our liberal progressive friends have a different idea. To them, the worse the accusation, the less proof needed. “He’s a heretic”, “She’s a witch”, “if you defend them you’re one too”.

    nk (09a321)

  86. JD – He did do some research in between catering gigs and he’s got circumstantial evidence, but he’s not good with military procedures or terminology.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  87. nk – You have that completely wrong. To the Left, it is all about the “seriousness” of the accusation. The underlying foundation, or lack thereof, is utterly irrelevant.

    JD (00210f)

  88. daleyrocks – Had I known that, I would have voted for Kerry. Damn. Rove really slipped that past us, didn’t he? We are all fortunate that p_lukasiak is hot on the trail of these deceitful bastages.

    JD (00210f)

  89. We saw the liberal progressive mindset clear as glass in the Duke non-rape case.

    nk (09a321)

  90. Because there is really no point in my discussing this with you if you are committed to things that are simply not true.

    This is one of the clearer cases of projection anyone will ever see.

    You have no evidence of anything you’re writing about.
    Not one single thing.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  91. if I provide you with the proof, will you accept the fact that Bush did not fulfill his military obligations?

    Again, why do you care? Clinton dodged the draft, said he loathed the miliatary and you were utterly silent.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  92. if I provide you with the proof, will you accept the fact that Bush did not fulfill his military obligations?

    I want an on the record statment from Col Albert Lloyd. Not a link to a book, not a link to raw story, the daily kos, media matters or some other place claiming he said something. I want an actual quote.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  93. “The whole point of “conservatism” is maintaining (”conserving”) the status quo, and not making changes” — The only people I see make this claim are liberals denigrating conservatives. If you observe closely, Paul, there are plenty of things conservatives want to change, such as welfare state policies, government interference in business, taxes, and a whole host of others. Your contention is ludicrous.

    even after change has occurred, conservatives tend to continue to resist it, and advocate for a return to the status quo ante. In general, their arguments don’t changed based on new, compelling information — and their goal is not to progress, but to regress.

    Take a subject like welfare — by the early 90′s, there was compelling evidence that the system was not working. Based on this new information, conservatives wanted to get rid of the system entirely — liberals wanted fix it.

    Sometimes the conservative do win. One of the primary components of Johnson’s Great Society was a job training program called CETA. Thanks in large part to Nixon’s policy of “benign neglect”, by the mid 70′s the program was a complete disaster. It was scrapped, and nothing replaced it (which is one of the reasons that the welfare system itself became a problem) — in other words, in terms of job training as part of the Great Society that conservatives had opposed from the beginning, they achieved their goal of a return to the status quo ante based on new information.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  94. #82 — actually paul, it isn’t murder. The uncharged death of a human being at the hands of another is homicide, not murder.

    You want to continue playing semantic games in an arena where you lack basic competence?

    wls (d93e70)

  95. Take a subject like welfare — by the early 90’s, there was compelling evidence that the system was not working. Based on this new information, conservatives wanted to get rid of the system entirely — liberals wanted fix it.

    Blantent lie. Is this why Clinton vetoed welfare reform, yes reform, twice?

    Or is this why liberals oppposed welfare reform, which did not end the program?

    You are an embarrssingly bad liar.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  96. lukasiak – Do you get some kind of joy from setting those strawmen on fire?

    JD (00210f)

  97. Do you know what “honorable discharge” is, Paul? The fact that you get one is far more conclusive evidence of fulfilled service than anything you’ve got. Or, that Mary Mapes had. blockquote>

    Do you know what political influence is? The evidence is in his records — an “honorable discharge”, when compared to the rest of his records, is really proof of nothing more than the existence of political influence.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  98. Take a subject like welfare — by the early 90’s, there was compelling evidence that the system was not working. Based on this new information, conservatives wanted to get rid of the system entirely — liberals wanted fix it.

    Comcial

    But Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill. said: “I believe that the Senate will rue the day that we passed this legislation. This day, in the name of reform, the Senate will do actual violence to poor children, putting millions of them into poverty who were not in poverty before.”

