Patterico's Pontifications

3/17/2009

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:47 am

The Politico catches up to Mickey Kaus with the story of left-wing bloggers and journalists, chatting it up in a giant, off-the-record discussion web site:

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

The piece notes that Mickey Kaus has written about the list before, and indeed he has, calling it the “Klein Klub.” Back in 2007 (nearly two years before this piece! all hail the speed of blogs!), Mickey wrote this post questioning the lack of transparency here:

If the Klein Klub succeeds, isn’t there a threat that it will a) compromise independence, in part because participants will always worry if they are using something that should be kept private and will feel they owe the other members; b) will encourage groupthink, as everyone works out the tacit party line before presenting it to their sheeple-like readers; c) encourage propgandism (see (b)); and d) become the place where the real conversation happens, a conversation the non-elite public isn’t privy to. … P.P.S.: Who’s in the Klein Klub? Have they published a list of names? The sheeple demand to know at least that! … P.P.P.S.: Chait, I know you’re in it. Who else? …

The one value that Politico could have given would have been to provide a list of names. We demand names! The piece gives us: Krugman, Jeff Toobin, Eric Alterman, and New Republic editor John Judis as among the journalists (word used guardedly) who belong to the Klub. It’s no real surprise that these guys consort with other left-wingers . . . is it?

I don’t want to suggest that any off-the-record discussions — even regular ones — between journalists and bloggers are suspect. Every month I am lucky enough to be a part of a gathering of writers at the Yamashiro restaurant. Mickey attends. The discussions are off the record.

But — and I think this is key — it’s a mixture of left-wingers, right-wingers, centrists, and any other category you can think of. In 2007 Jill Stewart (also an attendee) wrote a piece about it which I quoted in this post. Jill said:

The late conservative journalist Cathy Seipp was a regular, but her friend, liberal French blogger and detective-in-training Emmanuelle Richard, is also at home in the group. [Host Scott] Kaufer detests political litmus tests and loves to see strange bedfellows getting along.

So, you might see Mickey or Ann Coulter; but you also might see Arianna Huffington or people from the L.A. Times.

Ultimately, a bunch of left-wingers indoctrinating one another is hardly any surprise — and I saw no names among those appearing in the Politico piece who pretend to be objective journalists. (Toobin doesn’t, does he?) As long as no purportedly objective journalist is a member of this apparently reliably left-wing group, I don’t see a huge problem, beyond the legitimate issues raised by Mickey in his 2007 post.

But then, how can I know that without the names?!?!

297 Responses to “The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy”

  1. Let’s hope one of the members forgets the BCC function.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  2. No fair! The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was supposed to have been the one with all the media-types and evil wingnut bloggers consulting each other and refining an overall message!

    Techie (9c008e)

  3. What a scandal. Liberals meet!

    Andrew (df52d5)

  4. Perhaps every journalist should be asked if they are now, or have ever been a member ….

    The profession is so corrupt now that I’ll just assume bias unless proven otherwise. Roll on the death of newspapers!

    Evil Pundit (43faaa)

  5. Gee, Andrew, didn’t you read the part where Patterico said:

    As long as no purportedly objective journalist is a member of this apparently reliably left-wing group, I don’t see a huge problem, beyond the legitimate issues raised by Mickey in his 2007 post.

    Apparently he’s not scandalized by this. Nor am I.

    Steverino (69d941)

  6. Revealed—the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy…

    I’m just going to skip ahead and cite the most relevant part of this article:

    Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-r…

    Snapped Shot (cdefb5)

  7. Steverino, I’m not scandalized by it, either, but it puts the lie to any claims of objectivity on the part of the participants. Yet how much do you want to bet that the next time you see Alterman et al, they’re going to yammer on about how middle of the road and nonpartisan they are. They’re liars. Period. And they have been their whole careers.

    danebramage (756d38)

  8. It’s just an incredible and amazing coincidence that the left side of the blogosphere comes out with the same stories and same talking points simultaneously. There is obviously no group think involved. The daily conference calls highlighted in an earlier Politico story obviously have no effect on coverage either. The Left-Kult Perpetual Outrage and Victimology circle jerk is an imaginary phenomenon and the myth of a liberal media is indeed just a myth.

    The delay in the left reacting to news events is not caused by the effort to coordinate talking points, but merely the layers and layers of careful editing they always subject rheir thoughts to.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. I’m not scandalized by it, either, mostly because Kaus previously reported on it, just as Zengerle blogged about the Townhouse at TNR (though that post seems to have been disappeared, you can find references with Teh Google). It’s who they are and what they do.

    However, given the amount of time and pixels spent over the past couple of weeks devoted to debating intentionalism and framing The Narrative, the combination of (a) media attacks coordinated by the White House; (b) massive daily conference calls of Lefty interest groups coordinated by the Soros gang; and (c) the cozy relationship of political reporters (if there are “straight” newsfolks involved, you can bet they were not going to talk to Calderone) ought to at least factored into the mix, as the ability to frame The Narrative, attack enemies of the Left and distort their words, etc. is enhanced by these components of the Left’s echo chamber.

    That Jim Cramer was a big news story last week — as Limbaugh was two weeks ago — is an indicator of how this works. That multiple media outlets “spontaneously” settle on the same smears of people like Bobby Jindal is an indicator of how this works. That the latest Pew poll has people thinking that Obama is listening too much to the Left in Congress, when in fact it’s Dems urging him to focus on the economy instead of the New New Deal is an indicator of how this works. That only a few isolated stories in the establishment media touch on the growing sentiment among Democrats that Obama may be in over his head is an indicator of how this works.

    Again, I’m not scandalized by any of it, because I expect it. It’s like the weather. But I’m mildly surprised that Patterico (and Ed Morrissey at HotAir) are so dismissive of the weather. It seems to me you have to understand your environment if you hope to operate successfully in it.

    Karl (f07e38)

  10. It’s always a pleasure to read the fiercely independent opinions of the left moving in virtual lockstep logic to the same conclusions.

    Statistically it’s like a monkey writing a book, right?

    Heh!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  11. Well, Bobby Gibbs is lecturing us about the “Republican Cabal”, so I’m glad matters have been cleared up.

    Techie (9c008e)

  12. “Again, I’m not scandalized by any of it, because I expect it.”

    Karl – I’m not scandalized by it either because it’s so obvious it’s been happening. When you look across the similarity of talking points used by TV talking heads across networks, disparate bloggers and journalists, it’s too tough to miss that a majot effort at message coordination has been occurring.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  13. Is there any part of the left-wing, liberal, or Democratic complaints about the right, conservative, or Republican thought, speech, or action that is not just a psychological projection of what they are doing themselves?

    htom (412a17)

  14. When other businesses do this, it’s called a cartel.

    Seriously — aren’t journalists supposed to be in competition with each other? Don’t they blame about 75% of their screw-ups on the “pressure” to get the scoop, to compete?

    It’s a complete line of bull. They don’t compete, except perhaps to see who can be more of a lickspittle.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  15. I don’t care about reliably left wing writers getting together to get their stories straight. I would like to know who the MSM reporters are so we can tag their stories.

    At least we haven’t gone this far yet.

    Anyone who leaves the country by land, sea, or air is to have the trip recorded, which involves tracking 250 million journeys annually. At least 24 hours ahead of the journey, travelers will have to supply addresses, credit card details, and exact itineraries (quite often impossible, of course). This information will be stored for ten years. Preposterously, the purpose is said to be catching terrorists as they leave for home in après-bomb mood. What will actually happen is bureaucratic oppression and loss of liberty on a yet more unprecedented scale for everyone law-abiding.

    Britain in the age of Obama/Brown. I wonder how long before we see this sort of thing. The military brass story is a hint of the O would like to do.

    MIke K (90939b)

  16. Patterico: “Ultimately, a bunch of left-wingers indoctrinating one another is hardly any surprise.”

    Rob Crawford (9:11 am): “When other businesses do this, it’s called a cartel.”

    And when a group of, ahem, “intellectuals” do this it is called an Arts & Science Faculty.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  17. Politico implies that “objective” journalists are in the gang.

    It’s what Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent”.

    Also there’s this line: “Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.””

    So they’re inviting us to assume that anything that these people say in public is uncandorous, insincere, dissembling etc.

    zywotkowitz (33b38b)

  18. Politico implies that “objective” journalists are in the gang.

    Actually, Patterico expressed his disapproval of supposedly objective journalists being involved in the gang.

    It’s one thing for a bunch of columnists, whose leanings are known, to engage in this discussion. It’s another for reporters, who are supposed to be above their biases, to do so.

    Steverino (69d941)

  19. But remember, it’s we evil Republicans who get our daily talking points memo.

    The reich-wing Dana (3e4784)

  20. We have known this, on a gut level, for some time now. You can look back to the Gleeeeeeeeens and their Townhouse group. The obvious coordination of the messages from the campaign/Admin on down has been apparent for years.

    The unintentional irony of the Leftist always claiming that there are nefarious right wing conspiracies, coordination of messages, etc … makes this even more entertaining.

    JD (df4164)

  21. I love all the lurid implications of what goes on in these discussions, and what results from them, from a group that lacks a single person who has a clue what does go on there.

    How do you people sleep at night?

    Miracle Max (9d8751)

  22. It is a Miracle if Max remembers to exhale after inhaling.

    JD (a4e58a)

  23. I didn’t see any “lurid” implications, merely that lefties talking in their echo chamber prefer that it be hermetically sealed. So that they can feel free to speak with candor.

    Politico implies that “objective” journalists are in the gang.

    Yes he did – “working journalists” to be precise.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  24. Not that anyone would infer nefarious movites to, say, a group of radio talk show hosts visiting the White House

    I’m sure they were there to receive their Action Alerts, or whatever the conglomerate of conservative talk radio hosts call them. We all know they work from one huge list of talking points that are handed down to them from the White House.,

    or an energy summit with the VP…or things like taht.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  25. Not that anyone would infer nefarious movites to, say, a group of radio talk show hosts visiting the White House

    I’m sure they were there to receive their Action Alerts, or whatever the conglomerate of conservative talk radio hosts call them. We all know they work from one huge list of talking points that are handed down to them from the White House.,

    or an energy summit with the VP…or things like that.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  26. Hey guys we just talk a bit , this isn’t anything like that TownHall thing the nutroots have.

    TRUST US

    NRO waterboards them and they cry a lot

    DayTrader (ea6549)

  27. Well, I think it is great that these Leading Lights of Liberalism have a support-group to fall back onto while the MSM slowly self-destructs – they will be able to email each other the talking points that no one will ever hear when the last light is switched off.

    What’s the current waiting-period for the closure of the CHRON?
    Can the Tribune/LAT be far behind?
    Is there enough “alternative media” in major urban centers to employ the uprooted?

    AD - RtR/OS (cf92f2)

  28. Carlitos – It is different. Their intentions are pure.

    JD (a4e58a)

  29. However, given the amount of time and pixels spent over the past couple of weeks devoted to debating intentionalism and framing The Narrative, the combination of (a) media attacks coordinated by the White House; (b) massive daily conference calls of Lefty interest groups coordinated by the Soros gang; and (c) the cozy relationship of political reporters (if there are “straight” newsfolks involved, you can bet they were not going to talk to Calderone) ought to at least factored into the mix, as the ability to frame The Narrative, attack enemies of the Left and distort their words, etc. is enhanced by these components of the Left’s echo chamber.

    Because any forum in which editors of The Nation and The New Republic talk about Israel is likely to be an echo chamber. I think you’re better off sticking with the “there might be people who don’t work for patently liberal opinion journals who belong” angle, because the idea that there is “The Narrative” and that these long-warring factions within the left both subscribe to it is ludicrous. What next, concentration camps for conservatives?

    SEK (072055)

  30. NRO notes that the big problem in terms of ‘fairness.’ If liberal activists can access mainstream journalists by merely sending an email to a list that that journalist has opted into, and is likely to read, that begs the question what hoops conservative activists have to jump through to push news in the so-called MSM. The answer is blogs and talk radio, but increasingly we seem to be opting into separate (but unequal) media.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  31. I’m not scandalized by the fact of marital infidelity, because I know it happens all the time. That doesn’t mean I was happy when I caught Irina with that kid from the Geek Squad.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  32. Carlitos

    Then how do you feel about the annual summit meeting the nutroots and the Dems put together?

    DayTrader (ea6549)

  33. The abject projection in all of this, in a normal world, should be breath taking. Sadly, no.

    JD (a4e58a)

  34. The narrative conformity whine doesn’t wash. This is a list of journalists and academics.

    If the list included DNC leaders and money donors, you’d have something approaching the vast right-wing conspiracy on your hands. But it’s just journalists and policy wonks.

