Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > November > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTruth even more important in wartime
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The media get blamed for a lot of things, and that’s OK. We dish out the criticism freely, and sometimes we get too thin-skinned about facing return fire.
In some cases, though, we get blamed simply for being the messenger. It is not the media’s fault, for example, that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be vice president. We didn’t pick her, and it’s not our fault that, according to the McCain campaign staff, she didn’t know that Africa was a continent.
Back in the early days of the Iraq war, you may recall, the media also got a lot of criticism for “not reporting all the good things that were happening in Iraq.” Everybody from the president and generals to actor Bruce Willis and citizens writing letters to the editor were complaining about the harsh reports coming out of Baghdad and Anbar province.
There were insinuations and even allegations of treason, and claims that the left-wing media wanted the United States to lose the war or were simply playing out their anti-Bush bias. Conservative commentators such as Ralph Peters, a former infantry officer, claimed that “the body count cherished by the media is the number of our own troops dead and wounded,” suggesting that reporters were playing into al-Qaida’s hands.
But what happened next is important. That reporting created a political momentum for change in both U.S. strategy and leadership. After the ‘06 midterm elections, President Bush finally ended months of denial and acknowledged the truth, that events in Iraq were spiraling out of control and that “the situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me.”
Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, appointed a new commanding general for Iraq in David Petraeus, and announced what came to be known as the surge.
Whatever the future holds for Iraq, it is undeniably a more secure place today than it was a few years ago. And it was the media, doing its duty by reporting honestly, that helped create the political space and political momentum to allow that change to take place.
A similar dynamic could be seen recently in Afghanistan. After a firefight and aerial assault in a village called Azizabad, initial reports from the U.S. military insisted that civilian deaths had been minimal, an account confirmed by Oliver North with a Fox News crew in the area. But when Afghani sources insisted otherwise, claiming a significant number of deaths to women and children, U.S. media reported those claims as well.
To some, the media was once again playing into the hands of al-Qaida. But forced to look further by pressure from the Afghan government and the media, the U.S. military discovered that the Afghani version of events appears to have been closer to the truth. Because of that discovery, U.S. rules involving use of air power have changed for the better, reducing the risk of civilian casualties and thus improving American hopes for success in the region.
Denying the truth, as some tried to do, would have saved the United States some embarrassment and criticism in the short term, but it also would have allowed the previous policy to continue, with long-term harm to our interests.
The American system is built on a faith in the truth. And while none of us can know that truth in its entirety, we do know that our nation’s best interests are not served by trying to silence information either through government rule or by public intimidation.
That applies across the board. At the moment, conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy at the thought that Democrats might try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. That rule, abolished in 1987, required broadcast outlets to give equal amounts of time to competing viewpoints. Conservatives fear that if the policy is reinstated, it will doom conservative talk radio.
Personally, I think that fear has been ginned up by the conservatives themselves to satisfy their need to feel persecuted. If Democrats really did try to push such a change, it would be both a big surprise and a foolish mistake, and I expect it wouldn’t get very far.
Comments
By GodHatesTrash
November 10, 2008 6:34 AM | Link to this
There’s a certain element that thinks when you put lipstick on a pig, you’ve got a Vice President. These same folks think that if you put a smiley face button on a war that means we’re winning and doing kind, humanitarian things.
They also think you can wrap an American flag around a bag of garbage and all of a sudden it isn’t garbage.
Thank God these people are no longer the majority, and in a few weeks, will no longer be in power.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 6:40 AM | Link to this
This one has me stumped-
The American system is built on a faith in the truth. And while none of us can know that truth in its entirety, we do know that our nation’s best interests are not served by trying to silence information either through government rule or by public intimidation.-kookman, Urinal
I’m not talking about the paragraph, I know what that means, after 8 years of utter bald faced lying, with the whole entire industry of “news” people working for the democrat party, there are reputations that need repairing, circulations that need boosting, so now it looks like the libs are going to lie^^ about how “good and valuable” they are.
“We really didn’t lie, honestly.”
But there is something more to this, some nefarious and goony plot has been hatched in the rubber rooms at the moonbat hotel, and I have a block on what it could possibly be.
More on this later.
By GodHatesTrash
November 10, 2008 6:43 AM | Link to this
Re: the Fairness Doctrine
The Chicken Littles need their sources of hate and lies, it’s what keeps them alive.
What’s interesting is that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert were evidently more successful at getting their message to Americans than Faux and the literally thousands of imbeciles on rant/rave/hate/slander radio. And those damn internets…
The so-called MSM was of little help, their cowardice over the last eight years is perhaps the most shameful period for the Fourth Estate in US history.
By Joel
November 10, 2008 6:46 AM | Link to this
I was wondering when the liberal media was going to take credit for the surge. After all of the dire warning and predictions of body counts and “it’s a civil war and we can’t stop it”, how nice to know that this was the liberal media plan all along. Amazing, I’m chastised and humbled.
By spankmonkey
November 10, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this
“I know what that means, after 8 years of utter bald faced lying,”
We feel the same way Andy, we feel the same way…
It’s an easy enough situation to remedy, you need to stop spewing your lies and filth, stop with your serial cut-n-pasting from Rush the pillpopper’s website and wherever else you get your slanderous, untrue crap from.
Tell the truth Andy, then shut off your computer and go outside and feel the sunshine on your face. I know it’s a sensation you haven’t felt in forever and a day, telling the truth and going outside to feel the sunshine, but it will grow on you. And, like W, you will stop getting trapped in your web of lies and feel better for it.
By Leni
November 10, 2008 6:54 AM | Link to this
When The Big O is inaugurated we will get our free speech back. We can even speak truth to power without being accused of hate speech. It’s been a long time coming.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 6:55 AM | Link to this
One of the reasons I know there is something more to this column than meets than eye is because the liberals still keep right on lying-
Rather than heeding this example, however, the Obama Administration is much more likely to do exactly what California did during the 1980s and 1990s — stall both coal and nuclear construction while adopting huge subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy.” Within a decade we could find ourselves where California was in 2000 — saddled with huge quantities of expensive “alternate” energy while not having enough electricity to run its traffic lights. - AmSpec
Kalifornia has been a liberal guinea pig for decades, we already know the outcome of the new lib energy policy, but just yesterday the Urinal was nattering on about how “great” it will be.
Great for what?
By bobfromcanton
November 10, 2008 7:04 AM | Link to this
Just wondering if the hate on the right will be as strong agains bho as it has been on the left for 8 years against W? Truth? Jay, you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit your sorry backside!
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 7:13 AM | Link to this
Denying the truth, as some tried to do,…
This is to me one of the great mysteries and huge disappointments of our time.
Though given the lessons of Nixon/Agnew and Reagan/North, the GOP, it seems, has become a permanent cult of denial and subterfuge.
From intentionally misleading statements prior to shock and awe, to Mission Accomplished, to practically everything Dick Cheney ever uttered about Iraq, to greenhouse gases and man-induced climate change, to rampant and willful abuse/destruction of our natural resources, to John McCain’s analysis that “the economy is sound” to the role that the White House played in the collapse of the credit markets.
The “new” hijacked Republican Party should change their mascot from an elephant to an ostrich….
By leni
November 10, 2008 7:15 AM | Link to this
When The Big O is inaugurated we will get our free speech back. We will be able to speak truth to power without being accused of hate speech. It’s been a long time coming.
By Mike In Woodstock
November 10, 2008 7:17 AM | Link to this
Can’t say that it would make sense for the Dems to push to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Think about it. Obama successfully out-manuevered them during this campaign by organizing online through emails and texts. Talk radio did not have any affect on this election. This election has definitely rendered talk radio impotent.
By TW
November 10, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this
Speaking of truth, it appears as though the allowance we were giving the Sunni to behave was perhaps a backbone of the ‘surge.’ Assuming the Shiite would willingly assume the parental handout responsiblities was a page from the old, failed ‘they will greet us as liberators’ manual.
We paid the sunni to stop the violence. How, on earth, could McCain and the media graduate the ‘surge’ to a level of ‘success’ prior to seeing how the Sunni would would act when we stopped their allowance?
Pull the troops.
By TW
November 10, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this
Speaking of truth, it appears as though the allowance we were giving the Sunni to behave was perhaps a backbone of the ‘surge.’ Assuming the Shiite would willingly assume the parental handout responsiblities was a page from the old, failed ‘they will greet us as liberators’ manual.
We paid the sunni to stop the violence. How, on earth, could McCain and the media graduate the ‘surge’ to a level of ‘success’ prior to seeing how the Sunni would would act when we stopped their allowance?