    More,

    So while electoral urgency forced Clinton to tack to the right on welfare reform in 1996, offending liberal interest groups in the process, Bush is listing to the left on this particular issue, causing some conservatives to feel a bit queasy.

    I worked on Capitol Hill at the time. You are simply ignorant beyond description.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  99. Here’s something to get Ace’s blood pressure soaring.

    Comment by David Ehrenstein — 11/30/2007 @ 7:46 am

    More comedy. Wake me up when these immature hypocrites appear on Fox News.

    What is funny is you actually take moronic statements like that at face value.

    Then again, you’re an easily misled dupe.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  100. Blantent lie. Is this why Clinton vetoed welfare reform, yes reform, twice?

    because the bills he was sent didn’t fix the problems.

    I mean, Rudy Giuliani likes to take credit for getting people off of welfare and into jobs — but it was the federal program that Clinton insisted upon that provided job training that made what Rudy takes credit for possible.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  101. The evidence is in his records — an “honorable discharge”, when compared to the rest of his records, is really proof of nothing more than the existence of political influence.

    I find it funny you keep referring to “evidence” that you can’t produce.

    Remember, The truth is that facts do have a “liberal” bias.!

    Except you have no facts and are engaging in silly conspiracy theories.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  102. David E – That is the absolute pinnacle of overt dishonesty when the Dems absolutely refuse to debate on Fox. It does not say much for the Edwards campaign when he is relegated to trying to get on Olberdouche’s show.

    JD (00210f)

  103. Ace – But, but, but, but, but … the lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy !

    JD (00210f)

  104. because the bills he was sent didn’t fix the problems

    Hilarious. So are you claiming the bills sent to him ended the program then?

    What you’re too effing stupid to understand is that Clinton vetoed them over money. It had nothing to do with “fixing” (which of course you can’t define) anything.

    You are simply a shamefully dishonest intellectual coward who believes in fairy tales.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  105. but it was the federal program that Clinton insisted upon

    Um, Clinton “insisted upon” no such thing.

    He vetoed, that is vetoed, the legistation two times.

    I was there, I remember all of this. You are talking out of your ass.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  106. All of the lukasiak drivel, the posts at TPM, crooksandliars, etc … are all so much easier to understand once you realize that they get to just make shit up as they go along. Trying to follow them using traditional logic is not possible, so you have to allow for the evolved logic of the Left to make the huge leaps in faith that they do.

    JD (00210f)

  107. So you get to a point in lukasiak’s comments that does not quite feel right, and you begin to wonder what is amiss. It is at that moment that you should think, “Ah, this is where he started making shit up”. Then, it all flows nicely.

    JD (00210f)

  108. Claim:

    conservatives wanted to get rid of the system entirely

    Proof: None

    Claim:
    Bush’s chief defender, Col Albert Lloyd, had to admit that Bush didn’t fulfill his statutory/contractural obligations to the military

    Proof: None

    Claim:
    liberals wanted fix it.

    Proof: None

    I’m sensing a pattern here…

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  109. And while you seem to think there is some vast conspiracy theory,

    enough with the paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Another retarded liberal straw man argument. Nobody said anything about a conspiracy. It was intentional – which is not the same as conspiracy. It has to be intentional that that out of 5000 submissions they were selected. The only alternative is gigantic coincidence – which would have to be your explanation. In fact the coincidence claim is more bizarre than claiming conspiracy.

    A bunch of Democrats submitted questions. It was very easy to find out they were Democrats. CNN is composed of Democrats and wanted to put Democrats on. That’s not a conspiracy. It’s Democrat journalists being Democrats (not journalists though).

    Just like the CBS Memogate fiasco was not a conspiracy. Mapes is a liberal Democrat. Rather is a liberal Democrat. Mapes was looking for a way to damage Bush as CBS’s own report made clear. She starts fishing for some story on Bush’s ANG service. When she finds it she runs with it despite obvious problems with the memo. When questions arise about the memo, Rather lies that they had a reliable source that the memo was genuine. There’s no conspiracy there. It’s just Democrat journalists acting like Democrats (not journalists though).