    Moreover, if ideological rigidity marks liberals, why would such a meeting place have any significance?

    You should decide whether you want to stereotype liberals as impressionable or inflexible, since calling them both requires too much contortion.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  35. […] Erick’s blog, The Corner, Newshoggers.com, Little Green Footballs, Grasping Reality …, Patterico’s Pontifications, Open Left, NewsBusters.org, PoliGazette, AmSpecBlog, Ben Smith’s Blog, Right Wing News and […]

    That Liberal Echo Chamber? Yeah, It’s Real » Pirate’s Cove (6f92d7)

  36. No Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, Leftist Journalist Says

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (badb95)

  37. The narrative conformity whine doesn’t wash. This is a list of journalists and academics.

    Nothing to see here, folks, move along. No, those journalists aren’t coordinating their stories. Nope, nope, can’t happen.

    If the list included DNC leaders and money donors, you’d have something approaching the vast right-wing conspiracy on your hands.

    In fact, I think you’re the ones who are coordinating your stories. Yeah, that’s the ticket: you conservatives are the vast conspiracy.

    Your logic is as straight as a Silly Straw

    Steverino (69d941)

  38. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. No, those journalists aren’t coordinating their stories.

    If you pay attention to Patrick’s post, that’s what he’s saying. All that can be proven is self-identified liberals and leftists who write for openly liberal publications (or editorialize from a transparently liberal position) belong to a listserv. Note, however, the lack of government involvement, because we’re not talking about the Pentagon sending “objective” analysts to argue the Pentagon line or anything.

    SEK (072055)

  39. But it’s just journalists and policy wonks.

    But no conservatives. Why do you suppose that is? If it were “just journalists and policy wonks” you’d think it would be open to all manner of same.

    Pablo (99243e)

  40. Note, however, the lack of government involvement, because we’re not talking about the Pentagon sending “objective” analysts to argue the Pentagon line or anything.

    Is Stephanopoulous involved? We know that he, like Carville and Begala, are getting the daily talking points from the White House Chief of Staff.

    LOOK! RUSH LIMBAUGH!! Also, DICK CHENEY!!!

    Pablo (99243e)

  41. And the article readily admits that at the very least, a few stories percolated from their candid discussions. This is the epitome of an echo chamber, pushing a narrative, that just so happens to benefit the Leftist side of the aisle. It surprises me, no in the least, that Hacks, and sadly SEK, would defend this.

    JD (df4164)

  42. There’s no evidence that anyone is “coordinating” stories via this list. The fact that only a couple of story ideas have emerged from the group shows that any coordination is exceptional and, most likely, coincidental.

    These journalists are competing with each other and are not about to give up their good stuff by broadcasting it to the group before its published.

    But even if this list group was an attempt to “coordinate” stories, what in the world would be wrong with that?

    Yet again, conservatives here seem to believe there’s something wrong with liberals having a voice at all.

    America has plenty of conservative journalists, right-wing think tanks and billionaires aplenty ready to fund conservative newspapers, cable TV and blogs. Yet that’s just not enough for some right-wing whiners.

    They’ll never be happy unless there are no liberal voices anywhere to bust their rap.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  43. Mendoucheity at its finest

    JD (979402)

  44. Hax said:

    The narrative conformity whine doesn’t wash. This is a list of journalists and academics.

    If the list included DNC leaders and money donors, you’d have something approaching the vast right-wing conspiracy on your hands. But it’s just journalists and policy wonks.

    Moreover, if ideological rigidity marks liberals, why would such a meeting place have any significance?

    You should decide whether you want to stereotype liberals as impressionable or inflexible, since calling them both requires too much contortion.

    Did you read the Politico story? The few that commented pretty much admitted that the whole point of the site was to reinforce their already established mind set.

    It also confirms what we already knew. Why do the same attacks, sometimes even the same words, appear spontaneously in the media?

    It’s just journalists and policy wonks. Really. Sorry, but just who in the heck do you think guides policy — on both sides of the political spectrum?

    I don’t want to stereotype liberals as impressionable or inflexible. I was going to write an insult, but I changed my mind.

    Instead, I have a question: Can anyone name one, just one new idea the left has had in the past five years? Heck, 10 years? Please tell me one thing that they have done that is “progressive.”

    Ag80 (d205da)

  45. Hax Vobiscum : Please enumerate those conservative journalists, right-wing think tanks and billionaires who are funding conservative newspapers, cable TV and blogs. Then compare those numbers to the left-wing journalists, left-wing think tanks and billionaires who are funding liberal newspapers, cable TV and blogs. Also, could you please devote some time to the relative proportion of conservative/liberal educators in our schools.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  46. And the article readily admits that at the very least, a few stories percolated from their candid discussions. This is the epitome of an echo chamber, pushing a narrative, that just so happens to benefit the Leftist side of the aisle.

    Yes, a few blog posts by Eric Alterman and a “Talk of the Town” piece by Jeffrey Toobin. Seriously, JD, you act like the worst sort of student: everything that confirms your preconceptions is accepted as true and damning, even if it is openly liberal writers writing for openly liberal publications discussing stuff amongst themselves. If you thought about this like a person instead of an ideologue, you’d realize how unexceptional this is. Let me put it in a way you might be able to understand:

    I belong to a secret cabal of baseball fans who write and discuss SABRmetrics. A lot of ideas that are floated and numbers that are crunched end up being published in SABRmetrics-friendly forums by writers associated with the SABRmetrics movement. But they want a forum in which to test out and refine those ideas — to have eyeballs on them so that, when released to the general public, they can present the strongest version of their argument. The published versions account for the vigorous objections of other members of the listserv. The only way in which “the narrative” is being pushed is the completely obvious one, i.e. that a SABRmetrician produces SABRmetric analysis. Now, I’m sure some of the old school “Guts and Glory” crowd — a.k.a. the Society for the Preservation of Derek Jeter’s Defensive Reputation — hate the fact that they can’t join in the discussion, even though their “contributions” would consist entirely of long rants about how the rest of the listserv dehumanizes the game, &c. Why would we want to let such critics in?

    Similarly, if a group of patently liberal bloggers, scholars, and writers wants a forum in which they can bat around ideas, &c. &c. &c.

    But please, resume your paranoid outrage.*

    *I reserve the right to change my opinion if it turns out that non-partisan members of the media are involved. But as the facts currently stand, this is my position.

    SEK (072055)

  47. Hax said:

    Yet again, conservatives here seem to believe there’s something wrong with liberals having a voice at all.

    You really don’t get the point, do you?

    Liberals have a voice. I don’t know if you noticed, but the President of the United States is a liberal. His buddies and advisers have a daily phone call with the managing editor of the Washington D.C. bureau of ABC News.

    This isn’t about who gets a voice and who doesn’t. It’s about transparency and disclosure. If you can’t see that, you’re lost.

    And I’m done with you.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  48. Since we’re assured by our totally non-biased journalist @ #34 there’s nothing untoward going on at JournoList, they’ll undoubtedly open their doors to non-leftist types.

    Indeed, since the JournaListas have absolutely nothing to hide, they will undoubtedly be glad to let everyone know what they’re discussing, just to prove there’s no frightful conspiracy to set agendas. They’d be the first to tell us sunshine the best disinfectant!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (2871ba)

  49. I’m more inclined to agree with SEK and even the sane first few lines in most of Hax’ posts — I don’t think that it’s a cabal pushing talking points. As I said before, the problem is the assumption that mainstream news reporters aren’t on the list. I’d bet the farm that they are. 3 reporters from politico alone? You know that there are editors, bureau chiefs, white house reporters, etc. on that list. It’s not so much that they are getting talking points, it’s that they are continuing to avoid a point of view outside the Beltway / Manhattan crowd. e.g., I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.

    Which is fine, as is pointing out that some very influential left-of-center minds are speaking to each other and excluding dissenting (right-leaning) voices. And they want to keep it that way. Every moment they spend on this list is another moment that they didn’t attend a PTA meeting in Crown Point or a state fair in Kansas or a gun show in Texas. For the most part, their contempt shows and is costing them eyeballs in the long run.

    News flash – right-wing blogs, talk shows, cable networks, and newspapers are in public view, and allow public comment. Unlike this list, that allows them to polish their arguments against real opposing views on all topics. Even if the comments sections are 80% echo chamber, the 20% is whole-hearted dissent (sometimes just for the fun of arguing :) )

    carlitos (4402ad)

  50. If you pay attention to Patrick’s post, that’s what he’s saying.

    No, he’s not saying that nobody’s coordinating their stories. In fact, Patrick says one of his reservations is the encouragement of groupthink and the lack of independence. Here’s what he said (my emphasis):

    I don’t see a huge problem, beyond the legitimate issues raised by Mickey in his 2007 post.

    He does say that he’s not particularly scandalized by the whole thing. I’m not either. But Hax’s claim that the thought of narrative conformity is invalid is wishful thinking at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  51. You really don’t get the point, do you?

    That’s assuming it’s trying to get the point. But the troll is really trying to prevent others from getting the point, by throwing out ink clouds of misdirection like an octopus and pretending not to understand.

    The closer you get to the heart of the issue, the more ink clouds the trollapus will desperately squirt.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (2871ba)

  52. “ right-wing blogs, talk shows, cable networks, and newspapers are in public view, and allow public comment.”

    Not even close.

    Rush, the dominant talk show host, allows zero dissent. ZERO. The feeble Alan Colmes-meets-Pauly Shores left wingnuts the call screeners allow on his show serve only as obvious shills — and even then Rush cuts them off should they start to get any traction.

    Fox: same story. Since when did Bill O’Reilly, their biggest star, go mano-a-mano with anyone. He controls the mike and unabashedly prohibits guests he just doesn’t like.

    Right wing blogs? You’ve got to be kidding. Almost all of them rigorously ban liberals. The only way you’d ever be allowed to hang around all but a handful of rightist blogs is by playing the super-stupid liberal act, so the regulars could feel they have the upper hand.

    And where does Ag get that Kaus’s whine is about “transparency and disclosure?”

    To whom should these list members be disclosing their participation? The HUAC?

    Sorry, this is all about some conservatives intellectual inferiority complex. Liberal opinionating makes them feel dumb and they really hate them for that…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  53. And once again, I’m reminded why one should not engage the ill-informed, irrational professional contrarians. Again, apologies to the commentariat.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  54. But it’s just journalists and policy wonks.

    But it’s not just journos and policy wonks – and you know it.

    I would like to think that journalists whose credibility rests on working for publications that represent themselves as objective news outlets as well as very influential civil-service employees would see the problem in granting exclusive access to people with a specific political agenda. Even the appearance that the news, let alone actual policies that affect all Americans, are being shaped disproportionately by reporters and unelected civil servants in the thrall of ideological crusaders is a problem.

    (emph. added)

    Dana (137151)

  55. “The only way you’d ever be allowed to hang around all but a handful of rightist blogs is by playing the super-stupid liberal act”

    Hax – Since you’re a lousy actor, this must be your confession of being super stupid.

    The beauty of an Own Goal!!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  56. The amount of Democrat corruption is astonishing.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  57. Reactionary leftists: a thundering herd of independent thinkers.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  58. “Even the appearance that the news, let alone actual policies that affect all Americans, are being shaped disproportionately by reporters and unelected civil servants in the thrall of ideological crusaders is a problem.”

    I love the way this part lets all the paranoia hang out.

    God forbid the news should be shaped “disproportionately” by reporters. Worse, of course, would be the “appearance” that journalists are letting themselves decide what to write.

    Why not just call them the “new Illuminati?” and get it over with…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  59. The monkey is dancing faster and faster.

    I wonder if it’s wearing a crash helmet.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  60. Whorespondents is better than Illuminati.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  61. Hax said:

    And where does Ag get that Kaus’s whine is about “transparency and disclosure?”

    To whom should these list members be disclosing their participation? The HUAC?

    Well, uh, to their readers, perhaps.

    I don’t believe there is a HUAC anymore. Nonetheless, why in the world would Congress be involved. We’re talking about ethics, not legality.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  62. RUSH: Yeah, but, see, you already started. In the first call, you said I wasn’t going to be happy after talking to you. That’s the first clue I had you’re a liberal. The second thing is you then hit me with this gobbledygook image that we don’t take liberals on this show, when that’s not true. Now, you’re here, and you’ve been held on through the break, you’re going to be given all the time you want to say whatever you want including —

    CALLER: Wait a minute, why are you so angry? I didn’t get upset at you.