Pull the troops.
By TN Gelding
November 10, 2008 7:34 AM | Link to this
The truth shall set you free
It’s so much easier to just tell the truth and face the consequences.
Why did Bush announce the surge? (More later)
I think Palin just didn’t know that South Africa was a country within Africa, but we’ll probably learn more later.
By Ray
November 10, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this
Bookman ,
Now that you and all of your kind have bought us a president, you are taking credit for putting this nation back on some kind of “correct course”. During the long debates that were ensuing over the last several months, a lot of us literally begged you to address distaff points of view in these postings. Obviously, nearly 47% of Americans disagreed with you, your staff, your methods and your blatant bias in thinking that it was not keeping with fairness, responsibility and the role of the media. You have a very unfair advantage to those who disagree with you. Tucker sits behind her desk not allowing her readers to blog her editorials, you pick and choose your subjects as if you were on some kind of crusade to throw out the evil Bush and you say that it is the media’s duty to take sides and influence opinion so that that moron on MSNBC can get some kind of funny feeling running up his leg. You and your liberal bloggers throw around hate and hate filled rhetoric before the election, then expect all of those who disagreed with you to get together and become “one big happy family”. Well, Mr. Bookman, it doesn’t happen that way. This election will not be over until that clown is out of the White House, plain and simple and it can’t happen too soon.
By **O. J**ay KOOKman (Mad As Zell)
November 10, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jay. Looking at what you’ve written today I see that you either a)either forgot to take out last night’s trash again or b) managed to dream up yet another hallucinatory hit piece of fake liberal urinalism on behalf of your demented blood buddies the far, far, far, far left bomb-throwing wing of the Demoncrap Party. “Truth even more important in wartime”….Jay, just what in the hell do you and the lying left-wing marxist kooks at the (A)tlanta (J)oke (C)ommie know about truth? For the last eight years, you (Kookman), Jihad Cindy and the rest of the backstabbing Benedict Arnolds on the editorial staff at the Al-Jazeera have done absolutely nothing everyday, day after day after day, but sit around and dream up some new pinko defeatist fantasy talking points designed to help push the nation closer and closer to accepting your facist Marxist way of warped thinking. When using one of America’s worst written and least read daily toliet papers to brainwash the public didn’t work, you moonbats did what you do best, use voter fraud to steal the election and install Barry the Jihadist as the ILLEGITIMATE 44th President. Barry the Jihadist…..makes Joe the Plumber look like George Washington, eh?
By Left Nuts
November 10, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Africa is a country. OK Palin got that one wrong. The media had a ‘job’ to do to show her weakness in this area.
Why was Obama’s “I’ve visited 57 state with one left to go, but they won’t let me visit Hawaii or Alaska” comment not covered with the same air time and negative comments?
Africa is not her country (or continent), however, the United States, all 50 of them, is Obama’s home. Why did he not know this about HIS OWN COUNTRY?
Yep the media is reporting from the center!
Jay, you should warn your readers that they need to put on hip waders before reading your BS.
By Joey
November 10, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this
Jay the Truth Doctor:
Jay you write about truth, but in the second paragraph you say that Palin did not know that Africa was a continent. Yes you qualified your truth by saying the statement came from McCain Campaign staff.
That is a perfect example of what represents truth to you, the AJC and MSM.
Plus, it calls into question anything you write after that silly “statement of truth”.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
I’m pretty sure Al Gore stated that he invented the internet among some of his more retarded remarks. He was still good enough to be the liberal Presidential nominee in 2000.
By GOP is gone
November 10, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this
Yes Jay, the media does has a due diligence to tell the story. After 9/11 anyone that did not go blindly along with “W” was branded an Anti-American and worse, think Natalie Maines, or were discredited with pay back secret telling, think Valerie Plame.
Sadly, the press did not do their due diligence when it came to the WMD lie that the Bush administration used to launch their oil-war, thus enriching their cronies at Haliburton and Blackwater. The arrogance, deceit and incompetence of this administration will go down in history as a national disgrace. Please continue to search out the truth. With out the press we would not have known about the above at all.
I saw a Republican representative on one of the 24hr networks saying, “Do not think the new Democratic controlled congress is going to shove their liberal agenda down our throats”, really? I kind of felt choked by your “Christian, anti-science” agenda for 8 long years. Better learn the Heimlich maneuver guys.
By **O.** **J**ay Kookman (Mad As Zell)
November 10, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this
O.J. Simpson- robs and murders people
O. Jay Kookman -robs and murders journalistic integrity (with the help of his witless accomplice, Jihad Cindy Tucker)
Get the connection?
By TN Gelding
November 10, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
The possible fairness doctrine renewal is just another attempt by the GOP to keep the faithful riled up.
And to keep them making donations and buying the many books they write exposing their faulty thought processes.
But hey, it silenced the biased, liberal media, so why not?
Red herring?
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Temps in most areas of country below average in ‘08…-NAOO
Duh.
So now we wonder what are the libs talking about with “global warming?”
And why do they still seek to destroy the energy sector?
Suckers.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
To the fringe,
You are mistaken.
Though there is some warm fuzzy attempts by some liberals to “reach across the aisle” and to reconcile the animosity and the divide, I do not advocate it.
Perhaps to the four or five reasonable moderates in the GOP, yes, but to the rabid neo-cons and the Bush apologists???
NFW.
Unless and until these extremists show some significant degree of regret, humility or accountability for the horrific and deadly choices they made, they are like alcoholics, not yet willing to clean themselves up or even entertain the idea of an intervention.
A couple of more consecutive humiliating defeats should do the trick though…
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Liberals on these blogs are very angry people and seem to hate Christians (See GOP is gone). This is very different from the all inclusive, everyone-is-equal rhetoric that Democrats like to talk about in their policy speeches. Last I checked, Obama claimed to be a Christian. Does that make his polices Christian and anti-science too? Hope you don’t choke on those.
By Me Again
November 10, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
Come on Bookman-
Media just the messenger? Give me a break! Have you even turned on a television in the past 18 months? It is not the media’s fault Palin wasn’t qualified to be VP? Are you serious? She has more executive experience than Obama, but the media made nothing of his lack of experience. He was the chosen one from the start and got a pass from the “Messenger Only” media. I don’t care what you say, you are nailed to wall on this one.
By Edward
November 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Can we rent a stadium and put everyone who has ever heard of MLK, the civil rights movement; ever known a black person, ever said the words Martin Luther King in the stadium and have them reflect on what it’s like to have Obama for president and get it over with. Can we hear from each and every money scamming civil rights preacher and get it over with. When did this presidential election become another I Have a Dream speech. Enough is enough! He won, he is preisdent to all, both black and white so get it over it and enough of the Auburn Avenue crap that’s been shoved down my throat since last Tuesday. Nothing has changed; Clayton County is still the cesspool killing fields it has been. Look at the news there this weekend and how many young black gang bangers were killed, NOTHING has changed. The only change we’ll see is no change at all.
By O.J. Kookman (Mad As Zell)
November 10, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
LOLO @ 8:21 AM, It’s not just on these blogs that liberals are very angry and hate Christians (see Bill Maher), but during their every waking moment (see Kookman) and in their sleep, too (see Tucker). You see, Kookman is an UNFAIR, unequal opportunist. Kookman will lead off with hate-filled lies and untruths in his blogs and encourage liberals to follow up with as many leftist bomb-throwing inflammatory lies as possible, but let a few conservatives give these libs a taste of their own facist medicine and threatened with permanent banishment from the board by the Al-Jazeera birdbrain trust. No room for traditional/conservative opinion at a marxist paper, go figure.
By GOP is gine
November 10, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
LOLO,
Who said I hate Christians? Not me. I do not hate anyone, I am a Buddhist. However I take exception to having YOUR so called Christian values shoved down my throat when MY government has a separation of church and state, something you seem to have forgotten. I generally have found those values to be very hypocritical. Do as I say not as I do.
By BDAtlanta
November 10, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
We don’t need a fairness doctrine. If people want to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, let em listen….just don’t vote them into office and hope you don’t get a job working for one of them. The idea that some people get their news from those nut jobs is unfathomable.
By TN Gelding
November 10, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
If Limbaugh disses Michelle the way he did Hillary I suspect he’ll be getting a visit from the Secret Service.
As well he should. But he’ll still be laughing all the way to the bank with Hannity and the rest of them.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
…and seem to hate Christians.
