
The success with which Lieberman Attack Chicken Marion Slimefels has been able to distract the press from asking solid questions about the record of a sitting Senator during a re-election campaign has been rather impressive, I must say. Atilla the Hen has gotten very good at creating diversions to keep journalists from acknowledging the existence of the last six years, and that is no small feat.
While I was under the impression that the public is just a wee bit concerned about the pile of dead bodies and hundreds of billions of dollars in debt they’ve reaped as a result of Holy Joe’s handiwork, Slimefels has been very successful at twirling bright shiny objects in the face of Sue Haigh of the Associated Press and convincing her that the subject of Ned Lamont’s money is really the topic that the public hungers for. Since this is the first time a millionaire has ever run for public office — well, with the exception of all the other milionaires in the Senate, including Holy Joe himself — I doubt they find this wholly shocking.
Which is no doubt why Haigh let Slimefels bully her into pouring so much ink into the the story of Ned Lamont’s Halliburton stock . Many reported the story without checking as to whether Joe owned Halliburton too; it seemed the obvious question. We checked. He did. But then, somehow it became a burning issue for Haigh as to whether this stock (whose profits owe much to Joe Lieberman’s votes, and none at all to Ned’s) was purchased directly or through a managed fund. Yes, I know. Control your excitement:
Lieberman’s campaign continued to accuse Lamont of misleading the media about whether he holds between $15,000 and $50,000 direct stock in Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
"Ned Lamont’s willingness to mislead the public about the fact that he owns tens of thousands of dollars in Halliburton stock is troubling," Steinfels said.
Lamont said earlier this month that the stock was part of a mutual fund, but his campaign later corrected the statement and said it was part of a managed stock account.
Swan said Friday that Halliburton is no longer part of that account.
So fine. The Lamont campaign gets Goldman Sachs to provide Haigh with a letter saying Ned’s money is in a managed fund, the purchases of which Ned does not direct, so Haigh can print a correction. Seems like a bit of a goat rope but they did it.
But Haigh doesn’t print a correction. Instead she prints:
The letter, signed by a Goldman, Sachs & Co. vice president, says the managed account is run by Goldman Sachs’ Quantitative Equity Group, which makes all investment decisions.
So that clears it up, right? Ned doesn’t make the decisions. Goldman Sachs does. Is this goat rope over?
Halliburton stock is no longer part of that fund, Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan said last week when Lamont released his 2005 tax returns.
Almost. That should settle it, right? Ned’s fund, just like Joe’s, owned Halliburton at one point. Joe’s still does. Ned’s had divested itself of the stock between the time he filled out the forms and the time they were released to the press. Does Haigh now point out the obvious, that the LieberLiars were spreading disinformation and just plain wrong? Because, you know, that would be the appropriate thing to do at this point.
Instead, we get this spectacular dismount:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has repeatedly accused Lamont of having direct shares of Halliburton. The Connecticut Post reported last week that there is Halliburton stock in two mutual funds that Lieberman owns.
Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels would not comment on Lieberman’s mutual funds.
"While Joe Lieberman was calling for a congressional investigation into Halliburton’s abuses, Ned Lamont was profiting off them," she said in a written statement. "We are glad that Ned has dumped the $50,000 in stock that he owned in Halliburton."
So Haigh lets Slimefels refuse to comment on the fact that Holy Joe is now the only one of the two holding Halliburton stock, but prints her comment — which Haigh now knows to be a lie – that Ned "dumped the $50,000 in stock he owned in Halliburton."
WTF??? To begin with, the little box checked on the form said "between $15,000 and $50,000." And only six paragraphs before she’s just acknowledged that Ned doesn’t make the decisions about the holdings in this fund. Haigh is just allowing Slimefels to blather on inventing her own reality, addressing what she wants without pressing her on the obvious hypocricy of the entire matter.
It’s quite surprising that with so many important issues swirling around this campaign, the AP finds it necessary to forego hardhitting reporting in favor of bovine docility. Those who would like to point out that there is an audience for something a bit more substantive — and that there is, you know, a war going on — can contact Haigh at shaigh@ap.org.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

NY TIMES Endorses Lamont !