    RUSH: I am not angry. I’m frustrated. You sound like an intelligent woman —

    CALLER: I am a very intelligent woman.

    RUSH: Well, then you need to do something about your level of education and understanding, ’cause this program does not restrict liberals from appearing.

    CALLER: I didn’t say that you restrict. Did I use that word?

    RUSH: You did too.

    CALLER: I did not.

    RUSH: Here we go. You said, I’m so happy, I’m excited you would have a liberal on the show.

    CALLER: I said because I hadn’t heard them. Excuse me! I hadn’t heard.

    RUSH: Even though you said you listen every day. I warn you, do not debate my memory. Do not debate my facts.

    CALLER: I listen to you every day.

    RUSH: You will lose.

    CALLER: That’s why I’m not a Dittohead.

    RUSH: You must not listen all day every day because we have liberals call here all the time. I can understand why you’d want to maybe forget them. They’re not the most memorable phone calls, but nevertheless they do call, and we put ’em to the front of the line. Do you realize there are four people on hold who have been holding longer than you, but because you’re a liberal you got through.

    CALLER: Well, I don’t want to have any kind of preference. I would just rather just call and be in line. I don’t want to be a liberal.RUSH: Back now to Carol in Baltimore. We have a little bit more time now, Carol. I appreciate your holding on through the break.

    CALLER: Well, thank you. I’m just excited that you would even have a liberal on your radio show.

    RUSH: Well, we have ’em on each and every time they call.

    CALLER: Well, I’ve never heard a liberal call in. I listen to your show every day.

    RUSH: No, then that’s not possible.

    CALLER: Well, it is.

    RUSH: Now, wait a minute. I don’t want to waste time arguing facts here.

    CALLER: Okay, we won’t argue.

    RUSH: Please don’t hit me with these —

    CALLER: We won’t argue because I’m not going to go there.

    RUSH: Yeah, but, see, you already started. In the first call, you said I wasn’t going to be happy after talking to you. That’s the first clue I had you’re a liberal. The second thing is you then hit me with this gobbledygook image that we don’t take liberals on this show, when that’s not true. Now, you’re here, and you’ve been held on through the break, you’re going to be given all the time you want to say whatever you want including —

    CALLER: Wait a minute, why are you so angry? I didn’t get upset at you.

    RUSH: I am not angry. I’m frustrated. You sound like an intelligent woman —

    CALLER: I am a very intelligent woman.

    RUSH: Well, then you need to do something about your level of education and understanding, ’cause this program does not restrict liberals from appearing.

    CALLER: I didn’t say that you restrict. Did I use that word?

    RUSH: You did too.

    CALLER: I did not.

    RUSH: Here we go. You said, I’m so happy, I’m excited you would have a liberal on the show.

    CALLER: I said because I hadn’t heard them. Excuse me! I hadn’t heard.

    RUSH: Even though you said you listen every day. I warn you, do not debate my memory. Do not debate my facts.

    CALLER: I listen to you every day.

    RUSH: You will lose.

    CALLER: That’s why I’m not a Dittohead.

    RUSH: You must not listen all day every day because we have liberals call here all the time. I can understand why you’d want to maybe forget them. They’re not the most memorable phone calls, but nevertheless they do call, and we put ’em to the front of the line. Do you realize there are four people on hold who have been holding longer than you, but because you’re a liberal you got through.

    CALLER: Well, I don’t want to have any kind of preference. I would just rather just call and be in line. I don’t want to be a liberal.

    RUSH: Gee Whiz! My God. All right, I’ll tell you what, we’re gonna put you on hold, and we’ll put the other three people ahead of you. Just hang on; we’ll come back. Who’s next? Where are we going next? She wanted it, folks. She wanted it. She wants equal treatment, fine, she doesn’t want any preferential treatment.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (2871ba)

  63. At least monkeys could construct a well-written paragraph, rather than a rant filled with non-sequitur blanket generalizations of one line each. I mean, if we wanted that stuff, we could turn on Rachel Maddow for 10 minutes and be done with it.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  64. Bradley, you could post 1000 examples; it would only shift the goalposts. I was about to link half a dozen hour-long podcasts of right-wing talk shows featuring opposing opinion, but there is no point. The ones worth googling are Dennis Prager and Howard Zinn, Prager “The Authoritarian Republican,” Hugh Hewitt’s longform series with Thomas PM Barnett, and for amusement Michael Medved’s disagreement day or ‘conspiracy day.’ John Gibson, like many others, holds liberal callers over the break, something that they never do with conservative callers. I don’t watch O’Reilly much, but there always seem to be 2 analysts – one from each side – when I flip by.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  65. Then again, here we go comparing a closed, liberal-only email list to the PUBLIC AIRWAVES and blogs with comment sections. God, but this asshole loves to shift the argument.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  66. If Rush wanted liberal opinions on his show, he’d have on Al Franken, or Michael Kinsley, or Ezra Klein or any one of hundreds of sharp, informed commentators.

    Instead, he lets the occasional rank amateur through.

    I’m happy Rush can make a living offering unopposed opinions for 99.9 percent of his show, and only accepting challenges from nobodies. He’s a major reason swing voters are so turned off to conservatism.

    But let’s not pretend his show is any kind of open ideological forum.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  67. “We’re talking about ethics.”

    What could possibly be unethical about subscribing to an email list of colleagues who’s worldview you like?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  68. carlitos,
    I’m not posting for the trollapus, but for any readers who might wonder if it’s telling the truth. The trollapus won’t stray from its talking points; but observers can be amused as it runs away from facts and desperately tries to generate distraction.

    LOOK! KARL ROVE!!

    Now I’m out for some Irish music. Good evening to you all!

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  69. “He’s a major reason swing voters are so turned off to conservatism.”

    Said national political campaign advisor ______ or discredited bicycle repair man Hax.

    Keep dancing monkey!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  70. Comment by daleyrocks — 3/17/2009 @ 6:16 pm

    You can deny it or joke about it all you want, but Hax is absolutely right. Rush does not appeal to swing voters. Keep in mind that not all of his audience loves him.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  71. If Rush wanted liberal opinions on his show, he’d have on Al Franken …

    I can state, without a shadow of a doubt, that I would turn on Rush and listen were alfuckingfranken to call in. All of these Leftists with all of these stones, yet none of them ever get around to calling in. Barcky has an invitation, but he has not bothered to do so yet.

    SEK – There is a fundamental difference between wanting something to be true, and knowing that something is true. That the media “leans” left is not something I want to be true, it is true. That they coordinate their message and work with the White House on their talking points is just an added bonus.

    JD (df4164)

  72. Edpa – I can tell that you and Hax speak for swing voters all over the country and can peer directly into their souls. Hax up there in the land of assless chaps and you in the Poconos. Seriously.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  73. EfP drops by to fling feces.

    JD (df4164)

  74. Juicebox mafia wunderkind Wzra Klein fesses up to arranging the whole listserv deal a few years back and names a few interesting names, including former CBO and current White House Budget Dirctor Peter Orszag. Predictably, Klein just waves it off as nothing to see, oblivious to the potential conflicts of interest the arrangement raises, objections from PETA over the animal sacrifices, and exclusions of competing viewpoints. He’s annoyed at Politico for raising a “nonstory.”

    Wunderputz is more like it, not Wunderkind.

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  75. Edpa – I can tell that you and Hax speak for swing voters all over the country and can peer directly into their souls. Hax up there in the land of assless chaps and you in the Poconos. Seriously.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/17/2009 @ 6:30 pm

    Of course we don’t daley… but you do… right?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  76. Thanks Daley: I can always count on you to smear yourself with homoerotica.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  77. Orszag in not a journalist, is he?

    JD (df4164)

  78. Why is it that the Leftists, the folks of tolerance and love, are always the first to trot out the homosexual and homoerotica slurs?

    Orszag is involved in this. SHOCKA.

    JD (df4164)

  79. The bottom line is that something that the right is perennially accused of actually turns out to be true … but of the left.

    Projection is the only consistent behavior among the left.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  80. If Rush wanted liberal opinions on his show, he’d have on Al Franken, or Michael Kinsley, or Ezra Klein or any one of hundreds of sharp, informed commentators.

    This is not a true statement because you do not have all the facts: It is possible he has invited to his show a plethora of lefties. And it’s quite possible they have all refused quite possibly because they don’t want to be challenged on the airwaves lest they stumble and stammer before an audience of 20,000,000 listeners.

    OTH, it’s quite possible he’s had many offers from the left to go on his show and perhaps he has refused but now that I think of it, considering he has invited the President to have a public debate with him, I’m thinking this isn’t really a possibility.

    Dana (137151)

  81. “Even the appearance that the news, let alone actual policies that affect all Americans, are being shaped disproportionately by reporters and unelected civil servants in the thrall of ideological crusaders is a problem.”

    I love the way this part lets all the paranoia hang out.

    One man’s paranoia is another man’s acumen, insight and sagacity.

    Dana (137151)

  82. Orszag is part of the media, no?

    JD (df4164)

  83. It is possible he has invited to his show a plethora of lefties…

    Rush most recently invited Obama to a debate. And they haven’t done so much as throw Biden at him. But Obama is doing a TV appearance: Obama to sit down with Leno on ‘The Tonight Show’

    In a career studded with historic firsts, President Obama is preparing for yet another: hitting the late-night comedy circuit to pitch his economic recovery plan.

    It’s hardly a laughing matter, with the country in its worst economic shape in decades. And it certainly doesn’t approach the import of Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president.

    However, by taking a seat Thursday night on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Obama will become the first sitting president to appear in such an unlikely venue, erasing — perhaps once and for all — any vestige of the line that separates news from entertainment.

    You’ve got a teleprompter, right Jay?

    Pablo (99243e)

  84. Edpa – Since neither you or Hax have offered any evidence through your comments that you listen to Rush Limbaugh, how can I take any comment you make relating to him seriously? It’s just the vast irrational fear and hate of the left of people such as Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin, ginned up by the talking point makers in echo chambers such as the one that is the subject of this post.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  85. Klein fesses up to arranging the whole listserv deal a few years back and names a few interesting names, including former CBO and current White House Budget Dirctor Peter Orszag. Predictably, Klein just waves it off as nothing to see,

    This ia juat a distraction to keep Barcky from charging private insurance for war-related wounds for veterans.

    JD (df4164)

  86. I have not offered any evidence through my comments that I do not listen to Rush, daley.

    Why on earth would Obama go on the Rush Limbaugh show? That is just dumb.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  87. Then quit your fucking bitching that the Leftists that you want do not go on Rush’s show. I can guaranfuckingtee you that if Barcky, alfranken, algore, Sen. Lurch, Silky Pony, HuffPo, Hamster, or any of the other Leftists wanted to go on his show, they would not be turned away.

    JD (df4164)

  88. Hax said:

    “We’re talking about ethics.”

    What could possibly be unethical about subscribing to an email list of colleagues who’s worldview you like?

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I were still in journalism and someone wanted to know what blogs I post to, I would tell them with my real name and email address.

    Wouldn’t an objective journalist at least disclose that fact to his/her readers.

    Hax, I’m sorry, you’re apparently an intelligent person, but you’re only here to be a feeble foil. You’re like the Monty Python argument sketch, except you have no argument. Wait a second, you’re exactly like that sketch.

    And you know good and well that if I tried to make this point on Kos or FDL, I would be banned and deleted.

    Also, look over there, it’s Rush.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  89. Why is it that the Leftists, the folks of tolerance and love, are always the first to trot out the homosexual and homoerotica slurs?

    Oh, hell, that’s the least of all the phoniness and two-faced superficiality that make “progressives” such a damn joke.

    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    New York Times, December 20, 2008

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches… It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  90. Ed in PA said:

    Why on earth would Obama go on the Rush Limbaugh show? That is just dumb.

    Why in on earth would the sitting President of the United States of America go on the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno”?

    That is just dumb. He’s already the most popular human in the whole history of humans. At least on Limbaugh’s show he might get a hard question.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  91. I’m as shocked as anyone else that journalists discuss things with pundits and partisans. It truly is unbelievable.

    imdw (de7003)

  92. I never listen to Rush Limbaugh, which is one reason i don’t have to defend him. On a topic that has nothing to do with him. There are center-right media outlets with tens of millions of listeners that feature opposing viewpoints.

