Paul Krugman: Sweet Little Lies

Paul Krugman explains the power of the "Little Lie":

Sweet Little Lies, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.

But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person ... must have done something wrong. ...

Before 9/11, ... the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.

The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate..., there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.

Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no there there ... received far less attention. The effect was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well run ... seem mired in scandal.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, little lies never went away. In particular, promoting little lies seems to have been one of the main things U.S. attorneys, as loyal Bushies, were expected to do. For example, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, appears to have been fired because he wouldn’t bring unwarranted charges of voter fraud.

...[I]n Wisconsin, ... the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney prosecuted the state’s purchasing supervisor over charges that a court recently dismissed after just 26 minutes of oral testimony, with one judge calling the evidence “beyond thin.” But by then the accusations had done their job: the unjustly accused official had served almost four months in prison, and the case figured prominently in attack ads alleging corruption in the Democratic governor’s administration.

This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans have been taking at Nancy Pelosi.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her “arrogance of extravagance” — then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.

Now there’s Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as “bad behavior” — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker. ...

[T]he hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy... But Fox has had plenty of help... For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”

The G.O.P.’s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along.

_________________________
Previous (4/6) column: Paul Krugman: Children Versus Insurers
Next (4/13) column: Paul Krugman: For God’s Sake

Comments

[ljm]

Yup, that's their M.O. Circle the wagons around Speaker Pelosi, Cheney's spiel on Rush Limbaugh was coded language calling out his posse.

[Bruce Wilder]

Brad DeLong's long-running, "Why, oh why can't we have a better Press Corps?" has a similar theme, that is, if journalists were only more professional, . . .

Reliance on professions was one of the pillars of Progressivism at the beginning of the 20th Century, just as reliance on technocratic experts was one of the pillars of mid-century liberalism and FDR's conduct of both the New Deal and World War II.

Both the professions and the technocracy have been under serious, sustained political assault from the Right.

Shouldn't we look at what the Right has done, to undermine the effectiveness of the professions and scientific expertise?

I am all in favor moral suasion and calling on journalists to be more responsible. I favor, also, "working the refs". But, I doubt that my approval, or Paul Krugman's approval, is sufficiently precious to motivate reform.

When television pundits and anchors are all millionaires, dependent for their next million on anonymous but predictably reactionary corporate executives in giant Media conglomerates, I dare say we have a problem, which is going to overwhelm the professional ethics of journalists, (or at least the ethics of the journalists, who get and keep the most desirable jobs).

I have some small hope that the blogosphere will have some salutary effect. The competition for sources of information will affect what is reported, even if the blogs themselves do not reach the masses. Operations like TPMmuckraker give reason for cautious optimism.

But, I think some institutional and economic reform will also be necessary. I'd like to see more acknowledgement of the problem, and its full institutional scope, from politicians, as a first step toward reforms. The insistence of some of the less faint of heart on excluding Fox News as a sponsor of Democratic primary debates is a hint of what needs to be done. It is also a sure indication that the politicians will have to be pressed to even symbolic action, and the old-time political pros, kicked in the butt.

It is good what Krugman is doing: speaking plainly and without mincing words about the failures of the Media. But, we're a long way from Tim Russert or Michael Gordon or Matt Lauer or Suzanne Malvaux losing his job over being in the tank for the Republicans.

[GM Pierce]

Bruce:

The meaning of the words profession and professional have changed drastically since the beginning of the twentieth century.

A professional used to be an expert in medicine or law or some other field that required brains and judgment.

Professionals knew the rules and they knew when to ignore the rules. In a lot of cases, the professional was the one who made the rules in the first place.

Today, a professional is someone who knows how to read the rule book and who knows how to fill out all of the forms.

Use of brains and judgment is not welcomed and might lead to the early end of a career.

And by the way, reporters were rarely professionals. A lot of them would have been insulted to be called professional. They would have thought you had them confused with a hooker. (Today's "journalists" are flattered by the term.)

The older reporters were just guys who dug out the truth and told as much of it as the world would put up with.

[elvis]

I seem to remember something about bearing false witness... now where was it? I think it was part of some kind of Judeo-Christian op-ed piece. Cheney might know it. If he doesn't he could ask his born-again friend, W.

I'm glad this admin has raised the standard of morality in D.C.

[gordon]

Anybody who puts their trust in "professionals" should go and read J.R.Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards".

But where are the Democrat little lies? Sex is always an attention-grabber, so why haven't we heard, say, how GWB's secret Mexican mistress makes him soft on border controls? What about a sleaze campaign about the Neocons getting rich from Iraqi contracts while poorly-paid soldiers get blown up by thousands? That one isn't even a lie. Did you know that Chaney only drinks French wine, and says Californian is "crap"? I don't know much about US politics, but I seem to have read somewhere that the Democrats used to be as good as the Republicans, if not better, at slinging the mud.

[Jim in Chicago]

Bruce Wilder writes:

"But, I think some institutional and economic reform will also be necessary."

The necessary reform is the breakup of our media monopolies. The problem is, anyone running for office who acknowledges this will immediately have his political career cut short, as Howard Dean learned in 2004: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

See also: http://www.blackcommentator.com/75/75_cover_dean_media.html

[wjd123]

It's not just the little lies but the failure of the news media to correct them. Here is an example:

Last month Valerie Plame Wilson testified under oath in front of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. According to her testimony, she had nothing to do with her husband being selected to go to Niger. She didn't initiate any such action. Her part only consisted in setting up a meeting after being asked by her superiors to see if her husband would be willing to talk to them. In fact, she said that she wasn't anxious for her husband to make the trip because it would leave her at home with her two-year old twins.