The endorsement will be in tomorrow’s edition of the paper. Here’s what we have thus far-
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electionce
ntral…
Don’t tell me the guy with no internet is getting here Fitz!
NY TIMES oopsie
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe…..ral…
epu’d from last thread
the new york times endorses lamont…raw story reports
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0729.html
It’s quite surprising that with so many important issues swirling around this campaign, the AP finds it necessary to forego hardhitting reporting in favor of bovine docility.
Well, no. Not really…
Seriously… the guy’s name is Slimefels?
Seriously… the guy’s name is Slimefels?
Steinfels.
Just a spokeswoman about nothin’, I guess.
let me repeat it properly:
NYTimes endorses
Ned Lamont !
Eeeek!!!
Bovine docility sort of sums up Liebermans life as a Senator.
Bovine docility sort of sums up Liebermans life as a Senator.
This country needs less bovine docility and more silent lucidity.
Or noisy lucidity. I’m not picky.
Eli, if it were The Second Coming, I’d make it blink too …
Go Ned.
Maybe if we keep beating a lazy press corps with a stick they’ll get off their butts and write the news.
Of course, pigs might fly out my butt too…
Clearly the NYT has been taken over by Al Queda.
SoL – LOL!
“Clearly the NYT has been taken over by Al Queda.”
Or, at the very least, by radical leftist angry bloggers.
Sorry, EPU’d below -
That Eric Massa is one impressive candidate.
——
Taking a page outta TeddySanFran, it just so happens Monday’s WaPo chat is the Washington Post Congressional Reporter Shailagh Murray will be online Monday, July 31, at 11 a.m. ET.
Submit questions link:
http://discuss.washingtonpost……it_postpol itics1.htm
—-
Speaking of candidates, I’d just like to quote a famous movie AGAIN in support of Mr. *ilson’s efforts etc.
….and NED, too!
Lieberman Attack Chicken – Atilla the Hen
LOL, Jane.
Lieberman Attack Chicken – Atilla the Hen
LOL, Jane.
Jane would be more like Genghis Swan, of course.
“squadrons of rabid lambs, dripping venom” invaded the Editorial Board of the NYTimes and commandeered the wordprocessors — a hate-filled screed issued: We endorse Ned Lamont for Senator for Connecticut!
Lieberman Attack Chicken – Atilla the Hen
Southerners might call say
Joe is an Old Peckerwood.
Chicken Stock – It’s What’s For Dinner!
“Bovine docility” has to be
the.best.phrase.ever. I love it and hate the fact that the Slimefels person is a grade A ass.
Editorial Board of the NYTimes and commandeered the wordprocessors — a hate-filled screed issued
“If it screeds, it leads”
Chicken Stock – It’s What’s For Dinner!
Are we doing mutual puns now?
Have the CT papers issued their endorsements yet in the Senate primary between Lamont and Lieberman? I wonder if the NYT endorsement will impact their thinking?
“Bovine docility”
(I cud a been a contender….)
http://www.courant.com/news/op…..ility-home
s**t
We endorse U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary for his skill in bridging the partisan abyss in Washington — a valuable asset.
What’s the word on a possible FDL get-together tonight in New Haven?
Eli
Are we doing mutual puns now?
yes, but past performance is no garantee of future results
the big CT endorsement to watch for is the Hartford Courant — I wonder if it’ll be tomorrow …
I’m assuming Joe’s mutual fund of choice would be Janus, right?
Ned Lamont is the bravest, warmest, gentlest, most wonderful human being who’ll make a great Senator for Connecticut !
ooops —- the Courant went for Holy Joe — Holy Cow !
Why have journalists become so damned lazy? Is it really that hard to write fact-filled articles? Or are they all on the take, getting unmarked envelopes of cash from corporate slush funds?
Janus, as in J – anus?
Dollar for Dollar Match is going strong.
Not bad for only 10 days! ~ GO NED!
http://nedlamont.com/blog/667/…..sphere-day
*Offer good thru Primary day 8/8
Janus, as in J – anus?