    HOWEVER, there is no evidence that those right-center voices are exchanging views on a private right-center-only listserv with straight news reporters.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  93. Rush has shown that he is really not interested in anything except mean-spirited BS. Or have we forgot the Michael J. Fox incident? Yeah…. what a [censored]. I don’t think it behooves Obama to legitimize Rush by going on that sh*t show.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  94. I think Rush would debate Mr. Obama any place, any time and even anywhere away from the golden EIB mic. I’m guessing while he would not need any accoutrements his opponent well, just might.

    Dana (137151)

  95. Ed in PA said:

    Rush has shown that he is really not interested in anything except mean-spirited BS. Or have we forgot the Michael J. Fox incident? Yeah…. what a [censored]. I don’t think it behooves Obama to legitimize Rush by going on that sh*t show.

    Yep, without a doubt. Just mean spirited BS.

    I’m sure you’re a good liberal, right? So tell me about Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart and Randi Rhodes, et al. I’m sure Rhodes just wanted Bush killed out of the goodness of her heart.

    What about that movie, “Death of a President.” Only good fun. I can’t remember the book title, but the one about the assassination of Bush.

    And who can forget the “little Eichmann’s” comment from everyone’s favorite college professor.

    Wait a second. Their comments were just isolated incidents that in no way reflected how they really feel. It was just entertainment.

    If you want, I’ll do some research and show you were people on the left have made fun of the disabled, as well as just regular old folks that happened to disagree with them.

    I don’t even remember what Rush’s offense against Michael J. Fox was. I do know that Fox is a brave man facing a frightening disease.

    If Rush attacked him personally because of his disability , he should be ashamed. If he attacked his political stand on an issue (which I’m guessing is stem cell research) then, what’s the problem?

    And I’m also well aware of Rush’s stupid attempt at humor with Chelsea Clinton. I agree he deserves criticism for that.

    Otherwise, please, please give me a break.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  96. “Or have we forgot the Michael J. Fox incident?”

    Edpa – What do you know about the Michael J. Fox incident? Just what you read on a liberal blog like the rest of your information about Limbaugh.

    Please tell me about the incident from your perspective. I want to know. I heard it live.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  97. Edpa – I should have said it I heard it live and it was a nonevent.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  98. Please tell me about the incident from your perspective. I want to know. I heard it live.

    I did you one better. I saw the accompanying video of Rush convulsing. I guess we can all have a good laugh at Mr. Fox’s illness… eh, boys?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  99. I’m sorry. I took the bait from Ed in Pa. I should have let it go.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  100. “I have not offered any evidence through my comments that I do not listen to Rush, daley.”

    Edpa – I just read this statement. I think your mention of the “Michael J. Fox incident” is conclusive evidence that you do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

    Thanks for playing.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  101. “Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. “All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.”

    This is his ‘apology’. That is mighty big of him to not actually apologize while he is apologizing.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  102. Comment by daleyrocks — 3/17/2009 @ 8:57 pm

    Please direct me through the logic through which you reasoned to reach your conclusion, Sherlock.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  103. “This is his ‘apology’. That is mighty big of him to not actually apologize while he is apologizing.”

    Edpa – You’re not telling me anything here. Yell me about the INCIDENT!!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  104. I have not offered any evidence through my comments that I do not listen to Rush, daley.

    FTFY (always wanted to do that)

    carlitos (4402ad)

  105. “Or have we forgot the Michael J. Fox incident?”

    Edpa – If you didn’t forget it why did you bring it up? Explain!

    You’re the one who brought the subject up. Don’t quit on it now.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  106. Daley: We all know what is going to happen in the next few posts. Why go through the motions? I will post the text of what was said, and tell you that the awful display of convulsions that accompanied this horrible accusation that Rush made were inexcusable. You are going to disagree, and possibly call me a name. Right, right?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  107. “Or have we forgot the Michael J. Fox incident?”

    Michael clearly deserved that.

    idmw (3a173c)

  108. Edpa – The only evidence you’re offering me is that you regurgitate talking points you’ve read elsewhere and never check them for accuracy. It’s typical of your ilk. That’s how I know you don’t listen to Limbaugh.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  109. Perhaps you decided not to read all of my posts before attacking me on this issue. That is typical of your ilk. If I type this again…. do you promise to read it? Here goes:

    I saw the video (including audio) of exactly what was said about Michael J. Fox.

    I made up my own opinion about this issue. Rush does not deserve a pass on this. Mr. Fox has actually campaigned for candidates of both parties who favor stem cell research, so I am not sure what Rush was getting at. Perhaps he was hopped up on pills.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  110. Ed and others, if you plan to insist that commenters here defend Rush Limbaugh on every post on every topic, perhaps you would consider your own media habits and move to another blog? Some suggestions – radio equalizer, media matters, newsbusters, olbermann watch, blatherwatch, airamericaplace.com, etc.

    Gracias. Buen Viaje.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  111. Oh, you can also tune into the top secret cabal itself at alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    carlitos (4402ad)

  112. Re the Michael J. Fox incident: Rush was a moron. People with Parkinson’s might be seen as frozen statues or twitching uncontrollably as though they were being poked with hot needles. The medicines are only partly efficacious.

    And, yeah, Rush never admits he’s ever wrong on his show.

    nk (0a1ba0)

  113. Ed, seriously, Rush was about two weeks ago. The new thing is AIG bonuses. Keep up with the program.

    By the way, tomorrow’s topic is the national debt.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  114. And, yeah, Rush never admits he’s ever wrong on his show.

    Exactly. I listen to conservative radio at times, but I definitely stay away from the commentators who won’t admit any error at any point. The Savage Nation with Michael Weiner is a good example of a guy who doesn’t know what the sh*t he is talking about but won’t admit being wrong.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  115. Funny how when Jews change their names, some people won’t let ’em.

    carlitos (4402ad)

  116. AG writes: “If I were still in journalism and someone wanted to know what blogs I post to, I would tell them with my real name and email address. Wouldn’t an objective journalist at least disclose that fact to his/her readers.”

    What hasn’t been disclosed?

    Didn’t Ezra Klein tell Kaus about the list serve?

    What is the source of your suggestion that journalists are concealing something here?

    Are you suggesting that you, as a journalist, would disclose the identities of all commenters on a blog you participated in, should a reader demand it?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  117. “Funny how when Jews change their names, some people won’t let ‘em”

    Do you, carlitos, really believe this is specific to Jews? Or are you just Jew-baiting?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  118. “Michael clearly deserved that.”

    imdw – Deserved what? Please elaborate.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  119. “Do you, carlitos, really believe this is specific to Jews? Or are you just Jew-baiting?”

    Hax – He’s being homoerotic. I thought you could sniff that out in every comment here.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  120. “I saw the video (including audio) of exactly what was said about Michael J. Fox.”

    Edpa – So tell everybody what was so objectionable about his comments if you heard them. Were they based in fact or not?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  121. Edpa – By now you’ve had plenty of time to go back and refresh yourself on the controversy so regale us with your newfound knowledge.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  122. Hax writes:

    AG writes: “If I were still in journalism and someone wanted to know what blogs I post to, I would tell them with my real name and email address. Wouldn’t an objective journalist at least disclose that fact to his/her readers.”

    What hasn’t been disclosed?

    Didn’t Ezra Klein tell Kaus about the list serve?

    What is the source of your suggestion that journalists are concealing something here?

    Are you suggesting that you, as a journalist, would disclose the identities of all commenters on a blog you participated in, should a reader demand it?

    I only said that I would. You know as well as I do that I could not “demand” another to do so. But, I would expect an honest journalist to reveal it.

    Klein, Alterman and Judis all allowed their names to be used. And they are all opinion writers. I admire them for stepping forward.

    But, what about the journalists that you depend on for fair and balanced news?

    Would you be happy if you knew that your local newspaper’s state capitol or Washington D.C. correspondent was engaging in a regular on-line dialogue with a right-wing group or organization.

    You see, Hax, it comes down to this: As quoted in the article, everyone on that listserv believes that the GOP is stupid. Their only arguments are over ““But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”

    And the telling thing is “at any given moment.” They already believe that the President is doing the right thing, but his timing may be off.

    The job of a journalist is to tell the truth. Almost all fall short. It’s not about timing or punk bands. I don’t begrudge them for exchanging gossip or who had dinner with who.

    I do hold them accountable for giving the American people honest information without a preconceived notion of what is right or what is wrong — be it right or left. And, apparently, there are journalists in that group who profess to be objective. They may well be, but I haven’t seen the proof.

    I can only go back to Dan Rather’s rather ironic statement: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.”

    Ag80 (d205da)

  123. “Re the Michael J. Fox incident: Rush was a moron.”

    nk – What did Rush do that offended you with this one. Are you going to join the geftkult chorus in believing the misrepresentations of what he actually said?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  124. Edpa – You brought the Michael J. Fox incident up but you’ve been too big a freaking pussy to back up why it was an “incident.” imdw predictably adds a little sniping from the wings.

    Come on folks, the standard liberal trope is that Rush was making fun of Michael and his ads. Edpa, where’s your evidence?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  125. Also Hax, I answer your questions, but you never answer mine.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  126. Ag80 – Hax is one of the Informed. He has no obligation to answer questions from the likes of you. If you are lucky and he is a good mood, occasionally he will bestow his magnificence upon you and deign to vomit what he believes to be an answer to one of your questions. I usually take better looking dumps every day.

    Oops, was that homoerotic?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  127. “Daley: We all know what is going to happen in the next few posts. Why go through the motions? I will post the text of what was said,”

    Edpa – Missed that. Do it Edpa. Defend yourself.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  128. AG writes: give “the American people honest information without a preconceived notion of what is right or what is wrong — be it left or right.”

    How, then, do you propose journalists formulate their stories?

    Is it more important to know who got bonuses at AIG or who got into Britney Spear’s pants last weekend? If we don’t have any “preconceived ideas about right and wrong” we have no way to make that easy call.

    Without a very clear sense of right and wrong, there is no rational argument for favoring any one particular story over another. The only guidance you’d be left with is reader interest, in which case the front page would be all celebrity sex scandals and sports. Politics would be limited to brief mention on page 14.

    Perhaps you think it’s a shame that the mainstream media doesn’t share your worldview. But I wonder where you get the idea that your entitled to see your views represented there. It’s a free country. You can’t expect people who have judged your worldview to be wrong to spend their time and effort promoting your view.

    AG asks would I be happy if media correspondents were on a private list serve with right-wing thinkers? Absolutely.

    I have every confidence that the journalists I read are perfectly capable of taking what they need and leaving the rest, ideology-wise. Far more importantly, I trust myself to smell the BS whenever and wherever it is.

    This idea that information sources should pass some kind of ideological balance test is totalitarian. Let readers decide.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  129. Shorter Trollopus: Questioning the ideological balance of journalists is totalitarian.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  130. Not questioning the ideological balance of Hackoff would be idiotarian.

    AD - RtR/OS (55ae64)

  131. Looks like the Whine Club has already forgotten all its high dudgeon about the non-campaign campaign to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

    A week ago, the Club trembled in trumped up fear that the government might concern itself with the ideological balance of commentators.

    This week, suddenly ideological imbalance is cause for investigation and concern about journalistic “ethics.”

    Always the self-pitying whine about how poorly their ideology fares in the public square. At least they’re consistent about that.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  132. BTW, isn’t this how the Internet got started? A bunch of guys with pocket-protectors and slide rules hanging from their belts talking to each other through their AT88s?

    nk (0a1ba0)

  133. Must have: , celebs nude free, sexy hot men, naked teen boys,

    Josh (12f91a)

  134. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEah7_lzsOU

    Here is a video of Rush writhing around (around 1:25 into it, I think). You’ll have to excuse the video, it of your hated nemesis Keith Olbermann. It is amusing to note, however, that Keith has to correct Rush on his ‘he must not have been taking his medication’ comment. Another instance in which Rush doesn’t know a thing about his current topic. Priceless.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  135. Ed from PA brings up Keith Olbermann. Someone who, unlike Rush, really doesn’t let on opposing views. And someone with a tiny tiny fraction of Rush’s audience.

    Rush is the most popular person in political commentary. He appeals to more moderates than any other political commentator. That’s just a fact. The polls that Obama ran before smearing and attacking Rush were focused on name recognition more than popularity. Rush is very recognizable in a way that Keith Olbermann never will be because no one except for total wierdos watch Keith, whereas 1 in 5 voters listens to Rush every day.

    Of course, Ed and Hax are just trying to steer the discussion away from the fact that Objective Reporters are probably in cahoots to make the MSM a propaganda arm of the democrats.

    Imagine the outrage from Ed if Rush and your local newspaper reporters all got together in secret every day.