So all the effort the Bush Administration made in suggesting that she recommended her husband for the Niger trip turned out to be misinformation.

She also testified that at the time of her outing she was a covert agent for the CIA. According to Chairman Waxman this fact has been confirmed by CIA head Hayden.

According to Victoria Toensing, who drew up the original legislation on who was and who was not covert, Ms. Wilson was not covert under the law. Toensing cited the law which states that covert status expires if an agent hasn't been out of the country on assignment for five years. Twice Ms. Wilson testified that she had been out of the country on assignment shortly before the war began. Ms. Toensign being unable to refute that statement then came up with a new proof that Ms. Wilson couldn't have been covert. According to Toensign no covert agents have desk jobs at in the CIA. Once again CIA director,General Hayden, said otherwise.

One other interesting piece of information was given by Dr. James Knodell, Director of the White House's Office of Security. Knodell testified that it was the policy of the White House that once the justice department started to investigate the Plame leak his department would no longer proceed with its investigations of the leak. As a result his department never did any investigating. Assurances by Bush that he would get to the bottom of the Plame outing amounted to squashing any investigation by the Office of White House Security. Such investigation was allowed under Executive order 12958, but Bush never implemented it.

I found the Committee's hearing facinating and compelling and the next day started channel surfing amoung news programs for comments by the pundits. I found very little. Republican pundits were claiming that Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, was a known liar. What this had to do with Plame's testimony eludes me. My guess is that republicans know that any attempt to impeach Plame's character will backfire on them. Plame is a compelling figure admired by woman.

So the Bush Administration spread the misinformation that Plame got her husband his job, and that she wasn't a covert agent. The news media, particularlly cable news, helped spread that misinformation for years. Now it has been debunked by Valeire Palme under oath, and the head of the CIA. Yet I couldn't find one word about the debunking on any of the cable news channels.

When the media puts out misinformation it has a responsibility to correct the record. Pundit after pundit was allowed to come on news shows that appear on CNN, CNBC, and FOX spreading the Bush Administrations misinformation about Valerie Plame Wilson that turned out to be nothing more than misinformed speculation. Plame set the record strait last month under oath, yet there has hardly been a word from this same media.

For instance Chris Matthews was all over this story for years. Now that there is some real information to report about Plame's cover and how her husband got his job along with Bush's efforts to get to the bottom of it Matthews seems to have decided to move on full time to Attorney General Gonzales's woes and ignore
Plame's testimony.

CNN ran a little clip of Plame's testimony in which she expresses her hurt that her own government didn't do more to protect her identity, after which Wolf Blitzer asked two political operatives to comment--they have nothing to say about the testimony--probably never having read it--and then he quickly moves on to other news.

The Bush Administration was using Plame for its own political ends, It used these news analysis shows to do its bidding. That bidding helped us get into a preemptive war with Iraq. If for no other reason the media should have been all over the Plame testimony as a way of atoning for being dupes of the Bush Administration. Yet its response to the testimony amounts to a few words in passing, picturing Plame as aggrieved. This time they have no one but themselves to blame for their coverage.

I think knowing whether our government used information cavalierly to get us into a war is more important than where Anna Nichol Smith will be buried, yet when comparing the amount of news coverage given to Plame's testimony and Smith's burial one would have to conclude that the news media believes otherwise.

[maria]

News organizations, Fox excepted, tend to think their role is passive; that is, they simply report what X or Y said; they don't referee. And if what was said later proves wrong, that tends to be forgotten in the press of new news. The Republicans understand this well and use it to pollute the public understanding of affairs. The antidote would be a public intelligent or informed enough to sort out truth from lies on its own, but the US public is not informed and too many are not very intelligent. The GOP has understood how to take advantage of that kind of public. PS I might add that even when the public does wise up as it has on Iraq, the Democratic party doesn't do much to correct things. Its Iraq policy is mainly posturing and will not get us out of Iraq at all and the public begins to become very cynical about things in general. What is never reported by the news media is that the AIPAC controls our Middle East policy. Even the Democrats don't dare tell that truth. So....what you gonna do???

[maria]

You aren't going to get a press that aggressively pursues the truth on issues if there is no political backing to do so. And here the Democrats fall down badly. The Mearsheimer and Walt expose of how the AIPAC and similar organizations control our Middle East policy hardly got into the news. It could not even get published in the USA. And if it did get mentioned it was dropped almost immediately as too hot a potato to hold. And the Democrats didn't run with it because they too are controlled by the AIPAC, etc. The responsibility to refute GOP lies rests with the opposition party. And if it falls down on the job, there isn't much the press can do.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon1.html

April 9, 2007

Another Layer of Scandal

As Congress investigates the politicization of the United States attorney offices by the Bush administration, it should review the extraordinary events the other day in a federal courtroom in Wisconsin. The case involved Georgia Thompson, a state employee sent to prison on the flimsiest of corruption charges just as her boss, a Democrat, was fighting off a Republican challenger. It just might shed some light on a question that lurks behind the firing of eight top federal prosecutors: what did the surviving attorneys do to escape the axe?

Ms. Thompson, a purchasing official in the state's Department of Administration, was accused by the United States attorney in Milwaukee, Steven Biskupic, of awarding a travel contract to a company whose chief executive contributed to the campaign of Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. Ms. Thompson said the decision was made on the merits, but she was convicted and sent to prison before she could appeal.

The prosecution was a boon to Mr. Doyle's opponent. Republicans ran a barrage of attack ads that purported to tie Ms. Thompson's "corruption" to Mr. Doyle. Ms. Thompson was sentenced shortly before the election, which Governor Doyle won.

The Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seemed shocked by the injustice of her conviction. It took the extraordinary step of releasing Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. "It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from Mr. Biskupic's office.

Ms. Thompson's case is not the only one raising questions about whether prosecutors tried last year to tilt close elections toward the Republicans. New Jersey's federal prosecutor conducted an investigation of weak-looking allegations against Senator Robert Menendez that was used in Republican ads.

Congress should look into both cases to determine whether partisan politics played a role — and whether they were coordinated with anyone at the Justice Department or the White House.

The list of things to investigate keeps growing. A federal agency that protects the rights of military employees is now investigating the firing of David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney. Justice Department officials said he was fired in part because he was out of the office due to his commitments as a Navy military reservist. If so, the firing may have been illegal.

There is also trouble in the Minnesota United States attorney's office....

[anne]

What the scandal of the U.S. Attorneys represents is a methodical attempt to subvert an election through abuse of the Justice Department and justice system, something that on a national level I would have assumed was a real and ethical and constitutional impossibility. I was wrong.

[anne]

Paul Krugman is a national treasure, by the way.

[Movie Guy]

Krugman - "...This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans have been taking at Nancy Pelosi."

...[T]he hysterical reaction to her trip [to visit the president of Syria] is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.
Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy... But Fox has had plenty of help... For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”

The G.O.P.’s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along."

Paul,

You failed to mention the Washington Post editorial from April 5, 2007. Let me help you out:

EDITORIAL
Washington Post

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16

"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

-------

Paul also conveniently failed to mention that the individual third in line to assume the Presidency of the United States of America wore a scarf (head cover) to her visit with the president of Syria, which, in effect, served as a demonstration of female submission. I don't know if I should call that oversight a "Little Lie" or a stupid omission.

I like Speaker Pelosi. But she received very bad advice on this particular adventure.

According to two calls from government friends in Israel over the weekend, the Washington Post editorial is accurate regarding her supposed "Israeli message" to the president of Syria.

I agree with the Washington Post editorial. I agreed with it on the 5th of April.

[real person from the real world]

Some of the press accusations against dems are petty, and (in general) the press seems overly anxious to dig up dirt, since they seem to feel they gain legitimacy from doing that. They are constantly on the prowl for some scandal or problems to do some investigative reporting on. OTOH, the Democrats are NOT exactly innocent with regards to the changes that are destroying the US middle class, either, sometimes with the help OF the (conservative) middle class. Frankly, I am fed up with both parties. Maybe we should try to develop a 3rd party. It has failed in the past, isn't that supposed to be the beauty of capitalism and democracy, the freedom of choice? What real choice is there between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum?

[evagrius]

Paul also conveniently failed to mention that the individual third in line to assume the Presidency of the United States of America wore a scarf (head cover) to her visit with the president of Syria, which, in effect, served as a demonstration of female submission.

Oh cut it out.

Laura Bush did the same thing.

[Callahan]

When Nancy Pelosi draws critisysm from Mr. Cheney, then she is doing a great job.

[anne]

Duh, well, duh, sort of like, well, the president, yes, our president, wearing a yamakah when at a service in a Jewish temple, duh. Sort of the respect I so welcome when so many guests come to church. Duh. That sort of respect. Duh. Thank you, Dear Paul Krugman, thank you Dear Nancy Pelosi.

[anne]

Sort of like when America, yes, this American president, allows Ethiopia to buys weapons from, well, North Korea, yes, North Korea, yes, that North Korea, in attacking and occupying Somalia. Sort of like that foreign policy, sort of, like. Sort of.

[spencer]

Movie Guy -- there were numerous press reports from different sources that the Israeli government sent the message through Pelosi that directly contradicted the Washington Post editorial.

Would you care to explain why you choose to believe the one, and only one, report and not believe the numerous other reports that tell a different story.

The most fundamental rule of intelligence is independent conformation. Can you provide a second source or independent conformation for the supposed quote of the Israeli Prime Minister comments.

[maria]

MGuy: Hey it really is terrible, and disastrous for the US, to have someone like Pelosi interfere with Bush's marvelous accomplishments in the Middle East. To think that she would intrude herself into such a parade of successes and muck it all up is beyond belief. Women, after all, should stay at home in the House, right? LOL. LOL. Etc.

[Callahan]

Not this woman, not Nancy. Stay at home Nancy? No, nada, nyet, zilch. Go Nancy.

[Jeremy]

Pelosi, U.S. attorneys.. ho hum.
Krugman's article flirted with the big picture
at the beginning then ground itself into the minutiae
of semi-irrelevance. Go back to 2000. Then look at 2007.
What happened? How does a country fall so far, so fast.

[Movie Guy]

spencer,

Perhaps you should reread my post more carefully.

I confirmed it directly with two Israeli government friends whom I have know since the late 1970s.

What I didn't explain was the email exchange and argument that occurred prior to their calls over the weekend. We left the bark on...if you know what that means.

Yes, I believe them. We have a long history of speaking plainly with one another, including a couple of fights back in the old days. Between the three of us, we had no problem clearing out a few bars. And one of them got me out of police "detention" in Germany one time in Munich, which was more than my "important" American friends were capable of doing. Yeah, I believe them because I trust them with my life.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

I stand by my support of the Washington Post editorial. They called it right in my judgment.

As for personal attacks from you, I haven't lost any sleep over it.

[Bruce Hall]

It seems that the time-honored political practice of "mud-slinging" is only heinous if done by Republicans. Talk about bias!

Kumquats, get a life. If you truly believe that the Clintons are such innocents, then you are truly innocents. Why anyone would take, on face value, what any politician says about anything is incomprehensible. Politicians live for one thing only: power. They will jump from cause to cause to get attention and gain personal aggrandizement.