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more along the “two-faced god” angle…
when all is said and done, HoJo will have no egrets.
hit F5, the commenter at #33 changed her mind …
it’ll be nice to see Ned undo all the conventional wisdom
but I was thinking more along the “two-faced god” angle…
well, geez, if you’re gonna get all inty-leck-shoe-all on us….
when all is said and done, HoJo will have no egrets.
Actually, I think Joe will be getting the egress very shortly.
I’m not surprised the Hartford-based Courant went for Lieberman. That town is a haven for the insurance industry, and they know which side their bread is buttered on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07…..mp;ei=5087
text:…[The editorial page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.]..
Howard L. Reiter, the head of the political science department at the University of Connecticut, said Mr. Lieberman had developed the complacency and hubris of many long-term incumbents.
“When you’ve got a major politician who has been very successful, and they get a lot of stroking, and someone they never heard of comes out of left field, they almost feel it’s an affront they have to defend their office, and a lot of them are caught off guard,” Professor Reiter said. …
getting the egress very shortly.
defenesLieberstration
Yeah, the Times’ endorsement changes the whole media narrative from “Rich-dilletante playing-toesy-with-the-lunatic-left” to “Worthy-candidate-who-must-be-taken-seriously.” Gravitas, baby.
Yeah, the Times’ endorsement changes the whole media narrative from “Rich-dilletante playing-toesy-with-the-lunatic-left” to “Worthy-candidate-who-must-be-taken-seriously.” Gravitas, baby.
Should never underestimate the force of gravitas.
Gravitas rainbow ! a sign of hope …
Gravitas rainbow ! a sign of hope …
If we get enough progressives in Congress, maybe we can send BushCo to prism.
Since people would probably expect the big newspapers to endorse incumbents, the Courant endorsement is a big yawn.
The NY Times salute, though, is powerful, because the Times – - the biggest, most establishment paper there is – - is choosing sides with the challenger.
Or at least that’s how it looks from this part of Texas. *g*
along with Arlen Spectrum?
Maybe he can do an album for the children
when this is all over.
Egrets, I had a few, but then..
along with Arlen Spectrum?
That would be the optical outcome.
I’ll see you your gravitas and raise you some firmitas, utilitas, venustas
I shudder to think about the neurological, emotional, developmental, physical, environmental, and economic damage being wrought.
US political discourse was auctioned off to the highest bidders, chopped into mini-morsels of time, and sold on a commercial basis — as if politics was no more important than toothpaste, denture cleanser, or cars.
Thanks to Ned, FDL, and thinking minds everywhere for creating a CONVERSATION about IDEAS — rather than simply settling for the latest Rovian shitfest.
Politics 3.0 is badly needed; Ned and FDL’s role in helping create it has earned my deepest respect.
OT – Rove picking on journalists…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..NlYwM3MDM-
Anybody know when we can read the Times endorsement?
Arlen Sphincter is more like it.
-GSD
Eli – Iris pecked you a lot.
Now that I support a candidate newly embraced by (some part of) the establishment, I invite all right thinking progressives to hate me, call me a sellout and imagine I’m part of some vast A-list blogger conspiracy.
We may as well get that part started now.
Thanks to Ned, FDL, and thinking minds everywhere for creating a CONVERSATION about IDEAS — rather than simply settling for the latest Rovian shitfest.
Politics 3.0 is badly needed; Ned and FDL’s role in helping create it has earned my deepest respect.
Now we just need to get it into TV & the newspapers on a consistent basis…
(Um, couldn’t help noticing that your litany at the beginning spelled out “NED PEED”, but my brain wiring is kinda faulty)
Punaise,
Is this Liebermans “window of opportunity”?
defenesLieberstration
-GSD
It’s getting so that weathermen/women and reporters have the best jobs where you can make money even if you are wrong 50% of the time.
Weather I can understand – it isn’t exactly under our control.
But reporting is. Getting the facts right should be a requirement of any story that sees the light of day.
Problem is that too few in the business understand the difference between facts and opinion. Too few understand that getting a quote right is not the same as getting the facts right. Steinfels may have been quoted correctly, but the content of her statement was inaccurate.
I blame reporters for being sloppy, and I blame editors for not demanding accuracy in all aspects of reporting.