    Ed’s lost on the facts, Hax has been proven to be lying again, and they will just keep stirring stirring stirring.

    And I’m glad. This blog is a much more effective vehicle for demonstrating that liberal memes are vicious and dishonest with them than it would be without them. I hate echo chambers (unlike the MSM, apparently).

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  136. You’re an idiot, Juan. Did you not read what I wrote? I posted that the video is of Olbermann, so you’ll have to excuse it. Why don’t you watch the part where that jackass Limbaugh makes fun of a parkinson’s patient.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  137. Why is it that EfP is fixated on a Rush segment from years ago? I know, to borrow Teh One’s formulation, this is nothing but a distraction, designed to distract from the topic at hand.

    Were the political leanings of these people reversed, the Leftists would be apoplectic over this one. However, since they are just reinforcing the collectivist and liberal worldviews of their members, nothing to see here.

    JD (df4164)

  138. The answer you seek is within this thread, JD. Perhaps you should read it so that you may be caught up with the rest of us. This particular segment became the main focus when daley challenged me on it.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  139. No, it became the main focus when you diverted the conversation away from the topic at hand, EfP. Apparently the actual topic was too challenging for you.

    JD (df4164)

  140. Peter Orszag is apparently a member of this group. A high ranking administration official, yet not a peep of concern about this. Shocka.

    JD (df4164)

  141. Read the thread JD. Isn’t your mom or dad around to help you sound out the words?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  142. Not that it has a damn thing to do with journalists sharing exclusive emails with liberal activists, but – If michael savage wants to be known as “michael savage,” what is the problem? Must we refer to geraldo rivera as jerry rivers? Many people have changed names that were too “ethnic.”. I doubt that Ed from PA ridicules Bon Jovi (for the name, anyway) or Joe Montana. What’s the difference?

    carlitos (5ea885)

  143. EfP – The thread is titled “The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy”, and the topic is the JournoList, which incidentally, is not just JournoLists, but includes Baracky administration officials, like Orszag.

    I do note that early on in the thread, you and Hacks injected Rush into the conversation, to avoid talking about the actual topic, JournoList. It was an attempt at distraction, something that Teh One has told us is a bad thing. Then, around comment #90 or thereabouts, you brought up Michael J. Fox, in a further attempt to derail the topic.

    carlitos – Kind of like how they show their “tolerance” by the names they use when talking about Michelle Malkin. I am not sure why EfP cares what that jerk Michael Savage was named, and how that makes any difference whatsoever. Prolly because of the Joooooooooooooooos.

    JD (df4164)

  144. It was quite amusing to watch the trollopus make the easily disprovable claim Limbaugh never lets opposing views on, get slapped down with one of those pesky facts, and continue to bleat away without even missing a beat.

    And the trollopus won’t acknowledge the difference between calls for a government-imposed “fairness” doctrine on the media and private citizens using their First Amendment rights to question the media.

    Ooooops, there I go being totalitarian again.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  145. Edpa – That video is hard to see on the radio, the way most people consume Rush, except when people such as Media Matters try to gin up a fresh smear campaign.

    So tell me what is objectionable in his words. What is not fact based pleased. My video is not working. You said you would post a transcript. As I suspected, you learned about this from a lefty site.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  146. Ed, I’m not an idiot. I made my arguments and they are based on premises with fact values. If you don’t have any evidence that I’m wrong, then I win our argument even if I am an idiot, as you say.

    you are apologizing for awful behavior by Barack Obama (his staff, therefore his fault). Your only defense is to attempt to distract away from the issue by talking about a totally unrelated character.

    Who, coincidentally enough, is the same target Obama told the media, via this propaganda machine we’re talking about in this thread, to use to distract from Obama’s mistakes. You are just part of the problem. Plain and simple. You work for ‘the man’. You are opposed to the free exchange of ideas, freedom, liberty, and the USA. You are a traitor to good things.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  147. Edpa – Why don’t Herr Olbermann and that Air America puke address the dishonesty of the Michael J. Fox ads, since they claim they were then a national controversy, that the bills Fox was supporting were about cloning rather than stem cell research? That was a major portion of what Limbaugh spoke about but it is somehow not mentioned. Fox eventually admitted he never read the bills.

    Herr Dr. Olbermann also doesn’t mention Fox’s public disclosures that he does adjust his medication levels before testifying in front of Congress and in other venues. Somehow that also gets left out of the discussion.

    Edpa, how often have you seen Fox display the symptoms of his Parkinsons as extreme as in that ad that weren’t in an advocacy situation? Can you recall any?

    You’re a pussy Edpa.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  148. daleyrocks, good point.

    Michael J Fox was actually a tremendous jerk with his dishonest campaign. And I think a great case was made that he deliberately didn’t take his meds in order to draw more tears.

    It’s an outrage when Bush merely says ‘if you want to research this, pay for it yourself’. It’s not an outrage when Obama signs legislation banning it. And no worries that this stuff doesn’t even work as well as more modern ideas (which are also less morally ambiguous).

    No problem. Rush is Offensive. So Keith freaking Olbermann tells me. And some jerk on this thread. How many times do they get to distort Rush’s statements before I can just assume the people condemning Rush are lying to me?

    What’s most offensive is that Obama’s administration, behind closed doors with MSM journalists, being paid with My Tax Dollars, have coordinated the most recent smears of Rush and others like him for his political expression.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  149. Juan – It is against the rules to criticize people like Michael J. Fox because they have Absolute Moral Authority even when they are being dishonest. That’s what caised the uproar. Dipshits like Edpa won’t admit it.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  150. It was quite amusing to watch the trollopus make the easily disprovable claim Limbaugh never lets opposing views on, get slapped down with one of those pesky facts

    I think your definitions of ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ are getting all jumbled up in your head. Maybe you’re popping the same pills (or snorting the same powder) as Rush (or Dubya).

    Herr Dr. Olbermann also doesn’t mention Fox’s public disclosures that he does adjust his medication levels before testifying in front of Congress and in other venues. Somehow that also gets left out of the discussion.

    Do you plan to link me to that, or am I supposed to take that on your word? Does his manipulation of medication in order to further facilitate his ability to be understood in his testimony? All of these items should be addressed before we take your argument without the warehouse of salt it deserves.

    So tell me what is objectionable in his words. What is not fact based pleased. My video is not working. You said you would post a transcript. As I suspected, you learned about this from a lefty site.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/18/2009 @ 8:15 am

    In how many consecutive posts are you going to claim something that cleaqrly demonstrates that you don’t completely and carefully read what I am typing. I said if I were to post what was said you would disagree with the context or meaning (strictly out of political loyalty, no doubt), so it was an exercise in inanity to go through the motions. You have proven me to be correct in your posts since then.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  151. Michael J Fox was actually a tremendous jerk with his dishonest campaign. And I think a great case was made that he deliberately didn’t take his meds in order to draw more tears.</i>

    No, actually the case has been made that the shaking and convulsing happens when a Parkinsons patient actually takes his medication.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  152. Ed, what’s really funny is that the first quote you’re whining about was plainly written about Hax.

    And then you proceed to complain that others aren’t taking the time to read your comments carefully.

    That’s hilarious. kinda like Keith Olbermann complaining about Rush’s rudeness or offensiveness when he probably called Rush the worst person on the planet (or whatever his shtick is). Whatever it is, we all know that if any editorialist says that about Barack Obama, they will not be employed for long by most MSM outlets, thanks in no small part to Barack Obama’s use of this Journalist discussion group.

    No problem, right? That’s 100% cool. In fact, why even talk about Obama or this thread topic at all? We can just bash Rush Limbaugh!

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  153. Actually I was quoting you. You said that, Juan. You don’t know how to identify your own name? How did you ever vote?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  154. No, I didn’t write that.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  155. Save it, Juan. It does not come in good faith.

    JD (df4164)

  156. And I assure you that ACORN will ensure that illiterate people who have no idea what’s going on are able to vote for democrats in every precinct in this country.

    No need for alarm. Smack dealers in ACORN will get those illiterates bussed to the polls and fill out a couple of absentee ballots for good measure. They will even commit burglary and sell drugs while being paid to rig the census!

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  157. daleyrocks, good point.

    Michael J Fox was actually a tremendous jerk with his dishonest campaign. And I think a great case was made that he deliberately didn’t take his meds in order to draw more tears.

    It’s an outrage when Bush merely says ‘if you want to research this, pay for it yourself’. It’s not an outrage when Obama signs legislation banning it. And no worries that this stuff doesn’t even work as well as more modern ideas (which are also less morally ambiguous).

    No problem. Rush is Offensive. So Keith freaking Olbermann tells me. And some jerk on this thread. How many times do they get to distort Rush’s statements before I can just assume the people condemning Rush are lying to me?

    What’s most offensive is that Obama’s administration, behind closed doors with MSM journalists, being paid with My Tax Dollars, have coordinated the most recent smears of Rush and others like him for his political expression.

    Comment by Juan — 3/18/2009 @ 9:07 am

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  158. JD, of course he’s just trying to do whatever it takes to distract attention from the Obama Administration’s use of secret media discussion forums… or whatever the story of the day is on here.

    I’m not sure why anyone would want to do that. I’m a republican, and I would never have done something like that to protect Bush or Reagan. I care about this nation having solid and intelligent discourse, even when I disagree with it. I guess I’m just better.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  159. Ed, you’re lying. Please stop. I did not write the first quote that, as I said, someone directed at Hax.

    Please stop lying and changing the topic.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  160. Edpa – Post the transcript not a clearly edited video. You clearly know only what Olbermann broadcast about this controversy, which is bullshit.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  161. RE: “Ed, you’re lying.”

    See comment 148. It is black and white. There is no gray area here. You wrote that.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  162. Ed, stop lying.

    I noted that you were wrong about Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.’s 8:08 am comment, and you insisted I wrote it. I didn’t; Brother Bradley Fikes did.

    Your later quote of me is pointless and I haven’t mentioned it. And you know that.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  163. #159

    I’m following the discussion Ed, your right he did write it, or agree with Daley on it.

    Notice how quickly JD jumps to disagree with you?

    Save it, Juan. It does not come in good faith.

    Comment by JD — 3/18/2009 @ 9:40 am

    Who is not coming in good faith DJ?

    Try looking in the mirror.

    Oiram (983921)

  164. Oiram, I unambigiously was talking about Ed’s first quote, and I specifically was talking about how it was directed at Hax. There is no conceivable way anyone following this would not realize that Ed was wrong with he started screeching that ‘you wrote it! you wrote it! you’re illiterate!!!’

    I never claimed I agreed or disagreed with that or any other comment Ed quoted, but that’s not relevant to Ed’s infantile insult that I can’t read my own name.

    Of course, you are just playing along with Ed’s ridiculous effort to keep this topic off-track. Obama is using his staff and my tax dollars to ensure the MSM is in lock-step.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  165. …just like Moiron does, albeit with a large supply of Jergens on hand.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  166. Juan, you’re better off not responding to Orifice. He’s a liar, and will just twist your writing for whatever whim pops into his head.

    Seriously, it’s bad enough that you have to put Ed straight, but going against the lying sack of detritus that is Oiram in the same thread is asking too much.

    Steverino (69d941)

  167. This one is for you, Juan. You are the one on the right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJJA1vvMc4I

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  168. #162 Fine Juan, then how do you explain #148?

    Particularly:

    daleyrocks, good point.

    Michael J Fox was actually a tremendous jerk with his dishonest campaign. And I think a great case was made that he deliberately didn’t take his meds in order to draw more tears.

    I think that’s what Ed was talking about.

    Oiram (983921)

  169. Hey, I’m fairly OK with the Manatee show when it’s on and I’m flipping channels. But it looks like that clip has been removed. I’m sure it wasn’t a personal insult. At some point, Ed, you probably run out of insults and start making arguments.

    Right now, the topic is ‘Obama administration and MSM are colluding to establish narratives, for example, attacking Rush or defending Obama from other critics’. I think that’s wrong. Your rebuttal so far has been ‘Fuck you!’

    I appreciate intelligent insults, though, so perhaps I should just ask you to insult me better.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  170. Juan,
    I just saw what Ed from PA did in confusing one of my responses with yours. And he chides you for not being able to read names.

    Hilarious!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  171. No…. #148 is Juan. Do you guys know how I can tell that Juan wrote it? Because he spells his name J-U-A-N.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  172. 166, I don’t see why Ed would be talking about that, since I haven’t mentioned it since I wrote it (I obviously did write that one, and yeah, I also agree with it).