So relax. Krugman's article is a red herring.

[Callahan]

Politicians also live to become rich LOBBYISTS.

[ken melvin]

We mustn't interfere with the glorious work of our glorious secretary of state.

[Movie Guy]

Comparing the Democratic Party and Republican Party Communications

National Committees:

DNC Press Releases

RNC Press Releases/Other Media

DNC Blog - 'Kicking Ass, The Democratic Party's blog'

RNC Blog - no name

Have Krugman and others ever bothered to make a comparison of such communications? Do you track information from your political party's national committee?

Which national political committee's communications about the other party and its members is more petty?

Yeah, you decide...for yourself. Don't let Krugman lead you around by the nose...unless you're that weak.

Did Krugman bother to make such a comparison before writing his column piece? Ya think?

[anne]

Remember Republicans always know the key to being subversive is whenever you are caught simply attack while changing the subject. Republicans attempt to subvert the constitutional voting system, to subvert what Democracy is, then the problem must be Nancy Pelosi. Republicans, we know, have always been and are always going to be, beyod all else, feminists. Say what?

Allowing the Ethopians to buy weapons from North Korea? Say what? Change the subject.

[anne]

How many Americans lives were ruined in Iraq this weekend, for no sane reason? The problem must be, has to be, is Nancy Pelosi.

[Callahan]

But remember those durned insurgents are in their last throes. Won't be long now. Flowers at our feet soon.

[Detlef]

Movie Guy,

Paul also conveniently failed to mention that the individual third in line to assume the Presidency of the United States of America wore a scarf (head cover) to her visit with the president of Syria, which, in effect, served as a demonstration of female submission. I don't know if I should call that oversight a "Little Lie" or a stupid omission.

Google images "Pelosi Assad". You´ll see that she didn´t wear a scarf "to her visit with the president of Syria". IIRC she wore a scarf while visiting a mosque. I don't know if I should call that oversight a "Little Lie" or a stupid omission.
Why should I trust your allegedly existing Israeli sources if you can´t even get it right with little things like pictures?

[Noni Mausa]

A surprising number of tactics used by political opponents are tactics I first encountered in junior high or grade school.

You want to destroy a kid who annoyed you? First make up a theme of some sort -- Jimmy is a geek, or poor, or clumsy. Then use that theme to create jokes, invite attacks, keep Jimmy in his place -- that is, the place you have built for him.

Bullying is actually not difficult. Reasoned and patient discussion, consultation, embracing real concerns -- not so easy.

Noni
who HATES schoolkid tactics

[anne]

Detlef:

"Google images 'Pelosi Assad'. You´ll see that she didn´t wear a scarf 'to her visit with the president of Syria'. IIRC she wore a scarf while visiting a mosque. I don't know if I should call that oversight a 'Little Lie' or a stupid omission."

Thank you so much for making that clear.

[Dirk van Dijk]

On Cable it seems like the only decent sources of info are Keith Oberman's Countdown and Jon Stewart (and "the Word" behind Colbert.

[spencer]

Movie Guy -- your talking to 2 good friends does not help me find an independent second source.

Second, I took your advice to read the political parties press releases. The first thing I noticed was a republican press release blaming the democrats for a tax increase in 2010 that was passed on 100% partisan vote of republican yeses and democrat nos. Moreover, it is not even 2010 yet and we do not know who will control congress at that time.

Thank you for a reference that appears to confirm the Krugman thesis by 100%.

[howard]

i want to thank movie guy for his 6:26, which perfectly captures the movie guy style in all its glory. he's got two friends, see, and so movie guy must be right.

actually, of course, movie guy, there were, you know, witnesses, like rep. lantos, who are better informed than your two sources.

the washington post editorial page, on foreign policy, is part of the lie machine. that movie guy approves of them is no surprise.

[Movie Guy]

Detlef,

I understand that's not the full story. Why don't call Pelosi's office (Representative or Speaker's) and chase that down a bit further.

I reviewed the videos after I asked about this. I am not so convinced based on what I was told.

But the bigger issue, of course, was what the Speaker told the president of Syria. That was complete nonsense.

Nice diversion, though.

[Movie Guy]

spencer,

Why don't you also call the Speaker Pelosi's office (Representative or Speaker's) and do some real research with those available sources. Then call the State Department, Embassay, or even go so far as call the information officers of the Israeli government. They will talk to you. Might not answer this question, but you will be able speak directly to a human who will run down someone in the know and, generally speaking, they will communicate back to you. At least that has been my experience on other, nonpolitical matters.

I don't believe that Pelosi's representatives, if you know how to get high enough in her two groups will go on the record and tell you that the Speaker was (1) told to convey a message by the Israeli prime minister, and (2) was told what she told the president of Syria.

I tried those routes last week as it unfolded. Not one individual with her staffs went on the record with either question. Meanwhile, I fired off a couple of emails to my friends and challenged them. That's when the sparks starting flying.

As for you dragging this out on this blog, that wasn't necessary. You have my email address and telephone number. You could have gone offline with your challenge to me. I've extended that courtesy to you.

I encourage you to go all out to prove this one to your satisfaction.

I could give some names and numbers of reporters who appear to know quite a bit about it, but I won't as a courtesy to my friendships with them, too. Track your own sources and be satisfied or not with what you learn.

I am satisfied with what I learned.

There was no way that it made any sense that the Israeli government reversed from its previous course with Syria and asked Speaker Pelosi to deliver a new and much difference message pertaining to reopening a dialogue under significantly different conditions as implied and indicated by Speaker Pelosi. I shared that with some on the Hill and that didn't go too well, either. So, apply a bit of logic to the questions you ask and see what answers you receive.