No they love the sinner, they just hate the sin! LOL!
The “blame the evil-liberal media” frenzy will never go away in the minds of those who love their “conservative” mental midgets. And who accept NO personal responsibility. In themselves or their heroes.
Much is made of Sister Sarah’s lack of acumen. And rightfully so. Other than wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, the woman could not name ONE other significant Supreme Court case that had ever informed her opinion. Not Dred Scott? Not Brown v. Board of Education? Nothing?
She also couldn’t name a single newspaper, and yet she claimed she reads them all.
Hmmmmm……
After Not So Curious George, the nation is particularly alarmed about putting yet another reactionary in the White House who CLEARLY is in WAY over her head.
It would seem the Alaska governor is an older version of the Miss South Carolina Teen USA contestant.
She and her buddy, Ted the Felon can keep an eye on the Rooskies for us…
By TN Gelding
November 10, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
California was robbed by Enron and the others.
By GOP is gone
November 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
I do not think I have expressed how good it feels to have been able to change my moniker from GOP’s got to go to GOP is gone.
I am just able to sleep so soundly lately. I do not know if I can attribute it to “Our dear Sarah” handling any “Red Dawn” scenarios up in Alaska or just knowing the buffoon is close to being gone. Either way it sure feels GOOD. OHM……….
By Peter
November 10, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Duh-bya says his administration will be viewed in a positive light with an historic perspective. I can’t wait until January 21, 2009 to tell him he’s wrong.
By Mrs. Godzilla
November 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Sorry, Jay, the truth was even more important BEFORE we went to war.
The MSM cheerleaded us into Iraq. They failed us all. Their fear of missing access to POTUS, led them to print what they were told. Investigative journalism by the MSM became a thing of the past.
Thank heavens for the “inter-tubes”!
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
That applies across the board. At the moment, conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy at the thought that Democrats might try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Oh to hear the wailing. The wailing!
It’s SO UNFAIR!!!!! :-(
Man that elephant makes an awful wailing sound when it’s wounded.
You know, your post got me thinking.
There really IS something quasi-traitorious about the role of the press in a democracy in a certain sense. (Go ahead righties, roll your eyes if you must.) As legend had it, Aristotle once said that he loved Plato, but he loved the truth more. And that’s how it has to be with journalistic ethics, if you ask me.
We love the Bushies - oh how we have loved them. Just as we will soon love the Obamaites. But we love them like a parent loves a child - by a factor of 10.
I love Obama very much. And I love Rahmy too. All of um. They’re great. But there’s nothing that can match my love for the truth.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus — THAT is what the press’s motto must be.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Jay
Comment
I honestly believe if the press we have today were there the day before D-Day in World War II, they would have given the location of the invasion away in the interest of truth.
Question
If the so called Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted, why wouldn’t it apply to television and newspapers/websites as well (at least all the editorial sections thereof)???
By Mr Snarky
November 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jay, For the past 8 years, we’ve had a bush campaign, not an administration, a campaign. I say that because their primary interest has always been in political messaging that would ensure their grasp on power. They had no interest in governing effectively. If anyone tried to question or contradict their message, that person was cast as a traitor or as a tool of the “angry left”. I’m so glad they’ll be gone.
By Joan O.King
November 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
First time blogger, but great fan of Jay Bookman.
Print media does more than serve the country well. Newspapers are essential to a free and informed country. I’ve been a citizen activist for years and have written a guest column for the Gainesville TIMES since 2000. I rely on the national print media for background and factual information that I could not possible get from the electronic media. Jay Bookman is one of my heros.
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
The HIHI at 8:55 is not Jay Bookman. Further the HIHI at 9:04 is not the same HIHI from 8:55. Perhaps Jay would like to expose the fraud HIHI at 9:04.
By Bosch
November 10, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Good Monday bloggers.
A nice warm bowl of oatmeal just hits the spot!
Second cup of coffee - yeap, life’s grand.
I’ve always found it quite hypocritical that the rabid right amongst us blames the media for all their ills, as these same nuts are quick to point out the suppression of media in places like Iraq.
I seriously think Bush and Cheney wish they could have controlled the media more - kind of like they do in China and Saddam Hussein Iraq.
Is it all true? Nope. But, it’s real easy, all ya’ gotta do is apply the Bosch media test of common sense. My common sense test is quite simple - if the rabid right say it’s true, then the exact opposite is true.
Here’s a simple formula:
Rabid Right say A is true, then
Truth = B
By TW
November 10, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
The rightwing attacks on MSM would have alot more punch if they didn’t smell like O’Reilly’s rump.
By Ray
November 10, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
In l791 the first Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed that there would be no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press… 1st Article of the Bill of Rights…… pretty important but it didn’t address the responsibility of the press to it’s public for this great right that they have been given. Obviously, when a press or a media is repressive, we have anarchy and repression. But when the press takes it upon themselves to be on a mission to influence opinion based on personal bias, this right to a free press takes on a different spin. We still have voters in this country that couldn’t find Africa on a map and not all of them were Sarah Palin. They would believe anything that Bookman, Katie, Brian, Cynthia and Charlie said….. must be true, “I saw it on TV”. Here’s where the responsibility of the press kicks in. Not all of them are as well read as those on this blog. We are for the most part, current, pretty biased, informed and driven. But your average 18-30 voter in this country is not. Lattes, iPods, American Idol are more important than knowing who is running and what they stand for. Enter all of the above “journalists” with a mission and you have a bought and paid for election, plain and simple. If the Annointed One won because of the 18-30 vote, a good many voted because Katie and Ophra said it was the thing to do. It didn’t say anything about that in Article 1.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
Hope springs eternal among the brain dead.
Newt Gingrich says he’s ready, willing and able to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
“If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” Randy Evans, Gingrich’s close friend, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment. The RNC has to do some soul-searching and decide what level of change is necessary. If that answer is bold, energetic change led by someone who has done it before, then Newt would be a good choice.”
But Evans warned the Journal-Constitution that if the GOP is eying a shift toward the middle, “that isn’t Newt.”
No shiite.
Saxby Chambliss, “Newt! Don’t you see that cliff we’re getting ready to go over?”
Newt (with a scarf on), “Yep, And I’m standing on the gaaaaaasssss!”
By JAY BOOKMAN
November 10, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
The serial name-jacker is Mad as Zell, and he is now banned until tomorrow.
Buh bye…
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Just what is name jacking, Jay? Is it the use of someone else’s moniker with a slight variation, for example, or does it mean pasting the other person’s entire post and then altering it? What does it include exactly?
By RB from Gwinnett
November 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Jay, One of the major problems with you and your version of the media is that you repeat things as fact without anything more than some other biased columnist as support. The Palin/Africa story for example. Did you speak with the “unnamed source” yourself or are you just taking the word of someone who as the same agenda you do? Is it true or not? Do you know the truth? You’ve printed this piece as if you know the truth and your minions will accept it as truth.
Palin will speak to that issue on Greta tonight. I’m curious to see that interview and get the real story of what happened there and not some 3 times filtered opinion from nameless people through 3 biased media outlets.
Another blogger made a good point about th 57 states Obama comment. That, Jay, is not a rumor passed on through unnamed sources. It’s on tape. Why no equal coverage of that comment?
Jay, you are the only print media in this city and you serve most of the state. The people deserve a more balanced presentation of the news than you’re providing. Are you capable of being objective? If not, move on.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
Bosch: I’ve always found it quite hypocritical that the rabid right amongst us blames the media for all their ills, as these same nuts are quick to point out the suppression of media in places like Iraq.
Rabid Right say A is true, then Truth = B
TRUTH itself is partially traitorous (see above) because it is not owned by anyone or any cause and thus is not loyal to anything (except perhaps GOD) except itself. And that’s why the ‘rabid right’ cannot brook truth. It can’t handle the truth.
As to your formula of truth, I’d kind of go along with that, but I’d add that it’s sort of like the following scenario. The rabid right is like one of these disturbed possessive fathers who keeps the daughter (truth) trapped in the cellar for 20 years, refusing to allow her to go out and mix with the world and live her life When the truth finally escapes, which always happens sooner or later, the right first reacts with rage and then is despondent, not to mention some ensuing legal problems.
By TW
November 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Ray@9:19 - I know exactly how you feel. The same factor gave us eight years of ‘w’ and darn near destroyed the country. Where were you during that abortion?
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Rabid Right say A is true, then Truth = B
But don’t forget, Bosch. As they say, even a clock that’s wrong is right twice a day. So we can’t dismiss them outright — unfortunately.