    I noted that Ed was wrong about something else, and Ed’s rebuttal to my point was that I didn’t even realize I was illiterate and defending my own comment or something. Ed’s comments were complete nonsense/insult. He was clearly attempting to rebut a comment that I was very specific about. There is no room for misunderstanding which quote I refer to when I say ‘the first quote’ and summarize it.

    I know, I know, all the folks who are tired of the trolls are going to wonder why I keep falling into their trap and responding to their obviously deliberate nonsense. I am working on a legitimately frustrating legal document, and when I am tired of it, I come on here for a second. It’s a personal relief to laugh at these people. This is their best argument to defend Obama’s awful behavior. That is a great argument in my favor, in and of itself.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  173. Stop threadjacking and deal with the posted subject issue.

    I think that’s what Ed was talking about.

    Stop threadjacking and deal with the subject issue, numbnuts.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  174. It’s pretty clear to me that in #151 Juan is commenting on Ed’s post at #149. He says:

    Ed, what’s really funny is that the first quote you’re whining about was plainly written about Hax

    Which implies that there was more than one quote Ed referenced. That makes it clear Juan is referring to #149, where Ed cited three different passages.

    Now, maybe Juan assumed Ed was writing about him in the first part of #149. But to claim Juan is lying is to ignore what he’s really talking about.

    Steverino (69d941)

  175. #164 Steverino, good to know your still addressing me…… (sort of).

    I hope your not still fantasizing about a school yard fist fight with me.

    You really should get some help with that.

    Oiram (983921)

  176. Juan, I was specifically talking about the exact thing you now admit to having wrote and agreed with. I did you the favor of quoting it around 5 or 6 times, but you apparently were too busy responding to my posts before you actually read them. Now, like Dmac says, back on topic, numbnuts.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  177. And yes, the word “trollopus” is my own coinage, applied to bunkerTrollHax for his frantic attempts to cloud the issues like an octopus emitting ink.

    Others are welcome to use it, though.

    One of the trollopus’ many absurdities is to pretend its own journalism background is irrelevant, when its messages reek of defensiveness against the idea that journalists have a leftist bias. To confront the issue of leftist bias, it tells us, is “totalitarian”.

    Trollopus is quite obviously trying to defend its own intellectual dishonesty along with that of its bias-denying journo peers.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  178. #169

    166, I don’t see why Ed would be talking about that, since I haven’t mentioned it since I wrote it (I obviously did write that one, and yeah, I also agree with it).

    Tried reading the rest Juan, but it sounded like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah after the first sentence.

    Oiram (983921)

  179. I like trollopus, Bradley.

    Ed, while you are backtracking now, what you originally said was that I was illiterate in rebutting a point I made. That you repeated yourself several times is not relevant. You were lying.

    It makes so sense to call me that unless you have an example of me mistaking my comment for someone else’s. It would be charitable to assume you simply didn’t read what you were talking about. I realize that you were probably not nearly that stupid.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  180. 176, you’ve got a great point.

    That is a great argument right there. It’s so convincing! People who come on this thread and see that several liberals are arguing will see that these comments are their best arguments to defend Obama and the MSM. They will indeed realize that Obama and the MSM are doing the right thing.

    Congratulations.

    Ed, stop lying.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  181. Juan: I called you an idiot on 136 because you brought up that I used a video of Keith Olbermann. However, when I originally posted the video I said you will call attention to that and disregard it instead of watching the actual video within the video of Rush’s statements. You called me on the Olbermann thing anyway, which made (makes) you an idiot.

    Bradley fikes… etc: I am assuming that you claim I read 144 and thought it was Juan? Um. No. I did not read that post because I didn’t feel it pertained to anything I had written. In fact, the first time I read it was just now. I am trying to figure out what Juan is talking about and how he could possibly be confused… but so far no luck.

    Which brings us to 148. The infamous comment that I have been unequivocally referred to ever since you posted it, Juan. You have chosen to ignore my explicit references to that post, and now you are backtracking because this thread makes you look really really stupid.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  182. Here’s what Juan said:
    Ed, what’s really funny is that the first quote you’re whining about was plainly written about Hax.

    And then you proceed to complain that others aren’t taking the time to read your comments carefully.

    And here’s how Ed replied:
    Actually I was quoting you. You said that, Juan. You don’t know how to identify your own name? How did you ever vote?

    Sorry, Ed, but the first quote was mine.
    Get someone to read you the name underneath it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  183. Ed from PA:
    Bradley fikes… etc: I am assuming that you claim I read 144 and thought it was Juan? Um. No. I did not read that post because I didn’t feel it pertained to anything I had written. In fact, the first time I read it was just now.

    So . . . you quoted me @ 144 without reading it? That explains a lot.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  184. RE179:
    see 178

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  185. Oh Good Allah. The comment from Juan that EfP originally responded to was directed at Hax, by Bradley Fikes. EfP later pulled another comment from Juan to cover up for having beclowned himself. And now it has Mario joining in. Another Moronic Convergence.

    JD (eef042)

  186. Ed, you’re like the energizer bunny of the blind people. You keep going and going, but you clearly don’t know where you’re going.

    I was very, very clear about what I was talking about. I was polite when I first noted I didn’t write the comment you were excoriating me for (not that I have a problem with that comment). You should have stopped and checked to see what I was talking about. I was pretty damn clear, so you obviously did this and realized you were wrong. And then proceeded to be a lot uglier.

    I can tell that my simple statements of truth are really really aggravating you. Hmm.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  187. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., — 3/18/2009 @ 10:55 am

    I never quoted you. Your posts, up until recently when you have demonstrated that you don’t know how to follow the thread, have been completely and utterly inconsequential to me.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  188. He didn’t need to read it to know what it was about!

    AD - RtR/OS (64ac21)

  189. The comment from Juan that EfP originally responded to was directed at Hax, by Bradley Fikes.

    Pray tell, what (specifically… as in the comment number) are you referring to? I have never responded to anything of Fikes’.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  190. Ed, you’re obviously welcome here. Patterico clearly wants disagreements and discussion. Just stop with the anger. Your prez is screwing up, but he is your man.

    Make arguments for why Obama and the MSM are OK. Don’t talk about how awful I am or how Rush is a monster. When you goof up, just say ‘my bad,’ and proceed.

    And take a big tip from me: it’s OK to admit the president is making a mistake… even if you voted for him.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  191. Here’s me @ 144
    It was quite amusing to watch the trollopus make the easily disprovable claim Limbaugh never lets opposing views on, get slapped down with one of those pesky facts, and continue to bleat away without even missing a beat.

    Here’s Ed from PA @149:

    It was quite amusing to watch the trollopus make the easily disprovable claim Limbaugh never lets opposing views on, get slapped down with one of those pesky facts.

    I think your definitions of ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ are getting all jumbled up in your head. Maybe you’re popping the same pills (or snorting the same powder) as Rush (or Dubya).

    Here’s Ed from PA @184
    I never quoted you. Your posts, up until recently when you have demonstrated that you don’t know how to follow the thread, have been completely and utterly inconsequential to me.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  192. Bradley, he may have misplaced his teleprompter, or whatever that ACORN seminar gives trolls so they stay on message.

    Go easy on old Ed there.

    Mike K (8df289)

  193. Thanks for that, Mike K.

    In other news, the San Diego Union-Tribune just announced it is being sold.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e16ed2)

  194. Pray tell, what (specifically… as in the comment number) are you referring to? I have never responded to anything of Fikes’.

    Ed, go read my comment at #171. It explains what Juan was talking about when he said what you quoted wasn’t his words.

    It’s apparent you aren’t reading the thread.

    Oh, and Bradley at #188 nails you so thoroughly, you really have no choice but to apologize for lying. But, since I’m never one to shy away from a good dogpile:

    Pray tell, what (specifically… as in the comment number) are you referring to? I have never responded to anything of Fikes’.

    At #149, you most certainly did respond to something of Fikes’s:

    It was quite amusing to watch the trollopus make the easily disprovable claim Limbaugh never lets opposing views on, get slapped down with one of those pesky facts

    I think your definitions of ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ are getting all jumbled up in your head. Maybe you’re popping the same pills (or snorting the same powder) as Rush (or Dubya).

    Steverino (69d941)

  195. I’m just considering for a second if Ed’s goal really was to utterly derail the thread. Even reliable nonfeeders of trolls find their limit here.

    Why would a liberal think that helps them? It just makes them look defensive and it makes Obama look terrible. If you’re a left winger who likes to derail threads, pretend for a second that I’m the democrat and I was condemning something bad that Bush and his media pals did. And Ed and Hax are from Freerepublic and this is the total of their defense for Bush: Fuck you! Random easily disproven nonsense! AaaaArgh!

    Wouldn’t you find that compelling as an argument against Republicans?

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  196. I never quoted you.

    Stop threadjacking and at least try to resemble an individual who’s not an enormous pussy, Courtship of Eddy’s Father.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  197. “Do you plan to link me to that, or am I supposed to take that on your word? Does his manipulation of medication in order to further facilitate his ability to be understood in his testimony? All of these items should be addressed before we take your argument without the warehouse of salt it deserves.”

    Edpa – You claimed to be familiar with the controversy. It is clear why you have not posted the transcript as you volunteered. You know only what the left-Kult sites told you. You are a chickenshit. You have not answered the question about what was offensive cupcake.

    “In how many consecutive posts are you going to claim something that cleaqrly demonstrates that you don’t completely and carefully read what I am typing. I said if I were to post what was said you would disagree with the context or meaning (strictly out of political loyalty, no doubt), so it was an exercise in inanity to go through the motions. You have proven me to be correct in your posts since then.”

    Edpa – I used a different browser to watch the video and Olbermann/Air America hit job. I commented of what the clip omitted to say. Can’t you comprehend plain English. In how many comments are you going to continue to demonstrate that you basically don’t know shit about this fake controversy. You are essentially an idiot. The sources you read are the ones which participated in ginning up and fanning the flames of outrage over Rush’s comments. They aren’t going to debunk themselves and tell you it was all manufactured out of nothing, bozo.

    Focus on the dishonest ads. Focus on Fox’s admissions that he alters his medication levels. You’re the one who brought this issue up as a distraction. Don’t quit now. Dissect the smear.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  198. You guys are really idiotic. I still don’t know what you’re referring to. Though, I think Juan still needs to apologize for creating a mess of this thread because he can’t read.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  199. It’s 2 p.m. at Whine Club headquarters, when an e-mail arrives:

    “Hey Guys, Just wondering if you’d like to join an online conversation we’re having with some policy wonks from Heritage, etc. and journos from the Weekly Standard, Washington Times and so on. It’s all free and easy, just add your name to the list, start receiving the mail and comment when and where you like.”

    The Whinemaster responds:
    “I’m telling Mommy. How dare you operate a conspiracy to manufacture conservative bias in the news. I would never participate in such a dastardly, secret plot to coordinate attacks on liberals and their ideas. Besides, I have no time or mental energy left after spending my days and nights typing away on blogs, calling liberals names like “troll” and “pussy.”

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  200. You guys are really idiotic. I still don’t know what you’re referring to.

    Ed, it was explained carefully to you, and now you’re just denying your own mistake. Either that, or you’re too stupid to read standard written English.

    So much for any hope of honesty from the likes of you.

    Steverino (69d941)

  201. That’s the kind of classy remark we expect from Hack when its projection / hypocrisy is pointed out.

    SPQR (72771e)

  202. Hey Ed, LOL they probably think we’re part of a “vast left wing conspiracy”, and that we take orders directly from Obama and Pelosi.

    By the way, what are our orders for this week, still haven’t received your emai…… oops.

    Disregard Please

    Oiram (983921)

  203. Excuse me? You admit you are unable to understand what everyone, even your liberal defender Oiran, finds simple to understand, and it’s because we’re idiots and I can’t read?

    It’s been well proven that I was merely defending myself from a baseless lie that you told. You compounded your error by being obnoxious and ugly to me and lying about other commenters. And you now demand an apology? Did the fact that EVERYONE agrees with me dissuade you for even a second from demanding an apology of me for pointing out that you are a liar?

    Of course, your constant touchiness says everything. You want an apology because you are HURTING inside. You know that something has happened to you, and that I did it. You don’t really understand how or what, but you know how to cry… you know that you feel like a victim.

    You and I may not know eachother, but in your heart you know you are the lesser man. I tried to be nice about it, but we both know you are scared to death of the truth, and that’s why you are scared to death of having this discussion about the actual topic.