You may think I am kidding. I am not. Use your telephone. Press forward. Make it happen if you want real answers.

That's how I got the UAE ports number cleaned up in the U.S. national news when DP World made it acquisition. Same approach.

[Movie Guy]

howard,

I don't care what you believe.

You have no idea who my friends are.

If you want to believe x number of news reports or what a PR staffer says instead of the principal, go ahead.

But I extend the same challenge to you that I shared with spencer.

If you think that the Israeli prime minister reversed his course of action with the president of Syria out of the clear blue, then you're crazier than I thought you were.

This is now getting too funny.

Believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.

All the best, howard.

[Movie Guy]

By the way, howard, I didn't make a post at 6:26 as you said. Read it again, hotshot.

For your info, I'm not much of a fan of the Washington Post as a general rule.

I'm also not a Republican.

[Movie Guy]

spencer - "Thank you for a reference that appears to
confirm the Krugman thesis by 100%."

That's just pure dishonesty.

Usually, I sincerely respect you for your honesty. But, spencer, give me a break on this BS.

The DNC website press releases and blog are no better than what one finds at the RNC website. That's hardly the case.

Both political parties suck with their petty communications. They're spewing out junk that would be banned in some high school newspapers.

Clowns.

[howard]

ah yes, movie guy: 6:27:26 and i committed a typo. shame on me.

i dont honestly care what your politics are: we know you by your comments, and your comments show that you and the wapo editorial board are, on foreign affairs, of the same mindset, and that mindset incorporates, on the wapo's part, a contribution to the lie machine.

meanwhile, i've already noted to you that rep. lantos has confirmed rep. pelosi's account. i'm sure your 2 friends are better informed. like i say, it's the movie guy way....

[Movie Guy]

I will be very surprised if U.S. Representative Lantos' account holds up.

The Israeli government is quite outraged at the whole mess. They have tapes, by the way. You know, tape recordings.

Think...

[ctm]

"I'm also not a Republican. "

Donald Luskin is not a Republican.

Bill O'Reilly is not a Republican.

Movie Guy is not a Republican.

[ctm]

Oh no!

Pelosi made Olmert angry!

Who does she think she is? Doesn't she know who runs this country?

Now the Syrians have the upper hand! It's the end of the new Middle East that Cheney and Rice so painstakingly created! I felt a seize up in the birth pangs!

Impeach Pelosi before she does any more damage, like hold diplomatic talks with Iran!

Abortion! Hollywood liberals! Etc!

[bakho]

The trick to get news media to bite on a story is to give them something new and controversial. 24/7 news cannot thrive without controversy, creating new villians, putting feet in mouths, playing gotcha, etc. Republicans are very good at manufacturing controvery out of nothing. They have a lot of operatives that are paid to create controversy.

The Dems need to quit complaining about the way the news media works and start manufacturing their own outrageous scandals about Bush and the Republicans. Cable "news" is not "news" it is "soap opera" It's main competitors are the TV soaps.

There is zero reason to watch cable news except when a truly new disaster hits and they have vids. There is even less reason to watch now that the vids are on UTube.

[DILBERT DOGBERT]

I remember a MG comment from somewhere, sometime ago, about how he had information from friends on the ground in Iraq about how things were going better there than was reported in the press.
I am suspecting that MG could be, that is could be, a professional.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Pelosi's Syria remarks have led to yet another tempest in a teapot, largely for partisan purposes. Cheney holding forth on Limbaugh's show?

Neither the US nor Israeli policies toward Syria have changed, and Olmert, yet another dunce (see: recent attack on Lebanon,) is attempting a little costless repair of his own stupid reputation with his public (a 22% approval rating -- good luck!).

The whole stupid thing is being well-covered by the indefatigable and indispensible Josh Marshall:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
(several entries, scroll down. In my favorite line today, Marshall calls the Post op-ed page, by now well-proven to be a fantasy-driven propaganda outlet for this Administration, to be the "organ of jejune establishmentarianism and neo-Blimpism.")

As for events on this thread, a perfect example of the "little lies" technique. For example: google "Laura Bush headscarf" and hit "Images." Movie Guy, we all hoped you had reformed your ways...

[Lee A. Arnold]

Scratch that: I wrote "largely for political purposes." I should have written "entirely for political purposes." Pelosi did not communicate any change in policy, and all the players know it.

[anne]

So that we understand what are truths and what are lies.

Here is the photograph of Nancy Pelosi with Bashar al-Assad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/world/middleeast/05pelosi.html

Here is the photograph of Nancy Pelosi at a Mosque in Damascus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07diplo.html

[donna]

Movie Guy, do you really think anyone here believes anything you say anymore?

Go troll another blog, already. You're tiresome.

[Bruce Wilder]

Movie Guy: "You failed to mention . . . "

Sometimes, maybe most of the time, MG, you are such a tool. It's a shame, really.

[Bruce Wilder]

G.M. Pierce: "The meaning of the words profession and professional have changed drastically since the beginning of the twentieth century."

Some people call it "credentialism". "Qualifications" trump all other considerations, in deciding who gets the job, and no one ever worries about whether the job is done well or competently. It is closely related to declining social mobility and the increasing importance of social class in American society.

Anyway, I appreciated your comments.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ex=1333598400&en=2d6364a719a258f9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 7, 2007

The Real Fumble in Damascus

There is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead. But the Bush administration has far more appetite for scoring political points than figuring out whether talking to Syria might help contain the bloodletting in Iraq or revive efforts to negotiate peace.