By GOP is gone
November 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Please do not assume that because they did not vote the way YOU did that 18-30 year olds are not informed. I know my off spring are very informed and active in the politcal process.
That age group had the most at stake in this election being the ones who will have to pay back all this bail out money and fight the wars. THAT was why they were so active in this campaign, they have recognised this fact. You and I will long be dead while they are still doing the paying back.
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Why do so many people speak of this so-called balanced presentation of the news. News is news. Balance is an entirely different issue. What is a reporter to do, for example, if there are ten deaths in one day and no births. Is the reporter expected to balance the ten deaths with a lie about ten births. Further, since when does an opinion piece have to be balanced. Such talk is just plain absurd. I personally prefer truth, facts, over any contrivance that someone might dream up in the name of balance.
The next thing you know someone will claim that FOX News is fair and balanced because they take some biased perspective on an issue and get a pro-Republican speaker and a pro-Democrat speaker to each make a statement about this biased perspective on an issue or some other equally idiotic scenario. How many people actually stop to think what “fair and balanced” even means.
Further, on the issue of truth, take a look at Saxby’s ad where he states that Martin voted on the largest tax increase in Georgia’s history. How many people even understand what Saxby is referring to and how utterly deceitful Saxby is with this claim while remaining technically truthful. I remember a politician from a few years back that tried to highlight this scourge that seems to have invaded politics by borrowing some words of wisdom from a local church advertisement, A half-truth is still a lie.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
But when Afghani sources insisted otherwise, claiming a significant number of deaths to women and children, U.S. media reported those claims as well.
The mysterious Afghani “sources,” unnamed as usual.
On 2 September 2008, a further report was announced in which the US stated that up to seven civilians had been killed and reasserted that the majority of those killed were members of the Taliban.
A claim that the US has not backed away from to this day.
Rules of engagement changed for both sides that day, the US is more diligent in protecting innocents civilians, true, even at the cost of placing our brave soldiers at greater risk.
But the Taliban also now know that they can claim innocent children were killed where there is only dead terrorists and the US media will carry the word of the enemy over their own government. And this leads to greater protection for the Taliban from US airpower and, most disgustingly, gives the terrorists incentive to want to see more dead women and children.
And here we have the new architect of the surge in Iraq, according to his own written word anyway, braying over what a delightful service his own media has done using dead Afghani “children” as props against the United States.
Nice, isn’t it?
By Bosch
November 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Soixante huitard,
You’re right - truth is relative
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
The past eight years have not merely been partisan, but full of dangerous and unhinged hatred for President George W. Bush. And the engine of much of that bile were the men and women in the crowd at Grant Park, the rank and file of the next president’s party, and the compliant media who did so much to destroy Bush and deify Obama.-AmSpec
“Bi partisanship” anyone?
You know what’s even more telling, watch over the next few months as all of the horrors perpetrated by the Bush administration become no big deal at all when Oblahma does the same thing.
Like your new attorney generals, barry?
By Ray
November 10, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Bookman,
The really sad part of this whole media story resides in the fact that you have sold your soul in the name of opinion. There was a reason why Cronkite, Rooney, Morrow and Sevareid were respected journalists in this country and despite what they may have thought about a person or a situation, they usually gave an honest, mostly non-biased way of understanding the news to a public that needed to understand and have an opportunity to make up their own mind about the days events. The American public, is, for the most part, not a stupid group of people but you treat them as though they are. You manufacture stories to fit your opinion, you state things of questionable veracity and you expect thinking people to buy it. Rather is a perfect example of people like you. Think Cronkite would have lowered his standards like you have? If you do, you are in the wrong business.
By GOP is gone
November 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Ray, And further more, please do not act as if the GOP is so well informed. Was it not your GOP low IQ’s that asked McCain about Obama being a Muslim? Even McCain rolled his eyes on that one. Did she hear that on TV? She was pretty old to have gotten it from a computer, but not impossible. Did I detect some Rushism or Seanism bias?
By Just_Me
November 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Greetings
Ironic-I was (still am) confined to bed due to a whop’ daddy case of bronchitis that is quickly morphing into pneumonia…again (so glad I never smoked)….
ANYWAY..over the weekend, I read Scott McClellan’s “What Happened.” This should be required reading, I swear.
He does talk about the media-how they were manipulated, how they DIDN’T ask the questions they should have during the runup to Iraq; the total secrecy of the current administration, and how that lack of transparency doomed the presidency.
I figured this was going to be another one of those point the blame away from me, books, but to McC’s credit, he takes on the blame for much that was told to the press….and for NOT questioning some of the choices made (Condi does NOT look good-she comes out, as others have said, as a “yes woman,” who never tried to correct, educate, or challenge her wanna-be boyfriend, W).
now, since the coughing has started up in earnest again, i am going to find a place to hide my hurtin’ body and hope this goes away.
GOP is gone? Love the Buddhist faith. I follow a lot of their tenets, and consider myself a student in the faith. One of my favorite aspects is the encouragement to QUESTION and think about your faith, which we know, fundies will not allow..(is their faith not strong enough tp withstand some scrutiny? my baptist minister friend said it should….)
Anyway, hack, cough, wheeze…. behave.
By JAY BOOKMAN
November 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Claims Management:
“On 2 September 2008, a further report was announced in which the US stated that up to seven civilians had been killed and reasserted that the majority of those killed were members of the Taliban.
A claim that the US has not backed away from to this day.”
That is flat out wrong: The US military now acknowledges the death of 33 Afghan civilians in that attack.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
This entire article is one of the most mind numbingly absurd pieces I’ve read in quite some time. The gratuitous shot at Governor Palin is no surprise since the author is eaten up with PDS, but taking credit for the success in Iraq just boggles the mind. Follow that by saying nobody seriously wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is pure propaganda. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer both want it back and they aren’t exactly back benchers. The President-elect will shut off off access to anybody that even dares to ask him an uncomfortable question if that gives you any indication of his probablee path and he can implement this without Congressional action.
The Fairness Doctrine will be a goldmine for satellite radio though, so to my conservative friends I say rather than complain to much just invest accordingly once the tea leaves can be properly read.
The one thing this article does do though is strip away the excuse that the author can’t be held to journalistic standards under the guise of only being an opinion writer. “Just the truth” should be an interesting standard to hold the editorial pages to. I look forward to it and we could start with the second paragraph. There are also reports from the McCain campaign that the “Africa is a country not a continent” meme is a malicious slander of our 45th President. If we’re sticking to truth how do we choose which side of contradicting stories to go with?
In Jay’s case it seems to be you go with the cowards that speak anonymously and reject the people that will face the cameras and questioners.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Rau writes:
Bookman ,
Now that you and all of your kind have bought us a president, you are taking credit for putting this nation back on some kind of “correct course”.
Yes, Ray, and this time we got the best truth money could buy. Just kidding.
Seriously, Ray, we haven’t bought anything. Nor is Jay exactly taking credit for it, or not personally anyway. I think Jay might agree with me that it was TRUTH itself that can take credit for the correction here, for restoring itself after 8 years of manhandling at the hands of the first Limbaugh and Roger Ailes presidency. (Don’t you love it righties when I speak in allegorical terms? Doesn’t it drive you crazy?)
Rush, Roger, George and Dick couldn’t keep the daughter truth trapped in the basement forever, she had to come out sometime.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The military probe found that up to seven civilians and between 30 and 35 Taliban militants were killed in an operation in Azizabad village in the early morning hours of Aug. 22. The U.N. backed a finding by the Afghan government that all the victims were civilians.( They claimed 90 civlians killed.)
The competing claims illustrate the difficulty of determining how many civilians fall victim in a war fought in distant mountains and densely populated villages.
U.S. officials say they face significant challenges both in identifying Taliban fighters, who mix easily with the general population, and because of incentives to falsely claim civilian casualties.
“The enemy knowingly hides behind women and children, they dress in burqas,” Maj. Gen. Jeffery J. Schloesser told The Associated Press on Monday. “The enemy makes it extraordinarily difficult to avoid civilian casualties. We don’t even know it (civilian casualties occurred) until the fighting is over.”-CBS News
The higher number of civilian casualties is likely to renew questions among Afghan leaders about the U.S. military’s use of force and to increase pressure to alter how airstrikes are used. But U.S. military officials are closely watching reactions to the new report in Kabul, the Afghan capital, hoping their fuller account of the events will mute criticism.-LA Times
Question for the blog; Which side are you on, Taliban or American?