    Present your argument about the topic:

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  204. Ed,

    you know, I made an error today at work when correcting my associate. I immediately and publicly apologized for it. And I can already tell that all my coworkers actually think more of me. They don’t care that I’m human… that I make mistakes. They care that I’m man enough to take personal responsibility.

    Responsibility. It’s such a fundamental and simple element in who many decent people are. You wonder what’s missing in your life? It’s that. That’s why you are a democrat.

    All you are here is your words. You can’t even accept responsibility for that. The playing field has been leveled. It doesn’t matter how much money we’ve got or how educated we are. All that matters is how we present our arguments…

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  205. Beats spending my time “arguing just for the fun of it,” even when I know I’m wrong.

    carlitos (b01f67)

  206. I think Juan still needs to apologize for creating a mess of this thread because he can’t read.

    Jeez, what a wanker; your pathetic attempts at threadjacking are exposed, so you continually resort to obfuscation and silly word – game playing. Either discuss the subject on the thread, or stay in your basement.

    and that we take orders directly from Obama and Pelosi.

    Alternatively, you could join Moiron down there – but please remember to bring your own supply of Jergens, he’s running low these days.

    That’s the kind of classy remark

    Just another fart in the wind – he’s stroking that pet ocelot quite furiously these days.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  207. Shorter Edpa – I’ve got nothing and I lie a lot.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  208. Juan, you’re wasting your finger muscles. Ed won’t apologize; he’s dug his heels in and is now pretending he doesn’t know what anyone is talking about.

    I tried to get an apology from Oiram, to no avail. He’s a lying weasel who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack and couldn’t pour piss out of his boot if the instructions were written on the sole. But all that would be forgivable if he’d own up to his mistakes.

    Sadly, neither of them are capable of that kind of honor.

    Steverino (69d941)

  209. All Edpa has shown me is that he got excited about the Limbaugh/Fox controversy because Keith Olbermann told him to get excited about it. He hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge of the controvery independent of the video clip apart from posting the text of Limbaugh’s apology.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  210. He still has not admitted that it screwed up? Shocka.

    JD (df4164)

  211. #203 Steverino, hope those meds kick in soon.

    Oiram (983921)

  212. …about the same time that Moiron’s done in the basement.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  213. Steverino, I’m holding a boot full of piss so that I can see the sole, and I think it might be homoerotic. I denounce such comments.

    carlitos (b01f67)

  214. Here’s my favorite nugget from our very own special little guy, Moiron – who responded thusly when questioned regarding his career choices and relevant knowledge gained in a capitalistic society:

    I work for business.

    Yes, no doubt he indeed does work for business.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  215. I denounce such comments.

    Carlitos, I think you’re a member of…(wait for the brilliant reposte, posted at this blog over 335 times at present) – the Whine Club.

    Ha Ha! I am the mostest brilliantest evah in my home room class! My avatar rules Armaggedon! Score! Eleventy!

    And we’re supposed to believe that someone actually pays for those kinds of witticisms.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  216. Steverino, I’m holding a boot full of piss so that I can see the sole, and I think it might be homoerotic. I denounce such comments.

    You know, when I think of boots, I think of hiking boots…recalling my backpacking trips through the Sequoias. It is kind of Brokeback-Mountain-y, now that you mention it.

    I denounce myself.

    Steverino (69d941)

  217. #209 Dmac, your so adorable when you think your being funny.

    How’s capitalism ……. (without regulation that is) working for you when AIG (too big to fail) gives multi million dollar bonuses to it’s own business failing culprit employees?

    They really show us the “Trickle Down Theory” in effect to it’s fullest don’t they?

    Oiram (983921)

  218. Oh great here come the 1000 excuses and or name calling comments.

    Oiram (983921)

  219. Oiram, claiming that AIG failed because it was notf regulated is simply a falsehood.

    SPQR (72771e)

  220. 1 (at least he got my name right)

    Oiram (983921)

  221. What does a contractual obligation have to do with capitalism writ large, Oiram? Are you suggesting that government should step in and approve all contracts between an employer/employee?

    JD (df4164)

  222. I’m wondering wtf AIG has to do with a bunch of left-leaning journalists coordinating their stories.

    Steverino (69d941)

  223. AIG failed exactly because it couldn’t make good on the credit default swap contracts it entered.

    It’s casualty and life insurance businesses were going gangbusters and still are. It was the deluge of defaults and the unregulated CDS that killed them.

    CDS were excluded from regulation specifically because banks successfully lobbied against controls.

    As a direct result, companies like AIG were allowed to write CDS contracts for many times the value of the debt they were insuring. This meant that the contracts could not be effectively hedged, thus the blow out when actual defaults reached a tipping point.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  224. #216 No JD, in fact I know it’s gonna bea shocka to ya, but I tend to think the contracts should *gulp* be honored. Try to spin that.

    But I am concerned at how a company that is stupid enough to give bonuses to it’s failure culprits, becomes “too big too fail”.

    And believe me I’m not singling out Republicans on that one.

    Oiram (983921)

  225. but I tend to think the contracts should *gulp* be honored

    Why the *gulp* ? Why tend? Unless there was coersion, or they were contracting for something illegal, there should be no tend. The contracts should be honored. Baracky knew this. Geithner knew this. They are just demagoguing this like some kind of pseudo-populist.

    How do you know that the people that received the bonuses were the causes of the failure, Oiram?

    JD (df4164)

  226. “It’s casualty and life insurance businesses were going gangbusters and still are.”

    Bullshit

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  227. “This meant that the contracts could not be effectively hedged”

    More bullshit – They made a decision to go naked.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  228. I’m wondering what Meds Steverino is on that causes him to think I started a convoluted thread?

    He should refer to DMAC’s comment at #209 pulling some old statement I guess I made from another post.

    #209

    Here’s my favorite nugget from our very own special little guy, Moiron – who responded thusly when questioned regarding his career choices and relevant knowledge gained in a capitalistic society:

    I work for business.

    Yes, no doubt he indeed does work for business.

    Comment by Dmac — 3/18/2009 @ 1:48 pm

    Oiram (983921)

  229. ……… and by the way, yes I do respond to moiron. People get my name wrong here about as often as they get their facts wrong.

    Oiram (983921)

  230. I’m wondering why Orifice thinks a comment illustrating his imbecility is an invitation for him to prattle on about AIG.

    Actually, I’m not wondering. Orifice is an idiot, capable only of threadjacking.

    Steverino (69d941)

  231. Prattle on is a good description.

    JD (df4164)

  232. Anyone who’s ever been anywhere near a newsroom knows that the very last thing journalists will do is “coordinate” their stories with competitors.

    Wake up!

    About half the reporters in America are either freshly out of work or living in day-to-day fear that the ax will soon fall on their neck. The very last thing any of these people are going to be doing is sharing anything they’ve got that’s any good with the competition.

    Reporters are under tremendous day-to-day pressure to get scoops and come up with original ideas. Anyone who isn’t aware of that has no idea what’s going on in the business or, worse, can’t even imagine what it’s actually like to produce news.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  233. Since it brought up the topic of the evil bonus money, I am sure that the Leftist should be able to point us to where Teh One denounced the bonus payments to Raines and Gorelick (EWWWWWWWWWW) that were $165,000,000 combined. Surely Baracky and the other Leftists had the same amount of outrage over that.

    JD (df4164)

  234. How do you know that the people that received the bonuses were the causes of the failure, Oiram?

    Comment by JD — 3/18/2009 @ 2:42 pm

    JD, you should get off of Patterico and inform yourself.

    I forgot, do you think The Wall Street Journal is part of the libberal MSM today?

    The Wall Street Journal

    Oiram (983921)

  235. Did someone fart?

    JD (df4164)

  236. #223 Actually, I’m not wondering. Orifice is an idiot, capable only of threadjacking.

    Comment by Steverino — 3/18/2009 @ 3:00 pm

    Steverino, buddy pal, if you expect us to believe that you would let a comment directed at you, go on ignored by you…………….. you really do need your meds adjusted.

    Oiram (983921)

  237. I’m wondering wtf AIG has to do with a bunch of left-leaning journalists coordinating their stories.

    Absolutely nothing of course, which is exactly why they brought it up.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  238. Oiram – Are you trying to be intentionally dense? Do you think that all of the people that received bonuses were responsible for the decisions made and the choices the company made?

    JD (df4164)

  239. JD, you should get off of Patterico and inform yourself.

    Is Moiron co – ordinating his posts with Ocelot – Boy, which then lead to weird projections of the homoerotic variety?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  240. Look over there: something shiny!

    Pay no attention to the topic of the thread. The shiny thing over there is much more interesting.

    No, there’s nothing to see over there. What? Would you question my wisdom? I’m much smarter than you, I know what I’m talking about.

    Go on, go look at the shiny thing over there.

    Steverino (69d941)

  241. Oiram – Are you trying to be intentionally dense? Do you think that all of the people that received bonuses were responsible for the decisions made and the choices the company made?

    Comment by JD — 3/18/2009 @ 3:10 pm

    Ladies and Gentlemen, here is why I scream when it comes to the idea of “Privatization”.

    American International Group Inc. will pay $450 million in bonuses to employees in its financial products unit. That division was at the heart of AIG’s collapse last fall, which compelled the U.S. government to provide $173.3 billion in aid to keep it running.

    Wall Street Journal 03/15/09

    Holy Crap JD

    Is this your business model? Pay big bonuses to the ones that drop kicked your company?

    And yes, if your still reading, I “*gulp*” that we have to honor these contracts, possibly with no “tending”.

    The fact that bonus contracts were made on a company too big too fail is exactly why communists “think” they are right (I don’t). These rat bastards (AIG) fed that ideology’s unfortunate tail of Capitalism gone wrong.

    I’m pissed JD, and you should be too.

    Oiram (983921)

  242. Oiram – Any idea how many different things that division does? Do you think they need any of the employees to stick around to unwind complex positions or should they just let them walk out the door to take positions at competitors who are willing to pay them bonuses? What does your experience working at business tell you?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  243. Chris Dodd did admit he enabled the AIG provision in the Stimulus Bill but blames the Treasury Department for insisting upon it (that would be in those late night closed door meetings that excluded Republicans, n.b.). He’s blameless once again, just like he was in overseeing Fannie and Freddie.

    What a crock of manufactured outrage over self-inflicted wounds.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  244. Is this your business model? Pay big bonuses to the ones that drop kicked your company?

    Bullshit, Oiram. Quit making up things that I did not say. I simply pointed out that it is highly unlikely that every person that received a bonus was responsible for the decisions made by the higher ups. Plus, we have no idea if they were retention contracts, or numbers driven. Either way, if they stayed, or if they met the numbers, they are rightfully due the money, unless they did so fraudulently. You have not made the case for either.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, here is why I scream when it comes to the idea of “Privatization”.

    WTF does privatization have to do with anything?!?!

    Never mind, the existence of potholes proves that commercial carrier are not taxed enough.

    JD (df4164)

  245. #235 My business experience tells me that people are suffering out there daley.

    People in smaller companies are laid off, taking pay cuts, or becoming under employed, regardless of their division, and regardless of their contributions to the company.

    Oiram (983921)

  246. I think lying crapweasels who really are pissed about other issues should get their own goram blog and write about those issues, instead of hijacking threads here.

    Steverino (69d941)

  247. Chris Dodd did admit he enabled the AIG provision in the Stimulus Bill but blames the Treasury Department for insisting upon it (that would be in those late night closed door meetings that excluded Republicans, n.b.). He’s blameless once again, just like he was in overseeing Fannie and Freddie.

    What a crock of manufactured outrage over self-inflicted wounds.

    The damn MSM is allowing them to take some populist position against something that they did. It is to laugh.

    JD (df4164)

  248. Capitalism gone wrong? Of course, Oiram knows where economic systems are done right.

    SPQR (72771e)

  249. daleyrocks – So Barcky was actually denouncing his own Administration with his ginned up outrage the last couple days, huh?

    JD (df4164)

  250. #236 daley, so far it looks like Dodd does carry the blame.

    I’ll be one of the first to admit it.

    Oiram (983921)

  251. So Obama signs the stimulus bill as his greatest victory in his young presidency, not knowing that he was signing into law, the legal protection of employment contracts – including bonuses.

    Then the teleprompter is outraged about the bonuses so it channels that rage through Obama.

    The end result: Obama looks like the moron he is. Sublime.

    Thank you, alppuccino.