So long as Mr. Bush continues to shun high-level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbor of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration's failed policies.

Ms. Pelosi and the five Democrats and one Republican who accompanied her are scarcely the first to raise such questions during the three years that Mr. Bush has instructed his top envoys — and reportedly Israel as well — to avoid negotiations with Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Plenty of other Republicans and Democrats have been taking similar trips and offering similar advice. They were ignored, but spared the White House's ridicule.

In the administration's perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place....

[ctm]

I'm waiting for another Movie Guy link avalanche.

[anne]

Notice carefully the indication that our Administristration, yes, our Administration, has been discouraging Israel from entering talks with Syria.

[maria]

M Guy: you think I attack you? Not worth the bother. I do make fun of you because you are so funny (pompous and self-important and full of silly ideas). Can't help it.

[kthomas]

GOP has zero credibility at this point.

All of the servile dogs in the press know it, but they still try to polish the dung.

And I agree with one of our posters here...if Cheney is publically crticizing Pelosi, then she's doing a great job. Next thing you know, he'll invite Madame Speaker to a quail "hunting" trip in TX, complete with sandwiches and beer. (Don't go, Nancy!)

[James Killus]

"Paul also conveniently failed to mention that the individual third in line to assume the Presidency of the United States of America wore a scarf (head cover) to her visit with the president of Syria, which, in effect, served as a demonstration of female submission."

Ah yes, Movie Guy is always so much the promoter of feminism. Pity the lonely crusader against female submission. It's rather like being a political professional without a party affiliation.

[calmo]

Happy Easter Monday people (and you too MG for the general excitement)
I copied this bit before I got to reading the ~60 comments and barely know now why:"[T]he hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun." The "hysterical" now seems to collide somewhat with that strategizing and abetting...
I think it was that PK does put his finger on the problem: "time in the sun", but little bits of light are showing up elsewhere in blogs eroding that monopoly.

maria, who never tires of pointing out the Israeli influence in American politics (like calmo never tiring of pointing out the importance of media/press and particularly GOP penetration [Bruce dump the "fair and balanced" croc of All Politicians or do I need to rub your nose in it with All Humans...All Animals...? We are counting on you.]) may have a legitimate complaint but for all that legitimacy it has no "time in the sun".
Now about that media control/domination, --that history, those changes that enforced an indoctrination that many felt were too "aspirational" and not "reality" based...do we need to look at that recent experience or do I just need to tell you that me and my omniscient pals with be over to deliver the message to you willful civilians who haven't a clue?

[kda]

Hypothesis 1: Someone in the White House picked up the telephone and told Olmert to trash Pelosi.
Hypothesis 2: Olmert had to deny the truth to keep his anti-peace coalition together.
I don't for a moment think Movie Guy's supposed sources are connected (even if real), but both hypotheses are consistent with his story. Finally, here is a link to a statement by Pelosi's press aide, who points out that State Department representatives were present at both meetings in question, and capable of setting the record straight, if that is what the Whbite House wants.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/04/was_pelosi_unfa.html

[calmo]

Something so right about kt'sAll of the servile dogs in the press know it, but they still try to polish the dung. Yes, it's not the appearance of dung that polishing will "make whole" (I can get over this expression. I must.) but the ineradicable smell that is the essential feature of 'dung'. The nose knows and the eyes do not see it, but refuse to be defeated by it...putting us through this merciless and futile exercise of polishing it.

[evagrius]

MG

I will be very surprised if U.S. Representative Lantos' account holds up.

It should. Lantos has been a supporter of Israel for decades.

[anne]

There were besides Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos, "Henry A. Waxman of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/world/middleeast/05pelosi.html?ex=1333425600&en=b1c4affbf8ff9881&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[kthomas]

Pelosi is doing her job: going to Syria and trying (unlike the President) to get enemies to talk is a first step. Pelosi did send word to the Syrians from Isreal, and she knew darn-well that Olmert would deny it. After all, we're talking about the Isrealis.

Either way, she looks diplomatic and engaged. The GOP can look to last Nov. and the election slaughter for answers. FOX News, CNN, etc. and all their flunkies can go jump from a high cliff to the jagged rocks below. We don't care.

Like I said, if Bush and Cheney are criticizing her, then she's doing a good job.

[robertdfeinman]

Trolls, an aside...

There seem to be three types of trolls online.

The first have a fixed viewpoint about issues and disregard or distort any information that contradicts this. This type has been studied in depth by people such as Robert Altemeyer in his work on "right wing authoritarian" personalities. There is no sense in arguing with them they are ideologues.

The second type are shills. Online it is easy to be such since pseudonyms are widely used. There is no sense arguing with them, they are been paid (in money or via various in-kind exchanges) for their work.

The third kind crave attention. They deliberately take extreme positions in order to get a rise out of people. There is no sense in arguing with them, this is exactly what they crave.

To summarize: Do not feed the trolls.

[gordon]

So, RDF, having eliminated the ideologues, the shills and the attention-seekers, who is left?

[James Killus]

Just you and me, Gordon, just you and me.

[James Killus]

And come to think of it, I'm not sure about you.

[maria]

A good example of what's wrong with the US media was the ABC News segment this evening with Diane Sawyer ("in Afghanistan"). She lobbed softball questions to the principal US general there and to our puppet President, Karzai. What the viewer got was nothing but the official line back: Taleban not really as strong as they are reported to be. US hasn't given Afghanistan, or its government, enough money. The whole crappy thing deserved an F for information of importance. Worthless pap. Purveyed by ABC. And a glamour puss "reporter."