By getalife
November 10, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Sad as Hell banned, too funny.
Solid post Jay.
Still bombing each other in Iraq today but we can’t afford to stay. Same deal in Afghanistan. Wall Street getting drunk has consequences like elections.
When the right howls at your post Jay, you have hit them hard with the truth and it hurts them.
Weel done sir.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Soixante huitard,
Nobody says a clock that’s wrong is right twice a day, only a stopped one. I know it’s early on a Monday, but I’d hate to see you get your week off to such a bad start.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At least she could expedite the investigation of herself
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
GOP is gone, first there is no true Constitutional litmus test as to what accounts for “Christian valus” in public policy and thus there is no true Constitutional dividing line between church and state. It is up to the elected officlas of the republic to make policies that generally agree with their constituencies.
Secondly, what do your so-called “Christian values” of policy have to do with 99% of the laws out there, from energy to social welfare spending, to road projects and post offices. It doesn’t. You liberals like to harp on two core disagreements; gay marriage and abortion. There are thousands of other important pices of legislation out there that are void of relgious overtones.
Third, I agree that religion should be left out of politics and legislation so that each religion may be strengthened by its ability of freedom of speech. Look at the fairness doctrine. What would really keep that piece of garbage from not only shutting down free speech on the radiowaves as it applies to partisianship but also make the leap to religious speech. How fair would it be then to have the same amount Buddhist free speech time as Christian when the listener base of Christians is exponentially more?
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Either way, taking shots at someone from the safety of anonymity reflects badly not just on the supposedly loyal aides who leveled the criticism, but on McCain, who seemed unable or unwilling to restrain them.-USA Today
What does it say of someone who passes those allegations along in their entirety?
Several times a day.
By getalife
November 10, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
AIG bailed out again.
Andy,
Maybe they will put that in the Fairness doctrine.
No anonymous sources.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Mad as Zell,
You ought to just ban yourself from here permanently. I enjoy your work, but when it’s muzzled like it has to be here it’s just not the same. Speech codes and all you know.
Now Jay B, if a poster named Sodapants ever makes a return you really need to resist the impulse to have an itchy banning finger. There is no more entertaining a writer anywhere in the blogosphere than Sodapants on a roll.
By Mrs. Godzilla
November 10, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
What exactly is it that conservatives don’t like about “the fairness doctine?
The fairness part? I don’t really get it.
Especially after all the whimpering about the media being in the tank for Obama.
You’d think they’d applaud fairness.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
I am SHOCKED that such a nice, reasonable young man like Mad as Zell would resort to such cowardly tactics!
Like his unhinged name sake, the guy is a coronary waiting to happen…
By Taxpayer
November 10, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Andy, just what do you claim to “pass” on day after day? Do tell.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
LOLO, you were sounding so reasonable until that fifth sentence there, where you just killed it by starting off with “you liberals”. What a shame. You know, you self-defined liberal-haters (odd, since we’re all liberal here - I don’t know of any monarchists or true theocrats on this list, but I could be wrong) ought to be more cordial to your fellow citizens. Don’t you know it’s impolite to impugn the good democratic principles of fellow citizens?
About your claim that there is no true Constitutional litmus test as to what accounts for “Christian valus” in public policy and thus there is no true Constitutional dividing line between church and state I think I agree with the premise there but not the conclusion (and it’s the conclusion that everything rides on).
Btw, RW, I think you’ve got me on the clock metaphor. I guess I should have said ‘once’ instead of twice.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Soixante huitard,
Why would a wrong clock even be right once a day?
By getalife
November 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
In the spirit of fairness:
“I can’t believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions.”
By Morningstar
November 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
By “The Corporal” November 10, 2008 9:10 AM the so called Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted, why wouldn’t it apply to television and newspapers/websites as wel
It should apply. That’s why I enjoy the editorial page of the AJC. One can read Bookman, who tends to portray a more moderate to liberal mode, or Wooten for an extreme conservative viewpoint.
Most of the others rarely contribute, except for the Woman to Woman ladies. This article is OK, and I’m sure enjoyable to some, but usually fails to feed my ‘need to know’ mode.
By HIHI November 10, 2008 10:00 AM
You are correct. A lie is a lie, is a lie by whatever name.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
Well I wouldn’t say truth is ‘relative’, Bosch, since that would mean it would be impossible for example for us to call someone out for false claims, as Jay just did to Management in such an effective and crushing way — love that — so I think it might be more correct to say that truth has an absoute force but only negatively, i.e., through paradoxes and logical paradoxes and so forth. And slips of the tongue, too.
And THAT is my discourse on truth for the day - a’hem.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
This has got to be the only blog around where you refresh the page to see if there are more comments and instead there are less.
Ailes Wants FNC to Go Easy on Obama
I bet he thinks Obama will start letting FNC ask questions at pressers after this edict. I bet he’s wrong.
By fedupingwinnett
November 10, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Have any of you researched the “fairness doctrine”. I’d say not by the comments I’m reading. It’s funny to me that “choice” is okay with Dems on abortion but not okay on tv/radio personalities. Oh and how about the Dems having hearings on confiscating our retirement accounts and putting in some type of Social Security government backed program. They’ve done so well with the SS program just what I want for them to take my retirement (401k, IRA’s etc) and they be in charge of it.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Why would a wrong clock even be right once a day?
RW, please. It’s monday morning and you’re giving me a headache.
By GodHatesTrash
November 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Now that we’ve done the hard work of getting Obama elected, Bookman is finally going to clean up his blog.
A fair weather friend is better than no friend at all, I guess.
By TN Gelding
November 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 10:18 AM
We’re on the side of peace and humanity.
There is no victory in Iraq or Afghanistan for the USA.
By Joey
November 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Applaud Fairness. Absolutely.
Unfortunatly fairness is almost never found in the printed or broadcast NEWS media.
It is amazing to me the number of people, including Bookman himself, who portray Bookman as a moderate.
When viewed from the extreme left he maybe slightly moderate. When view from the middle, he is way-the-heck Left.
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
I do not concern myself with the banning of that one that inappropriately used the name of HIHI. I only wished to have that one that inappropriately used the name HIHI exposed as a name jacker. Now that I know that that one was also using the name Mad As Zell, I know now who to tell that name jacking is not so swell. So, when you return as Mad as Zell, do tell, what made your head swell, what is it that could so compel you, Mad As Zell, to mistake HIHI for the one and only JAY BOOKMAN. For one thing, I, HIHI, do lack the composure needed to opine and remain so confined whilst the Mad amongst us do whine…and whine. Day in and day out, it seems, these searchers of the blogs for venues to slog on and on about the unfairness of all that is Left in America, the real America, do seem to forget that were it not for their ability to vet, even wet, upon the otherwise empty places within cheap domain spaces and release their innermost selves from the privacy of their own realities, they could then rightfully say that there is no way to say that which must be said in order to provide a left-leaning line with some fair and balanced whine. So, just try to get the same balance from the fair doctrine practiced by the Rushes and Boortzes of the world — go for it and feel free to report back with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…I dare you.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Joey: Unfortunatly fairness is almost never found in the printed or broadcast NEWS media.
But I thought that’s what Mr. Murdoch had brought us some years ago, Joey.
Also, Joey, I have to point out your error: It is amazing to me the number of people, including Bookman himself, who portray Bookman as a moderate.
Bookman is actually about as centrist as it gets and if anything might from time to time lean center-right. (Unlike someone like me, for example, who is just flat out Left.) If you’ll do some browsing on Wikipedia (look up ‘liberals’ in Britain for ex.), or better yet, go to your library and get a good book on political parties and media organizations, you’ll learn that what you’re calling ‘way-the-heck Left’ is actually ‘way-the-heck moderate’ and that the somewhat blurry glasses you’ve been viewing things through are actually way-the-heck Right. So far right in fact that those who in Britain are known as Tories (the right party) are actually pretty left-leaning these days, in American terms (at least in the world of the Hannitys and Limbaughs).
By bh
November 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Sometimes the problem with truth is the ability to get at it.
And unfortunately strategists in both sides of almost any issue understand this powerful (but disturbing) concept —
If you tell a lie often enough it becomes perception.
And Perception become Reality — Truth doesn’t even enter at picture.
By Bosch
November 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Oh my God, the Fairness Doctrine, scares the bejesus out of the far-right. Soix. is right - the far right are so far out there, they don’t even know that most of us raging liberals are actually moderates.
I love it when the most rabid amongst us use “conservative” European leaders who are now in power as example that the shift of “conservatism” is going toward them.