There are too many in the media today who are not comfortable with reporting the basics, and allowing the readers/viewers to draw their own conclusions. Somewhere along the line, this train went off the tracks, and too few care about it for any substantive change to occur.
Anne 63 – but is it really laziness and incompetence, or is it by design?
Arlen S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is more appropriate.
Youze guys just killin’ me.
—-
The Courant endorsement may just backfire:
headline reads:
“For Experience, Mr. Lieberman”
—
My assessment is that our man Ned is part of wave that favors ‘outsider’ and ‘agent of change’ candidates.
Jozo is being blessed for being IN. But the people don’t see that as a virtue, they see it a the PROBLEM. At least, it looks that way to me. Notice it takes Bubba to draw and enthusiastic crowd.
Ned is viewed as part of the ‘SOLUTION’. imho.
People may just read the Courant as another vote for ’stay the course’ and dismiss it out of hand. Those who don’t I think may not vote. But, that is the question of the final days, here.
Can we make this Jozo’s final throes?
GSD – yes, it would seems he’s taking panes to lose.
Hartford Courant endorsement of Lieberman -
http://www.courant.com/news/op…..ility-home
GSD – yes, it would seems he’s taking panes to lose.
His framing has really put him in a jamb.
Thanks for the great comment at 1:56, Reader of tea leaves.
Eli – my brain wiring is kinda faulty
that some kind of cry for help?
Presidential adviser Karl Rove said Saturday that journalists often criticize political professionals because they want to draw attention away from the “corrosive role” their own coverage plays in politics and government.
You mean like all the coverage the reporters gave to the Swiftboat Liars in 2004? Or did you mean the way they rarely fact-check anything the GOP says?
Be careful, Karl. You may get what you wish for. :)
His framing has really put him in a jamb.
Concession speech? Shutter the thought; he’d better be mullion it over.
Very interesting post on kos where it contrasts two primaries
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..16194/2446
Need to run out and buy my new washing machine… see ya later
shaig@ap.org has to be one of the ugliest email addresses I’ve ever seen.
Go, Jane!
not exactly a ringing ensorsement from the Courant in my oh-so-humble opinion… a sort of a devil-we-know recognition …
http://www.courant.com/about/h…..9677.story
OPINION/LETTERS TO THE EDITOR The Courant welcomes letters on matters of public interest. To send a letter, use this link.
http://www.courant.com/news/op…..customform
To contact the opinion staff click here.
http://www.courant.com/about/c……htmlstory
Concession speech? Shutter the thought; he’d better be mullion it over.
It’s sure to happen some bay; surely you can picture it.
Anne @ 1:59
Speaking of weather — to make the jump to climate — 2 out of 3 letters to the editor in today’s LA Times contained old talking points to rebut climate change which have demonstrably been proven false in the technical literature (I know — the field is related to my own). Yet they were printed. I imagine the intention was to show “balance” but they’re wrong. Surely they have some responsibility to check the facts even for editorial page letters? How can a thinking reader draw conclusions if they’re presented with untruths?
shaig-adelic, baby
Blank K – I agree. I fthe Courant was the only article of endorsement I read before primary day. Throw the bum out!
not exactly a ringing ensorsement from the Courant in my oh-so-humble opinion… a sort of a devil-we-know recognition …
Based on the excerpts posted here, it sounded kinda like “Vote for Joe – he’s a senator!”
Pachacutec @61
We may as well get that part started now.
As…..you…..wish!
Be forewarned: In this letter, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. I would like to start by discussing Pachacutec’s ultimata, mainly because they scare me. The thing I’m the most frightened about is that Pachacutec would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to lead the way to the future, not to the past, quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble. Well, that’s a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I’m afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don’t want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Pachacutec tell everyone else what to do. Worse yet, he wants to step on other people’s toes. Here, too, we can see how Pachacutec complains a lot. What’s ironic, though, is that he hasn’t made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Pachacutec’s behavior is beneath contempt.
is Jane asking that we should shaig the ap.org ? … wouldn’t be prudent!