    Gerald A (6b39c1)

  110. Every year I’m amazed at the zeal with which democrats attack social programs that don’t work in the federal budget process. It makes you proud to be an American. By this point, following lukasiak’s logic, you would have thought they would have eliminated affirmative action programs for ineffectiveness and as court rulings have been trending. Obviously something else must be going on.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  111. Argument by assertion and repetition. Throw in a little emotion, and you have the liberal trifecta of liberal debate.

    JD (00210f)

  112. 95 — LOL. Ask New Yorkers if the City’s welfare establishment lacked for “Job Training Programs” in the early 1990′s. It wasn’t until Giuliani forced welfare recipients to go to newly opened “Job Centers” run by the City where they could look for actual real jobs, rather than be perpetally involved in “job training” which led them nowhere, did the welfare numbers in NYC begin to recede.

    wls (d93e70)

  113. Thr Ace – But it’s a known fact liberals are GOOD people and conservatives are BAD people. Everybody knows that. Just ask a liberal. likasiak will tell you.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  114. One of the primary components of Johnson’s Great Society was a job training program called CETA. Thanks in large part to Nixon’s policy of “benign neglect”, by the mid 70’s the program was a complete disaster. It was scrapped, and nothing replaced it (which is one of the reasons that the welfare system itself became a problem) — in other words, in terms of job training as part of the Great Society that conservatives had opposed from the beginning, they achieved their goal of a return to the status quo ante based on new information.

    Pathological lying or just confused? Probably the former. Or some combination of the two. The CETA program was STARTED by the Nixon administration in 1973. It was vastly expanded during the Carter years and scrapped during the Reagan years. As I recall a GAO investigation found the virtually nobody got employed through CETA and that it was rife with fraud.

    Gerald A (6b39c1)

  115. Repost of my thoughts from the previous thread:

    The issue is not really that so many democrat plants (meaning people clearly affiliated with the democratic party or certain democratic candidates) asked questions. Indeed, if the question is valid, it does not matter who asks it.

    The issue is that at Democrat primary debates, the questioners are overwhelmingly leftists and NO republican/conservative affiliated people are allowed to ask hard questions at those events (let alone follow-up questions). Meanwhile, at Republican debates, the questioners are again democrats asking left-biased questions and are allowed to ask follow-ups.

    Considering the fact that the nation is split pretty evenly along party lines, does this not concern you at all that this is clear evidence of media bias? Why does the “mainstream media” not allow conservatives to question democrat candidates but allows liberals to question repbulican candidates? Who, exactly are they trying to protect. It seems to me that the answer is pretty clear.

    However, with that said, I don’t believe the media said to themselves, “let’s only get democrats to ask questions.” I think the media simply only know democrats, or see questions that are asked by a democrat and say “hey, good question” b/c it fits their internal bias. they simply ignore and dicount the kinds of questions conservatives would ask – either of dems or of republicans. And, I think they subconsiously avoid the kind of really hard questions that conservatives would want asked of the dem candidates, but have no problem asking the republican candidates the kinds of hard questions that liberals want asked of them.

    That is the issue. And, it is dishonest of the media to pretend the questioners are independent, undecided voters. Indeed, that seems to have been a flat out lie – which should concern everyone.

    As an aside, I also find it interesting that no matter what the issue, when any news organization does something questionable (other than Fox News), leftists automatically defend the news organization. It happens immediately and every time.

    For an libs on this board, why do you suppose that is? Why do you feel it is your duty to defend every questionable thing that CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC does? Does that ever make you stop and consider? I know that in your mind, you believe the media is being “objective” or “fair” when it does things to benefit your side. However, shouldn’t we really all (left and right) be interested in the media actually reporting things accurately rather than playing these games? Wouldn’t that ultimately be better for the country?

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  116. Gerald A – I am not fond of making assumptions, but in just the recent memory, there is ample evidence to suggest the former.

    JD (00210f)

  117. Do you know what political influence is? The evidence is in his records — an “honorable discharge”, when compared to the rest of his records, is really proof of nothing more than the existence of political influence.