    JD (df4164)

  252. So far? So far?! He admitted that he did it, at the behest of the Administration.

    JD (df4164)

  253. #)(*%#&%#)@_)($*_@()*$@&%)(@*&$)(@*#_)(

    JD (df4164)

  254. Meanwhile, the Obama crowd is berating AIG for these rather insignificant bonuses while giving the nation what Art Laffer called the four prosperity killers: inflation, higher tax rates, re-regulation, and trade protectionism.

    SPQR (72771e)

  255. #244 ….at the behest of the Administration.

    I’ll need that link JD for that part JD.

    Oiram (983921)

  256. “walk out the door to take positions at competitors who are willing to pay them bonuses.”

    Um, no. Sorry, the market for exploding credit derivatives specialists is done, kaput, zip, zero, nada.

    There is some hiring going on for distressed debt funds, though, so, some of the guys will no doubt wash up there, eventually, but only after a lot of begging and some rather large salary/bonus concessions.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  257. Lord knows that the specialists in credit derivatives can’t get a job in the Obama administration since they probably pay their taxes.

    SPQR (72771e)

  258. So far? So far?! He admitted that he did it, at the behest of the Administration.

    Comment by JD — 3/18/2009 @ 3:56 pm

    #)(*%#&%#)@_)($*_@()*$@&%)(@*&$)(@*#_)(

    Comment by JD — 3/18/2009 @ 4:01 pm

    O.k. JD, possibly Daley and SPQR, based on all that, Dodd and Obama should be your hero.

    If you think that AIG’s bonuses were worthy on the idea that they were contracted, and that since we don’t know what division they came from, they could of gone to people that deserved it.

    Strike one up for Obama and Co.?

    No?

    Oiram (983921)

  259. Now you are just being dishonest, Mario.

    You need a link to Dodd’s words? Go look over at HuffPo.

    JD (0346a8)

  260. Oiram, once again you build up strawmen by putting words in others’ mouths without any basis. Dodd and Obama are not my heroes because of their dishonesty and hypocrisy ( not to mention their incompetence in undermining the credibility of AIG when they need to be bolstering it).

    If I were in the habit of engaging in your debating practices, Oiram, I’d say that it is their dishonesty and hypocrisy that makes them your heroes.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  261. Blindly obedient robot for the VRWC that I am, I listened to the first part of Limbaugh’s broadcast today. Limbaugh said the retention bonuses were a distraction ginned up by Obama and the Dems, taking attention away from the vastly greater sums of money they have shoveled out with minimal oversight and minimal effectiveness.

    The distraction worked. Every second spent discussing the retention bonuses is less time spent on the underlying screwup that has sent hundreds of billions out the door – and hundreds of billions more are flying out as of today.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  262. Bradley:

    Limbaugh said the retention bonuses were a distraction ginned up by Obama and the Dems, taking attention away from the vastly greater sums of money they have shoveled out with minimal oversight and minimal effectiveness.

    That may be true in the short run, Bradley, but I think the public views the AIG story as the government spending bailout money in a wasteful way or a way that benefits some more than others. That doesn’t help the Democrats in the long run. Instead, it makes it easier for the public to see the bailout, stimulus, etc., as a boondoggle.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  263. Bradley – That was patently obvious from the outset. The Left never complained when Gorelick and Raines took hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses from Fannie/Freddie. The bonuses in question with AIG are a pittance in comparison to the BILLIONS of dollars that they are giving away in the “stimulus” package(s).

    Yet another one of the distractions that Teh One is so fond of bitching about.

    JD (df4164)

  264. SPQR,

    Good link. That can’t do Dodd any good in his re-election campaign.

    As I understand it, Dodd changed the provision after input from the Obama Treasury Department, which was concerned about the legality of limiting pre-existing contractual bonuses. Is that your understanding?

    Anon (eb4fed)

  265. Mon Dieu, Media Matters is a great resource. I was going to painstakingly transcribe today’s hilarious Teleprompter riff, but Media Matters did it for me!

    LIMBAUGH: So, teleprompter, do you have a name?

    Teleprompter, in your opinion, how is President Obama doing so far? Did he convey the level of anger you hoped for regarding what you told him to say about AIG?

    Teleprompter, is the president ever argumentative with you or is he compliant with your instructions?

    Teleprompter, have you ever thought about helping Secretary Geithner or do you work for just one person?

    Teleprompter, how are you and the first lady getting along?

    Are you dating anybody, teleprompter? Mac or PC?

    There’s a rumor, teleprompter, that you send out a small shock to the president when he mispronounces words or mangles phrases you tell him to say or that you can even make him cough. Is that true?

    Teleprompter, in private, is Joe Biden as buffoonish as he is in public? Tell us, we want to know.

    How does it feel, teleprompter, to be the first teleprompter for an American president? You’re the first teleprompter — capital F — First teleprompter.

    Teleprompter, as a consumer of electricity, how do you feel about cap and trade? Are you — do you feel threatened and endangered?

    Teleprompter, do you listen to talk radio? Would you consider yourself a Dittohead?

    When did you first meet Barack Obama, teleprompter? And are you paid with taxpayer money, and if so, did you have to fill out Obama’s questionnaire before you were hired as First teleprompter?

    And teleprompter, what are your plans post presidency? Will you retire to Silicon Valley or will you tell Obama what to say when he’s giving speeches at a million dollars per year after his presidency?

    And finally, teleprompter, are you nervous about President Obama appearing with “The Chin” on the Tonight Show without you?

    Thank you, Media Matters!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  266. Barcky says the buck stops with him. Good on him for admitting that his folks allowed this to happen. Shame on him for trying to demagogue this.

    JD (df4164)

  267. Bradley – Someone called Barcky the first TOTUS, Teleprompter of the United States. Insta-classic.

    JD (df4164)

  268. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 3/18/2009 @ 7:01 pm

    The real reason he won’t debate Rush. :)

    Dana (137151)

  269. Thank you, Brother Bradley.

    Did you know that Guinness tastes different in Ireland?

    Priceless.

    Deacon JD, C.O.R. (df4164)

  270. The First Teleprompter Never Forgets

    While presidents typically have used them for their most important speeches — an inaugural, State of the Union or Oval Office address — Mr. Obama uses them for routine announcements and even for the opening statement of his only news conference so far.

    He used them during a visit to a Caterpillar plant in Peoria, Ill. He used them to make brief remarks opening his “fiscal responsibility summit.” He used them to discuss endangered species, even recalling a visit to national parks as an 11-year-old. “That was an experience I will never forget,” he said, reading from the teleprompter.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  271. The irony will be lost on those that worship Teh One, TOTUS, Brother Bradley.

    Deacon JD, C.O.R. (df4164)

  272. He used them during a visit to a Caterpillar plant in Peoria, Ill.

    Would this be the same Caterpillar plant that Mr. Obama asserted, claimed, emphatically stated that the CEO said if the stimulus package passed, victims of their layoff could be rehired back?

    Except that the CEO did not say that and 2,454 more employees were laid off this week.

    CEO Owens made it clear that the stimulus package would not allow him to re-hire any recently laid off workers any time soon.

    That Caterillar? Faulty teleprompter?

    Dana (137151)

  273. _____________________________________

    Since there are 266 postings above, most of them hard to wade through because of this blog’s interface (ie, no horizontal rules — meaning lines — to divide each comment, so posts, particularly bunches of small ones, become one big blur), I’m not sure if someone already alluded to the following. But it adds to the sense that Obama is a faux president — sort of a real-life variation of an Eddie Murphy character — playing the lead role in the movie “The Nutty President.”

    news.sky.com:

    A teleprompt blunder has led to Barack Obama thanking himself in a speech at the White House in a St Patrick’s Day celebration.

    Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington when he realised it all sounded a bit too familiar.

    It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

    Mr Cowen stopped, turned to the president and said: “That’s your speech.”

    A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.

    Mark (411533)

  274. If Bush had used a teleprompter more often maybe he wouldn’t have gained such a reputation for being a moron. Or, maybe not…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  275. STFU, Hacky Sack.

    Deacon JD, C.O.R. (df4164)

  276. Seems to me that Ear Leader is making as many gaffes as Bush did at this point, with or without a teleprompter. I thought Obama was smooth and smart?

    Of course, Bush didn’t have a whole passel of bootlickers among the oh-so-unbiased journasses, did he?

    Maybe it is time for a post of Obama Gaffes…like that “Bushism of the Day” thing in “Slate” magazine.

    Anonymouse (8d54e0)

  277. Comment by Mark — 3/18/2009 @ 8:35 pm

    Un. Be. Lievable how stupid the Overwhelmed Chosen One is. The MSM is despicable for lying and covering up what they could see very well even a year or two before the election.

    Am quite literally praying that their negligence and lies don’t cause a rogue-nation or terrorist attack one day. Butterfly effect and all that.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  278. Racists

    Deacon JD, C.O.R. (df4164)

  279. If Bush had used a teleprompter more often maybe he wouldn’t have gained such a reputation for being a moron. Or, maybe not…

    Even the trollopus can’t bring itself to defend TOTUS’ goofs. Or, maybe it realizes it would be laughed at even more for defending presidency-by-teleprompter. . . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  280. The terrible teleprompter talking point is my second-favorite, right after the one that says Obama is an enchanting orator who hypnotizes the masses with his pretty words.

    hilarious!

    Maybe one of these days the Whine Club will settle on a meme that doesn’t contradict what they said the day before. Maybe that’ll happen AFTER Obama fails, but, hey, by then, they’ll just be crying wolf…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  281. “The terrible teleprompter talking point is my second-favorite, right after the one that says Obama is an enchanting orator who hypnotizes the masses with his pretty words.”

    Hax – You trotted this meme out last night. You want me to retrieve the comment.

    Talk about recycling talking points. Look in the mirror moron.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  282. Hax is just saving up energy so that he can fix the 15 or 20 factual errors he has made here over the past few weeks. Wait, he is just arguing ‘for the fun of it’ so never mind.

    /resume talking points RUSH LIMBAUGH!Q!!!!@#@

    carlitos (b01f67)

  283. “Hax is just saving up energy so that he can fix the 15 or 20 factual errors he has made here over the past few weeks.”

    carlitos – What do you mean weeks? There are more than that in this thread alone from him.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  284. For those of you not following:

    skynews = Whine Club
    Palestinians = bunch o’chumps making ‘homemade rockets’
    Joooos = bad
    Conservative newspapers = Failing in ‘every single major metro market’ vs. their liberal competitor
    Fullterton = outside of greater Los Angeles
    Ayn Rand = “ham-fisted fables”
    Immigration enforcement = deport CEO of Tyson chicken
    Hax Vobiscum, in memoriam = on almost every issue, I’m almost certain that I’m wrong

    carlitos (b01f67)

  285. I just love the “Whine Club” meme from the biggest whining troll we have.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  286. carlitos,
    You got the translations pretty well for our trollopus.

    Here’s another one:
    “enchanting orator” = working teleprompter

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  287. All three-a-yez are too funny.

    Here’s another one:
    “enchanting orator” = working teleprompter

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 3/18/2009 @ 11:20 pm

    LOL

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  288. I do not recall noting that Barcky is an enchanting orator. I tend to differentiate between enchanting oratory and great reading-someone-else’s-words-off-of-a-teleprompter. I guess Barcky is more of a great read-out-louder.

    Deacon JD, C.O.R. (df4164)

  289. And who would the great Republican orator be?

    George Bush, in his own words, of course?

    Or maybe his father?

    Oh, it must be Ronald Reagan, except that he always used a teleprompter.

    Well, it had to be Nixon I guess, or Eisenhower??

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  290. Hacks never tires of slaughtering strawpeople.

    JD (dda3fa)

  291. I tend to differentiate between enchanting oratory and great reading-someone-else’s-words-off-of-a-teleprompter

    Back in the day, we called that shoveling BS.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  292. translation:

    tu quoque = legitimate argument

    Also, RUSH LIMBAUGH!!#$@$!@$!

    carlitos (b01f67)

  293. Trotting out the previously discredited deregulation meme is another blazing neon sstatement of the obvious that he has no clue what is going on with respect to AIG. The OTS spokesman testified specifically that they had the regulatory authority and manpower to shutdown AIG’s activities in this are had they wanted. AIG’d losses in securities lending were also greater than those in CDS.

    So basically, once again, Hax demonstrates he is brimming over with shit.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  294. If Dubya was a black democrat, he would be considered the greatest president in our nation’s history, and yeah, he’d be considered a great orator.

    People who think Obama speaks better than Bush are not thinking for themselves.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  295. Debating hacks is like the special olympics or something.

    carlitos (efdd90)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.1205 secs.