[Jenna's Bush]

"Movie Guy" is a LIAR. Pelosi did not wear a scarf when she met with Asaad, she wore when she visited a mosque.

[Noni Mausa]

bakho: "The trick to get news media to bite on a story is to give them something new and controversial."

Pity the poor media. Imagine folks, trying to write 2 to 5 stories per day -- that is, write, research, copy-edit, fact-check, get the photos and then format them -- and that's all after the core facts or ideas are discovered.

And in the midst of this eye-rolling frenzy, some blessed person sends you a whack of press releases! Some are even exciting and interesting! and probably true! and maybe include photographs!

If they are from somewhat reliable sources, the media have strong motivation to use them, especially since so many media outlets have amalgamated into one big sweatshop.

I can't usually spare a half day to go to court, because I might or might not get a story out of it, and it's jest me 'n the Boy, holdin' down the fort, and deadline's at high noon.

Draw, pardner.

Noni

[Justaguy]

And the circle is completed when the far right (100 million of them?) complain that the "MSM" is, like, totally liberal man, and biased against the Bushies. It serves the media both ways.

Nurse!!

[Movie Guy's Late April Fools Joke]

I want to thank everyone who participated in this thread today. I had a lot of fun, having unfortunately missed April 1st. Paul Krugman's column via Mark's post provided a nice opportunity to play my joke on those who saw fit to attack me. Plenty of worthy takers, of course.

I selected the WaPo editorial because keen posters could easily refute quite a bit of the editorial information with the extensive number of articles regarding Speaker Pelosi dating back to March 30, 2007. It was simple enough to take down the absurd WaPo editorial in that fashion.

For those who have registered with WaPo, that initial page of articles can be accessed here:

WaPo Site Search - Pelosi - March 30, 2007.

As for what really happened during the Speaker's party with the president of Syria, I wasted no time reviewing the U.S. news media sources when the visit occurred and the so-called uproar began. It was clear what the Republicans would try to do. Instead, I was more interested in the international reactions.

I did find one German-based newspaper account that was notably unfavorable in terms of what the Israeli government representatives stated. That article offered the most extensive account of quotes that I have read this far. I am sure that none of you have any sincere interest in that article.

My congratulations to evagrius for his quickness and to Detlef for a more thorough challenge to the invented scarf issue. That was easy pickings. Good effort.

What made the post most enjoyable was the anticipated narrowmindedness that some of you predictably provided. I couldn't have asked for better...er, worse. Disdain and hatred among some posters on this blog can always be counted upon if one posts an adverse non-Borg response.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment.

Wait until next year! I'll try to be near a computer on April 1st instead of climbing a few small mountains.

Yeah, Stormy, I included you in the joke. ha. (But that's another story...)

My best to each of you.

Movie Guy

[James Killus]

Not the real Movie Guy. Not even a good imitation.

[Lafayette]

wjd:"When the media puts out misinformation it has a responsibility to correct the record."

And, its public airing constitutes slander. (Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.)

Why has not Plame taken the cable channels to court?

[Movie Guy]

James,

Yes, it was me. I have been waiting to have a little fun for a change. I did two serious posts since returning and thought it was time to slip in my missed day's effort.

I do have lighter moments, though few who have never contacted me directly know much about that.

A few folks who read it on this end were in fits of laughter. Sort of like stirring up a beehive. It didn't take much effort. They were rather astonished at that.

I should have taken bets. Could have made an easy $100 this afternoon. :))

[anne]

Yes; sweet little lies, lies to the false imprisonment of a Wisconsin state employee to subvert an election, lies to subvert the Constitution, lies as we have not before experienced, Republican lies, are all sweetly in fun; nonetheless however are they subversive Republican lies, though sweet.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon1.html?ex=1333771200&en=24985510dc151c0e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 9, 2007

Another Layer of Scandal

As Congress investigates the politicization of the United States attorney offices by the Bush administration, it should review the extraordinary events the other day in a federal courtroom in Wisconsin. The case involved Georgia Thompson, a state employee sent to prison on the flimsiest of corruption charges just as her boss, a Democrat, was fighting off a Republican challenger. It just might shed some light on a question that lurks behind the firing of eight top federal prosecutors: what did the surviving attorneys do to escape the axe? ...

[Subversion of the constitution, of elections, of justice, railroading even to prison, is beyond understanding but little and sweet nonetheless after these awful years.]

[PSP]

Generally, the courts have ruled that journalists are NOT professionals.

Dalheim v. KDFWTV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1226 (5th Cir. 1990)(Television news journalist is not a professional under the Fair Labor Standards Act and is entitled to overtime). See also Reich v. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 44 F.3d 1060 (1st Cir.1995); Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3d Cir.1994). But see Sherwood v. Washington Post, 871 F.Supp. 1471 (D.D.C.1994)(Washingto Post bureau chief was an exempt professional and could be paid salary).

[bullbust]

Yes, it was me. I have been waiting to have a little fun for a change. I did two serious posts since returning and thought it was time to slip in my missed day's effort.

I do have lighter moments, though few who have never contacted me directly know much about that

The extent to which people can delude themselves !!.

Cornered and with no place to go, he pulls another lie out.

Here's another such delusion. Enjoy.
(From http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002973.php)

“I have heard that the Democrats have paid to have these Wall Street Journal articles written,” Gibbons said. The Journal has reported that Gibbons is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly accepting unreported gifts or payments from a Reno company that was awarded secret military contracts when Gibbons was in the U.S. House."