By RW-(the original)
November 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Soixante huitard,
Fair enough. I’m off to the forest anyway. See y’all upstairs at happy hour. Although depending on what your clock is up to there’s no telling when that will be.
Maybe we’ll get an article about those unnamed sources claiming Biden said that when the market crashed in 1929, FDR got right onto our television screens to explain what happened.
What? You mean it was Biden himself that said that right on national television? I guess we’ll get another hit job on Sarah’Cuda then.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Sometimes the problem with truth is the ability to get at it.*
Yep, and also the ability to get away from it. :-)
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
RW,
If your buddy, Mad As Zell, would be a good boy, then you might not see the number of posts go up then down.
By AF
November 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
If Sarah Palin did not know that Africa is a continent, then that makes her stupid and we need to know.
If Sarah Palin did know Africa is a continent and the McCain campaign leaders said she didn’t, then we need to know because that makes them liars.
Either way, Republicans are either stupid or liars. You take your pick.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
To Morningstar
Comparing Bookman and Wooten is not the whole story. If the fairness doctrine covered newsprint it would mean that ALL AJC editorials had to be 50/50. The same would hold true for television editorial news programs. Are you willing to accept that if the fairness doctrine is applied to radio??
To Mrs. G.
What conservatives don’t like is liberals want to apply the fairness doctrine only to radio. Let’s include every type of editorial media - newspapers, website, television, etc.
By rightofcenter
November 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
I wish you would be minimally objective and honest in your comments on Sarah Palin. For example: according to the McCain campaign staff, she didn’t know that Africa was a continent. No, actually an anonymous source from the campaign staff reportedly said that. However, many named sources from the campaign have disputed it and said it was a bunch of garbage. You have yet to acknowledge this in any of your comments. Would you give a smidgen as much validity to any crazy comments anonymously uttered about the President-elect or vice-president elect?
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Ok, RW, catch you later.
BTW, as to the Prada-wearing Baracuda, here’s a nugget for you Secrete service blames Sarah Palin for death threats against Obama.
Ask and ye shall receive. :-)
By HailTheKing
November 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
This just in….Valerie Barrett says we elected a monarch, not a president. Obama will “take power” and “rule”. What? I thought he was elected to serve the American people, not the other way around. We peasants are relegated to the position of “Garcon de P**”? I guess Mel Brooks was right, it’s good to be the king. Who’s choking on the Kool-Aid now? More to come, folks, more to come.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Soixante, I should have said progressive liberal but used the standalone liberal as it is axiomatic to today’s political lexicon. So sorry.
As for including the word “You” in front of liberals, I see that directing a point towards a primary group of people is offensive. As such, I’m sure the fairness doctrine will soon be applied to my speech and I could possibly be tried for a hate crime.
As far as my church/state argument, you will never have a conclusion on this opinion as long as there is no way to postulate one from the Constitution. Thus your need for a definitive conclusion is moot. After a few more “interpretive” Supreme Court justices are appointed and approved, there will probably be a case for you to find such a conclusion as the Constitution is bent/broken.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
To Soixante huitard
A liberal will challenge another liberal only while their running for some office -but after they’re in they can’t do anything wrong in the eyes of another liberal.
To GodHatesTrash
Paranoia - yes, because we are constantly on guard, looking behind every bush, suspecting every person, leaving no stone unturned. It’s called constant vigilance. It goes with the terriotory but then you wouldn’t know about that.
Mental Illness - yes, some people say that that we must be crazy for being willing to sacrifice our life especially for a protectee we don’t even agree with politically. It’s called professionalism. It goes with the territory but then you wouldn’t know about that.
By getalife
November 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Can President Obama stop the looting before it’s too late?
The FBI needs to be engaged in this looting to stop it.
By Bosch
November 10, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Jay,
Is Corporal a real blogger or do you pay him to make up outrageous crap just to get people fired up and you get more posts - in other words, a troll?
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
rightofcenter: according to the McCain campaign staff, she didn’t know that Africa was a continent. No, actually an anonymous source from the campaign staff reportedly said that. However, many named sources from the campaign have disputed it and said it was a bunch of garbage.
Doesn’t really matter one way or another, rightofcenter. It’s sort of a ‘myth-fact’ if you will. It really doesn’t matter whether it actually happened or not — it’s a convenient narrative prop, a shorthand that helps us condense various features that are rightly or wrongly seen in this person into one convenient scenario.
It’s cruel, but true (and on some level I feel for her).
Another classic example: even if poor Dan Quayle hadn’t made his infamous potatoe misstep, we would have had to invent an equivalent one. Because rightly or wrongly, that’s how we saw him.
Besides, in this case the real importance of this allegation is not Palin’s intelligence or lack thereof, but what it says about the acrimony that existed between Palin’s people and the McCain campaign leaders.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
I see that we outed “Mad as Zell” for nickjacking, I wonder why the person who constantly jacks my, RW’s and Dusty’s nicks has never been disclosed?
Hmmmmmmm.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
To Bosch
Jay can vouch for me. He knows my background.
To Soixante huitard
I can’t answer for current statistics on threats as I am retired now but up until our current president, the president who had the most threats (double the others) was Ronald Reagan.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Two thoughts come to mind, the Nixon family must be thinking, “At last! Thank goodness, W came along”.
And secondly how in the name of Sam Hill can 24% of Americans still not disapprove of this screw up?
WASHINGTON (CNN) – As President-elect Obama visits the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president in the six decades since presidential approval ratings were first measured.
Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling his job as President. That’s an all-time high in CNN polling, or in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.
“No other president’s disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year, says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. hat means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
A liberal will challenge another liberal only while their running for some office -but after they’re in they can’t do anything wrong in the eyes of another liberal.
That’s not right, Corporal.
Exhibit A: I give you the case of Christopher Hitchens.
By Mike
November 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
“Personally, I think that fear has been ginned up by the conservatives themselves to satisfy their need to feel persecuted.”
Hmm I guess we finally get an explanation for why Bookman keeps ginning up fear.
What a hypocrite.
By Morningstar
November 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
By “The Corporal” November 10, 2008 11:49 The same would hold true for television editorial news programs. Are you willing to accept that if the fairness doctrine is applied to radio??
I used Bookman and Wooten as examples that you CAN get different opinions from the AJC. Of course, it’s not the whole story; never said it was.
As far as TV is concerned, I believe if FOX news, MSNBC et. al. permit a conservative viewpoint, they should grant the same time for a liberal viewpoint. The same goes for TALK RADIO. Who has the monopoly in that arena?
Outright lying and slander should be banned. Period. Of course, all candidates will get sloppy at times, leaving their choice of words wide open for criticism.
That tape by the Elizabeth Dole campaign mimicking the opposing candidate’s voice screeching, “There is No God,” is the type of disgraceful outrage that should be prohibited.
Al Gore left himself open to the right wing media with the Internet statement. Gore has never said he ‘invented’ the internet. What he was getting at was helping create the vision of the internet, by holding sponsored hearings etc., enlightening others as to how the internet (advanced technology), would be a tremendous help to government agencies. Of course, his statement was sloppy; hence, he left himself wide open for all the babble. This one is his fault! It ‘ain’t’ the right wing media that caused him to deter from careful wording.
Bet he knows where N and S America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia are located on the map! You betcha!
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Constant is such an absolute and unvaried quantity and as such is so inappropriate a descriptor for occasions that do not display the characteristics of a constant. Of course, if I were to repeat this phrase constantly, then that would be another matter entirely — one of less uncertainty and quite predictably so. Take corporal for example. A true constant if ever there was one.
By GodHatesTrash
November 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
(I am directing this message at no one in particular. This is a general comment on the transition from this calamitous Presidency to the Obama Presidency, and the real danger presented by the many demented and mentally ill people in the United States that have fixated their hatreds and fears on Obama.)
Let’s hope that there are no deranged individuals in Obama’s security detail.
Some of the current staff could be W kool-aid drinkers, and should be moved far away from any involvement with the President-elect.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
I can’t answer for current statistics on threats as I am retired now but up until our current president, the president who had the most threats (double the others) was Ronald Reagan.
Really?
That’s interesting if true. My guess would have been that it would be steadily rising over time with each president, there being in general a rise in both mental illness that tends towards extreme acts of symbolic and sacrificial violence and in an increasingly pressure-cooker nature of the mass media in the cable and post-cable age, which seems to lend itself to extremism and paranoia.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - “We lost 2 billion dollars and like any other business we have to stay afloat.” And to keep from sinking, the United States Postal Service is considering cutting thousands of jobs nationwide. Lavelle Pepper with the post office in Shreveport says they too are feeling the affects of the same disease hitting the country… a struggling economy. “We employ about 685,000 people. If we do layoffs it would include clerks, carriers, mail handlers across all crafts.” Pepper says the postal service is looking to eliminate 40,000 jobs nationwide.