    No, proof of political influence would consist of showing where, how and upon whom that influence was applied, and verifying that it happened. What you have is a wild assed guess, contradicted by the verifiable, proven documentation and supported only by the certainty that comes with BDS.

    The honorable discharge is proven. Political influence, AWOL and desertion are not.

    Pablo (99243e)

  118. Great Banana – Well said. The irony of it is that many of them claim that there is a right wing bias, which is laughable on its face. I read on another blog yesterday that CNN was just asking the hard questions that the rest of the media, like Russert and Mathews, would not. Not only do they approve, they saw this as a means of catching up on their perceived bias in the media.

    JD (00210f)

  119. Do you know what political influence is? The evidence is in his records — an “honorable discharge”, when compared to the rest of his records, is really proof of nothing more than the existence of political influence.

    The lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy.

    JD (00210f)

  120. “What is funny is you actually take moronic statements like that at face value.”

    What is funny is you actually claim to know how I think and what I believe.

    There’s a script you neo-fascists have for “Liberals” and everythign I say and do is supposed to follow it. When it doesn’t, you pay no attention and simply repeat your boilerplate talking points.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  121. It is all about the butsex with David. Once he gets off (ewww) of that point, he tends to become less and less coherent.

    JD (00210f)

  122. There’s a script you neo-fascists

    You write that and seriously believe you are arguing in good faith? Or that you are not simply spewing liberal cliches? Please. that one-liner (combined with many more you have spewed) only demonstrates that you are not actively engaged in honest debate about the facts, but are simply a troll who only believes “facts” given to him by fellow liberals and accepts arguments based on the same without any serious consideration or analysis.

    there are good faith arguments to be made against conservative arguments, but you are not making them, and calling us “fascists” demonstrates not only your level of bad faith, but lack of intelligence.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  123. you neo-fascists

    I resent that, David. I am more of a Stalinist. Socially conservative, strongly nationalistic, but in favor of the State controlling and using the nation’s wealth for the greatest good for the greatest number. ;)

    nk (09a321)

  124. Me, I’m more of a neo-anarchist…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  125. Man… from reading this thread I can think of no words that make the commenters here disengage the brain faster than “liberal” and “conservative”.

    All you have to do to get people to start disgorging heaps of BS generalizations is to say something like “I thought liberal hated money” or “conservatives lack the spirt of inquiry that liberals embrace” etc. etc. etc.

    The most hilarious part is that the partisans in both “camps” accuse each other of exactly the same things…..and all the while they are doing the things they accuse the “other side” of doing.

    Those words (lib, con) have been rendered useless for description or discourse. The joke is on anyone who keeps on using them for…well for whatever.

    EdWood (70a60b)

  126. Today is a new day. I haven’t decided what to be yet. Is this a great country or what!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  127. Me? I’m a radical moderate.

    Pablo (99243e)

  128. What is funny is you actually claim to know how I think and what I believe.

    It’s pretty easy to discern based on what you write.

    I know you “smart” liberals like to pretend you’re all such deep thinkers and all, but again, it’s pretty easy to see what you believe.

    Especially when I’m able to read your comments.

    Not terribly complicated.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  129. Lukasiak, you are indeed just making up stuff. Your complete rewrite of the history of welfare reform in the ’90′s being a hilarious example. I can’t figure out what is more frightening, that you believe what you write here, or that you think we will.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  130. #130 Haw Haw Haw, Amen to that.

    EdWood (70a60b)

  131. Dave E:

    One really can’t help but wonder what programs you utilize to sound like such a nonsensical boilerplate. You demonstrate what VOR is talking about, manical leftwingnuts who can’t see reality and are equipped with blinders to insure that reality doesn’t intrude. Just one question are you and VOR Siamese twins.

    Rarely have I read such tripe and a defense of poltroonism highlighted by such sanctimony. But agitprop does bring back fond memories of the infantilization of thought when Krushechev used his shoes as debating instruments in the place of rational thought.

    Is there anyway you can have you own sitcom with VOR? I can see it now “two halves of a brain” or “Lost in Infancy” or “Feral but fake.”