Now, let's take a step back and see how high and wide this conspiracy goes. Not only has the (apparently conservative) Wall Street Journal been paid to write these stories about poor Jim Gibbons, but since those stories revealed a federal corruption investigation into his dealings with a defense contractor when he was in Congress, that means the (ostensibly Republican run) Justice Department is in on it too -- the FBI, the U.S. attorneys' office in Washington, everyone. And how about this for a kicker: Wilke's last story revealed that Gibbons' wife had a consulting contract with a defense contractor for which Gibbons had earmarked millions in federal dollars. There's only one conclusion to be drawn: Gibbons' wife is on it too.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/us/16gibbons.html?ex=1329282000&en=51f2ef73fda183ac&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 16, 2007

U.S. Looks Into Gifts to Ex-Congressman, Now Governor
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities are investigating gifts and payments that Gov. Jim Gibbons of Nevada received as a congressman from an executive of a software company that got millions of dollars in federal contracts, government officials said Thursday.

Investigators are examining whether the gifts and payments to Mr. Gibbons, a Republican, were in exchange for his help as a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/washington/31gibbons.html

March 31, 2007

Former Congressman's Wife Worked for Contract Winner
By NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON — The wife of Gov. Jim Gibbons of Nevada was paid about $35,000 in consulting fees from a Nevada company the same year it was awarded a no-bid $2 million military contract that had been pushed by Mr. Gibbons when he was a member of Congress.

The payments to his wife, Dawn Gibbons, were first reported in The Wall Street Journal on Friday and were confirmed by the company and by an associate of Mr. Gibbons. A lawyer for the governor and his wife, as well as an official of the military contractor, denied there was any connection between the contract and the payments to Mrs. Gibbons....

[anne]

Who knows what any of this means, but among the dismissed U.S. Attorneys was Daniel Bogden of Nevada.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon4.html?ex=1330146000&en=899eab10269dfc5f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 26, 2007

Why Have So Many U.S. Attorneys Been Fired? It Looks a Lot Like Politics
By ADAM COHEN

Carol Lam, the former United States attorney for San Diego, is smart and tireless and was very good at her job. Her investigation of Representative Randy Cunningham resulted in a guilty plea for taking more than $2 million in bribes from defense contractors and a sentence of more than eight years. Two weeks ago, she indicted Kyle Dustin Foggo, the former No. 3 official in the C.I.A. The defense-contracting scandal she pursued so vigorously could yet drag in other politicians.

In many Justice Departments, her record would have won her awards, and perhaps a promotion to a top post in Washington. In the Bush Justice Department, it got her fired.

Ms. Lam is one of at least seven United States attorneys fired recently under questionable circumstances. The Justice Department is claiming that Ms. Lam and other well-regarded prosecutors like John McKay of Seattle, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — who all received strong job evaluations — performed inadequately....

[calmo]

Krugman writesFox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy... But Fox has had plenty of help... For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”giving us the lead to see the relationship that Fox, a surprisingly small audience network, has to the larger audience. CNN can only run a title like that because Fox has already broken the ice, is already making an impact on standards that belie it's small audience (not to mention the nature of that audience).
On the good side, Fox is such a bad example it serves as an heuristic about how public opinion can be shaped. Surely there are books/documentaries that feast on the performance of this network to show how politics work in this country?

[maria]

Buchanan makes the point I have made several times. The Democrats don't have the guts to stop this war and won't. They are scared of the warmongers and the Neocons.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10792

[James Killus]

"Movie Guy"

Nope, still don't believe it. Whatever his faults, the real Movie Guy actually has a belief system and a political agenda that he attempts to defend. I'm still assuming that this was a hoax concocted by someone who dislikes him so much as to make him out to be such a silly, puerile twit that it would be unnecessary to ever respond to anything he said, ever again.

[Movie Guy]

Posted on another thread:

Posted by: cm | Link to Comment | Apr 11, 2007 4:30:12 PM
cm says...
MG: With any due respect, if that performance of yours was supposed to be a joke, I submit that it was poorly considered and poorly executed. Of course you are free to demonstrate that you give this forum merely enough consideration to make it the target of bratty pranks conducted for the purpose of your edification, and showing off in front of your associates how you incite dispute. But that demonstrates neither healthy humor nor maturity, and is rather unbecoming of somebody fitting the image you are trying to project.

----

Movie Guy says...
cm,

I've read plenty of clown posts on this blog from a number of posters. It's more common than not. Your double standard doesn't cut it.

Anyone with a half a brain could have figured out that post in ten seconds. A few did. Some sent emails.

What is disappointing is that the level of outrage and support for Speaker Pelosi by the liberals wasn't undertaken with sufficient seriousness early on based on the readily available facts. I found them easily.

The Speaker's office posted them on the Speaker's blog (Yes, there is a blog at the Speaker's web site - that's a fact) on 5 April, and the Speaker released a summary by country visited that outlined what happened at each stop. The Syria visit was more than adequately covered and the Administration did not challenge the document contents. Moreover, each visit involved direct support of accompanying U.S. State Department personnel.

The citizens of the United States allowed the lousy U.S. media to put one over on the country. There is no excuse for that. If I helped fire up some sincere Democrats, good. I will do again. It's time to get off your comfortable butts and rally like total hell when this stuff happens. How many U.S. Representatives and Senators did you call?

That little post of mine even ruffled spencer and that takes some doing. He's a smart individual but he's laid back. I was glad to see him step up. There is hope, after all. But this will happen again with the lousy media. We can count on that. So get ready to research real facts quickly as opposed to just whining. We're headed into an election of critical importance to our nation.

I will do an April's Fools post next year. May do some others, too.

And I'll probably be doing some lighter posts here in the future. Many others do, so let's try to have a double standard. I've seen clown almost every week for a long time.