Now just imagine the “United Health Care Service” making the same announcement.
“Sorry, Mr. Management, but we laid you doctor off so you need to go to the back of the line, for another 6 month wait. Now don’t be a racist about it”
“Remember, it’s ‘free!’”
By Goldie
November 10, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
we do know that our nation’s best interests are not served by trying to silence information either through government rule or by public intimidation.
Thank you, JAY — the right-wingnuts just love to try intimidation tactics. They need to grow-up for a change and own up to any mistakes we may have made militarily — and our America would be all the stronger for it.
By Midori
November 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
If nothing else justifies the return of the Fairness Doctrine, this is it:
Right-Wing Media Already Feeding Its Post-Election Anger
from the link:
An article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times takes a look at how the right-wing media is responding to Obama’s victory last week. Already, it seems, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have started to rile up their listeners/viewers by going after Obama. The relationship of Fox News and the Obama administration will be particularly interesting to watch, given that Fox News was cut out of the questioning at the first Obama press conference. As for Obama’s harshest critics among fellow politicians, the New York TImes reported yesterday on how many of them have, for various reasons, rushed to praise him.
BTW — Joe Scarborough dropped the “F” Bomb on live TV this morning. Another hypocrite with a microphone
Hi Bosch/Mrs. G/Getalife/TN Gelding/Sir Trash. :)
Busy day today. Just wanted to stop by to say “HI” and add my $.02
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
LOLO: I should have said progressive liberal but used the standalone liberal as it is axiomatic to today’s political lexicon.
Fair enough, but it’s that axiom that I’m interested in disrupting.
As for including the word “You” in front of liberals, I see that directing a point towards a primary group of people is offensive. As such, I’m sure the fairness doctrine will soon be applied to my speech and I could possibly be tried for a hate crime.
If you were to be charged with such a crime for such an action, I would be right up at the front denouncing it. But the fact that you worry about it is interesting (Have you been listening to Limbaugh too much again?).
As far as my church/state argument, you will never have a conclusion on this opinion as long as there is no way to postulate one from the Constitution.
Sorry if I’ve misread you. It seemed to me that you were trying to say that the constitution does not provide a sufficient legal foundation for the separation of church and state, or am I wrong?
By Joey
November 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Soix——
I was alive and well and a sergeant in 1968.
To my knowledge Murdoch did not purchase the NYT, AJC, NBC, CNN, etc.
I do not live in Great Britain. What is the definition of liberal in say China or Iran?
And I prefer a 69er to 68er.
By Midori
November 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
oh yeah!! Almost forgot to say “HI” to Goldie, and to post this nugget for those of you who kept INSISTING that this didn’t happen:
Sarah Palin Blamed by the US Secret Service Over Death Threats Against Barack Obama
Source: UK Telegraph
The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling “terrorist” and “kill him” until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.
But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Soixante, yes that’s what I said and no you can’t draw a such conclusion from issues of that don’t exist. I think you have taken the context of the argument to left field.
And yes, I do worry about the degreadation of all of our rights to speak freely and openly on issues. It didn’t come from that blowhard Limbaugh. Thank God we have simple blogs like this…for now.
By DebbieDoRight
November 10, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Jay, the truth was even more important BEFORE we went to war. The MSM cheerleaded us into Iraq. They failed us all. Their fear of missing access to POTUS, led them to print what they were told. Investigative journalism by the MSM became a thing of the past.
I’m with Mrs. G on that one. The media does an excellent job, no doubt, but I feel it was very susceptible to Dumbya’s high handed ways and didn’t want to be on the “outs” with such a powerful administration.
Also, I feel that the media sometimes thinks its readers/listeners are all brain dead idiots with short attention spans!! I mean, come on, what’s up with some of the ridiculous things that it reports on? We have so much wrong going on now and so much stuff that America needs to be focusing on, so why should we care about Palin’s blunders? Why is her 15 minutes turning into 15 hours?
Sure it’s funny, but give the lady a break!! It’s not like everyone didn’t know she was dumb after the Couric interview!!! It’s time to leave her and her family alone. The lady has a shot gun wedding to plan…….
By mike hussein smith
November 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
As I’ve pointed out before, Management, it would be nice if you would allow Jay’s readers to see the article to which you refer, such as the one at 10:18. All you got to do is to take a seconde to put a return at the end of the last character in the quote. I request this because you have been known on occasion to twist the quotes you are using — stretching them to the far side of what the writer intended. Recently, you C&P’d a pass-through column that appeared on the ABC News site and falsely tried to pass it off as being the opinion of ABC News. In short, your shoddy methods wouldn’t get you through a 7th-grade term paper. And you have a ZERO believability rating among many people on this blog.
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Something I find most disconcerting is the anger that Sarah Palin was apparently able to stir up while she was stumping and the fact that she continued with the rabble-rousing rhetoric even after observing the displays of anger that culminated in shouts reminiscent of lynch mobs. McCain at least understood that this rhetoric from Palin was wrong and called for an end to it. Who knows where she would have let it go were it strictly up to her.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
And I prefer a 69er to 68er.
Oooh! Touché.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
To Soixante huitard
The exception that proves the rule. Conservative talk radio went after Bush whenever he was wrong (i.e., immigration, expanding government). It’s rare in the liberal world.
Trust me on the Reagan thing. His were double. I worked it for 27 years.
P.S. Although I seldom agree with you, I enjoy our back and forths on this blog as you are one of the few who will debate (and you do it well) as opposed to rants and personal attacks.
To Morningstar
You and I are in agreement as long as it covers everyone equally in television, radio or newsprint/website.
To HIHI
And proud of it. You know where I always stand.
Tolerance - the virtue of those who stand for nothing.
P.S. to Bosch
Most people who post on this blog have little or no real life experience in the political world. They just rant and rave depending on their personal viewpoint which obviously they can do in a free society. I’m sorry if you don’t like or believe my background but I give it occasionally just to show I do have some expertise in an area I am discussing. That doesn’t make me right - just more informed based on experience.
Again, if you want to know my background you can email Jay at jbookman@ajc.com and he will vouch for me (my background not my viewpoints). Or, I don’t mind giving it again on this blog if you so desire.
If you want to debate something let me know. But as Jay has requested, please lay off the personal attacks.
Thank you.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
*To my knowledge Murdoch did not purchase the NYT, AJC, NBC, CNN, etc. *
No he didn’t. He decided to parody it.
And by the way, to Midori’s … given that Fox News was cut out of the questioning at the first Obama press conference., my response would probably be, so what, since when did parody acts get access to press conferences? Does Jon Stewart or Colbert get access?
I do not live in Great Britain. What is the definition of liberal in say China or Iran?
But we live in the world’s only superpower nation, so it behooves us to have a political vocabulary that is not too provincial.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Corporal: Most people who post on this blog have little or no real life experience in the political world. They just rant and rave depending on their personal viewpoint which obviously they can do in a free society.
Guilty as charged.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
Lolo:
Soixante, yes that’s what I said and no you can’t draw a such conclusion from issues of that don’t exist.
Sorry, you’ve lost me again. What exactly are you saying does not exist? A constitutional measure preventing violation of church-state separation? I’m no constitutional scholar, but if that’s the case you’re going to have a hell of a time proving that one.
I think you have taken the context of the argument to left field.
And with any luck, I’ll succeed. :-)
By Joey
November 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Soix——
So to you a parody is reality. That explains your opinion of Palin. You formed it watching SNL.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
I agree Corporal. I am 27 years old and I can guarantee you that I have done more high-level work in federal, state and local government and politics than most anyone here. So yes I do value the opinions of others who do show some semblance of knowing what they are talking about from living. This goes beyond forming opinions based on mere academia and raw emotions. It’s pretty easy to spot these people on here, i.e. “Bush lied.”
On another note, I’ll belt the President elect sure got a wake-up call when he recived his first full intelligence briefing. I can see it now: “You mean this stuff IS true???”
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
To LOLO
You know that! I bet his eyes looked like a deer in the headlights during his first intelligence briefing.
“You mean there are people out there who are tyring to do that?” “Yes, Mr. President Elect, there are.” “Oh.”