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  132. Again, how a week changes things,

    “This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates,” said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. “We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates.”

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  133. Rarely have I read such tripe and a defense of poltroonism highlighted by such sanctimony. But agitprop does bring back fond memories of the infantilization of thought when Krushechev used his shoes as debating instruments in the place of rational thought.

    Anyone who writes a sentence like that shouldn’t accuse others of having half of a brain.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  134. “It’s pretty easy to discern based on what you write.

    I know you “smart” liberals like to pretend you’re all such deep thinkers and all, but again, it’s pretty easy to see what you believe.

    Especially when I’m able to read your comments.

    Not terribly complicated.”

    OK, Ace. Who am I? What do you actually know about me?

    I’m all eyes.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  135. Because you’re now talking to yourself.

    No one else is interested.

    WLS (dfa1f1)

  136. OK, Ace. Who am I? What do you actually know about me?

    I’ll take a stab at it. I’m not Ace, nor do I comment often, but read the site quite often and figured you out some time ago.

    You’re a self-loathing gay who sees every social or political issue/process through the prism of sexual identity. You’ve decided contrary to available evidence that the Democratic party is the champion of gays, and, more in line with available evidence, it is the party that is more likely to also apply the prism of sexual identity to social or political issues/processes, which is fine by you as long as the application of sexual identity politics is limited to democratic gays, not republican or conservative gays.

    In order to conflate the three contradictory positions, you partition people into two groups, democrats and evil conservatives, and make shit up to support the partitioning. It doesn’t work. It makes you appear stupid. It underlines your self-loathing bigotry.

    Just Passing Through (d7a06d)

  137. Wow, that was breathtaking!

    Now read my Latest FaBlog: Kerr-Fuffle. Then visit the rest of my website to find out why your hysterical neo-fascit fantasies bear no relation to actual reality.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  138. Uh, “hysterical neo-fascist” pretty much confirms JPT’s analysis regardless of what you’ve posted elsewhere, David. Frankly, the schtick got old.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  139. David E. – You must be pretty desperate for traffic on your blog to beg for traffic on it by commenting over here.

    Are you still relevant?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  140. Wow, that was breathtaking!

    We aim to please.

    Now read my Latest FaBlog: Kerr-Fuffle. Then visit the rest of my website to find out why your hysterical neo-fascit fantasies bear no relation to actual reality.

    Nope. Like I said, I’ve read enough from you on this site to form my opinion of your quality. Why would I want to follow links to the sort of information that promotes it or go to your website and wade through more of it? I haven’t followed a one of your links or visited your website up until now and have no intention of breaking a perfect record.

    As a matter of fact, I find it odd that you and others like you who go through the effort of visiting other sites to promote your nonsense would assume anyone would want to trace the history of whatever your issues are.

    Like I said, I’ve figured you out and decided you’ve nothing to offer. Some time ago.

    Just Passing Through (d7a06d)

  141. David E.

    Tsk, tsk. You know the people here aren’t neo-fascists.

    To others: Pssssst: David E.’s really a puddytat in person, but he feels the need to roar in cyberspace.

    Here’s David E. from our humble Swamp:

    As you know I’ve met Patterico and quite like him personally. We “bonded” over the Phil Spector case, as we both agreed on how it should be prosecuted. Naturally there’s little else we agree so easily on. His campaign against the LAT is interesting in that his points are often quite well-taken, sometimes marginal and sometimes just freelance complaining.

    Sorry, David E., that I outed you as a reasonable observer!

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  142. Yeah, some of his stuff is for show, I think. Not that it’s not sincere, but I think he finds different ways to express himself depending upon the venue and his mood. Like the rest of us — but waaay more extreme.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  143. I like him. He’s bright and educated. A little bit extreme on gay issues and his site is NSFW. He would have been good subtly insulting King Edward VII alongside GBS and Oscar Wilde while seeming to fawn up to him.

    nk (09a321)

  144. He’s ready to work the wrinkle room.

    daleyrocks (906622)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9602 secs.