Also, notice they have pulled all the campagin promises from his website. He had better come through for the unwashed masses or they are not going to be happy (you know - mortgages and gas for the car).
Welcome to the real world Mr. President Elect.
By Greg Mendel
November 10, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
“The American system is built on a faith in the truth. And while none of us can know that truth in its entirety, we do know that our nation’s best interests are not served by trying to silence information either through government rule or by public intimidation.” — JB
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). WMD was the primary rationale for invading.
The Elephant Cult has reinvented history by claiming “everyone” thought Saddam had WMD. That wasn’t true, and “evidence” such as weather balloon launchers and aluminum tubes were questioned as soon as they were regurgitated. Most of all, however, the only real evidence Bush offered was “trust us.”
“Trust us” was reinforced by reminding us that “the government knows things it can’t tell us,” implying we shouldn’t ask questions.
Well, the government of George Bush knew it was making crap up, lying like dogs. Bush himself even claimed he invaded “because Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.” He made that statement long after Iraq had been inspected top to bottom.
The Bush administration’s lies were greatly exceeded by its failure to reveal the truth — another form of lying.
Regarding the “surge,” the surge worked. But, it worked strictly within the definition General Petraeus said it would. It gave the Iraqi government time to get its act together — which still has not happened.
The surge worked because it included paying off the Sunnis. It worked because both sects got sick of al queda. It worked because hundreds of thousands of people left the country or were killed by each other.
If the surge worked, the invasion didn’t. Iraq involuntarily traded a dictator for the slaughter of 600,000 Iraqis, destroyed infrastucture, mass relocation, ruined health care system, and vulnerability to Iran. The place is relatively calm now, but the blood feud will continue when we leave — 16 months or 16 years from now.
Not telling the truth and not hearing it has consequences. Arrogant incompetence has consequences. Gitmo holds some evil people, but it also holds innocent captives. Those innocents are there because Afghans lied about their guilt. Bush lies about the lying. The administration brags about killing terrorists, and we find it was only an innocent wedding party. Blowing up wedding parties is an al queda trademark.
Now we learn that the administration has ordered secret attacks on al queda anywhere in the world. I don’t have a problem with that, but — after five years of criminal incompetence — I have absolutely no confidence that the Bush administration can find its butt with both hands. Blowing up a wedding party in Oslo or Moscow will have more severe consequences than blowing one up (and lying about it) in Tora Bora.
I suppose we can just trust Oliver North to tell us the truth. After all, Fawn Hall said it all about Ollie and Iran/Contra conspiracy — “Sometimes you just have to go beyond the letter of the law.” In other words, it’s okay to violate and subvert the Constitution. As long as you’re waving the flag when you do it.
By HIHI
November 10, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
After reading these posts from such a learned and wise group of people spanning such a range of ages and experiences, I find myself just feeling so utterly wordy that I just want to express it so that all will know, as I know, that we each know what we have managed to retain of what we did know, for now, you know. I just want you to know that I’m not making this stuff up either and that’s why you all better be afraid — very afraid. I guarantee you that I know what it is that I know and if you were to know what I know then you would know it too and you too would know that it is true. Now do you. It’s true. It IS.
By Soixante huitard
November 10, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
So to you a parody is reality.
Well, it’s part of it. But in terms of politics, no, I think the two must be kept separate. For example, if I learned the SNL team were being invited to Obama press conferences I would be alarmed.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
“Welcome to the real world Mr. President Elect.”
EXACTLY!
I think a lot of the messiah’s devout minions will be very perplexed in abour 6-8 months as to why they are not yet rich.
Did ya’ll see those college students in DC waving the USSR flag in celebration on election night? Talk about patriotism!
By Bosch
November 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
I’m not questioning your background - I take a man at his word - and it’s what you write that is outrageous, not you.
For an ex-military man and Secret Service dude you really get really emotional, huh? I thought you dudes were supposed to be iron clad.
By Abomi Nation
November 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
The latest Gallup poll has President Bush hitting rock bottom. Nixon left office in disgrace with better numbers.
Since Bush is now worse than Nixon in the public’s eye I think there should be some demands placed on Bush after he leaves office.
Nixon spent his self imposed exile in San Clemente. Bush needs to commit to at least 8 years confined to his Crawford Texas ranch.
For closure the public is going to need Bush to take a final trip out of the White House in a helicopter, the Nixon walk of shame. Force him into a public departure in front of the cameras. The public needs to see him get on the helicopter. We need to see the helicopter fly away.
After the investigation into Bush’s 8 years in office, Obama should do as Ford did with Nixon, and pardon Bush for all the crimes he committed.
Its best just to move on and try to repair all of the damage.
(No pardon for Cheney though.)
By MaterialWorld
November 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Iron Man once remarked about Aluminum Boy, “He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother,” to which Aluminum Boy replied, “I try not to needlessly weigh on others.”
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
To Bosch
1) “There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.
Arnold Bennett (1867-1931)
2) You are one to talk about emotions with all of your rants and raves.
Don’t talk in circles.
Debate something.
Ask me a question.
To All Current and Former Marines
Happy 233rd Bithday !! Semper Fi
By GayGrayGeek
November 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Abomi - Wonderful sentiment about pardoning Duh-Bya, but dollars-to-donuts that he pardons himself, Darth Cheney, and the rest of their co-conspirators on January 19, 2009. Or maybe even the morning of the 20th.
By "The Corporal"
November 10, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
P.S. to Bosch
For example, here are some good Tidbits from today’s news. Let’s have an emotional debate on some of these.
You pick:
1) Obama is touting an national civilian security force (I wonder what kind of weapons we will carry?) to rival the U.S. military and mandatory community service for all children.
Can you imagine the uproar if McCain had come up with this brown shirt idea?
2) Did you hear the lady from Obama’s transition team talk about he is ready to rule vs. govern?
King Obama reigns!
3) The democrats are going to go after your 401k’s, IRA’s, etc. Get ready………..you get what you asked for.
4) Over the weekend President-elect Barack Obama scrubbed Change.gov, his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda copied directly from his campaign Web site. Gone are the promises.
By Abomi Nation
November 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
That conversation at the White House today……
Obama: Whats the situation in Iraq?
Bush: We make big boom in Iraq. Bang, bang.
Obama: Whats the situation in Afghanistan?
Bush: We make big boom in Afghanistan. Bang.
Obama: Whats the situation on the economy?
Bush: We make big boom go away.
By AmVet
November 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
One of the many things about Obama that is radically different from the previous CIC.
He’ll be able to use the Internets and the Google…
By GodHatesTrash
November 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Abomi, I don’t think Dumbya will be able to go much of anywhere. The indictments for war crimes from The Hague will keep him inside the borders of the United States.
By LOLO
November 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
Abomination,
My take of Obama’s first intel briefing:
PDB: “Security threat X has detatched from breakway military faction in Bolivia and is working in coordination with an emissary from Venezuala to route the US via XY…”
President Elect: “I though Boliva was just a peaceful country full of wonderful indiginous peoples???” “Why would anyone there have an interest in harming us?” “I’ll just have to downplay foreign affaris and drum up my stances on economic conditions at home and this will hopefully work itself out.”
By Just_Me
November 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
The unprofessional, coward/jerk who leaked Sarah’s stupidity has spoken…
Martin Eisenstadt has claimed responsibility..and is proud!
http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/11/10/eisenstadt-the-source-for-sarah-palin-africa-leak-and-proud-of-it/
By Greg Mendel
November 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this
Just_Me: Thanks for the link to Martin Eisenstadt’s “confession.” I was amused by the outrage over his disloyalty.
There’s a pattern. A Republican operative comes out with a statement that implicates Bush or another cult leader (Palin, in this instance) with lying or simple stupidity, and the cult goes nuttier.
The accusation is NEVER denied. It’s okay to subvert the Constitution, but only being DISLOYAL to one of the pack is grounds for outrage.
By Steve R
November 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Jay, The claim that Sarah Palin not knowing Africa is a continent is a hoax. The AJC continues to lose what little credibility it had by you repeating the hoax as fact. A real newspaper, the Wall St Journal, has uncovered the truth. I will let my AJC subscription lapse, since it cannot separate facts from lies.
Your paragraph from 11/12/08 article:
In some cases, though, we get blamed simply for being the messenger. It is not the media’s fault, for example, that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be vice president. We didn’t pick her, and it’s not our fault that, according to the McCain campaign staff, she didn’t know that Africa was a continent.
By Steve R
November 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Correction on date of your article Nov 10,2008