Lede of Courant endorsement:
“In an era of exceptionally corrosive politics, Connecticut has the antacid.”
end reads:
“It would show an intolerance unworthy of any political party.”:
—–
In between is lots of veiled references to the ‘venomous rabid lambs’.
—–
But what they concoct is sure to deliver ulcers, not balming.
Joe, you just cannot be trusted–that most precious of character traits in anyone–not only politicians. T-R-U-S-T-E-D, Joe. As a lawyer, you certainly know what that means. As Justice Zarella remarked on the meaning oath you took when you were admitted to the Conn. bar: “…in the words of the oath, we cannot overlook the underlying notions of honesty, character and fidelity that are apparent throughout the words of the oath.”
It doesn’t matter how many times you say “I am Democrat.” If you lose, you will run anyway. The party is more than one person, Joe. Implicit in one’s membership in any democratic institution is the trust that one will abide by the decisions of that membership.
And did I forget to mention your arrogance? Seems to go hand in hand with the lack of trust.
Today’s NY Times:
“In a primary like this, his legacy [Clinton’s]is on the line,” Mr. Lieberman said. “Because the group that is opposing me is not, does not really believe in the same kind of politics that Bill Clinton believes in, that brought us two wins in two national elections. They are just negative.”
snip/
“I said, as painful as it is, the first words out of your mouth and the last words out of your mouth every time you speak have to be ‘I’m a Democrat,’ ” Mr. Dodd recounted on Thursday. “You can say whatever you want after that.”
And be whoever your selfish self wants you to be–damn the voters.
is Jane asking that we should shaig the ap.org ? … wouldn’t be prudent!
Shaig it, but don’t break it. It took the right wing 30 years to make it.
It’s sure to happen some bay; surely you can picture it.
well, my eyes are glazing over.
the guys in thw white coats have come to take me away for a while.
(ha ha, ho ho, hee hee)
Puppethead at 1:43 pm said: “Why have journalists become so damned lazy? Is it really that hard to write fact-filled articles? Or are they all on the take, getting unmarked envelopes of cash from corporate slush funds?”
I can name that tune in two quotes!
“The notion that journalism can regularly produce a product that violates the fundamental interests of media owners and advertisers … is absurd.” — Robert McChesney
and
“That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.” — Mark Twain
Eli – I think some of it is laziness, but that works quite well for those who have to make the decisions about what is being published/aired.
I don’t think you can discount the influence of the corporate ownership in the bias of the end product, and it has to be much easier to have sloppy reporters assisting in that effort than one who believes he or she serves the truth above all else.
It’s hard to know how much of a story ends up being edited out, with the end result being an altogether different story than the one the reporter authored.
Either way, the process is perverted and corrupted, which is why traditional media outlets are being supplanted to some extent by alternative sources, because people like us are tired of being manipulated for someone else’s agenda.
preview is my snarky cousin
don’t forget that Pach keeps Jonah in a cage in the back yard, or something like that…..
This is just like that local newscast someone linked to last night. They brought up the Schiavo issue with Mr Schiavo’s statement. Then Joe said the issue should not be politicized, and the reporter dropped the subject. As though Joe hadn’t been fully behind the politicization of Terry Schiavo.
Actaully the dumb reporter didn’t drop the subject. She seemed very selfsatisfied that she put a “tough” question to Lamont and asked him if he had a living will. And she got Lamont to admit he was “stupid” and should get one ASAP. Yeah, Ned, if you lose this primary to Joe, everyone in Conn. should get a living will with Holy Joe on the loose. So Joe’s meddling was not about crass politization of a brain dead woman, but about losers like Terry and Ned who were dumb enough to risk brain death without a living will.
Anne, I think we’re pretty much in synch. The main question in my mind is whether the media hires lazy reporters, or creates lazy reporters.
ember — gah. That article on Rove is a fine bit of projection, isn’t it? He uses the very traits he badmouths in the press to his advantage, then blasts them for it. What a piece of work, a manipulative sociopath whose found his ideal calling.
OT — but related…we have so little time, so much work to do to stop this White House from doing any more damage. This latest bit, deceiving Congress about India and arms sales to manipulate outcome of approval is absolutely monstrous. What will they stop at to achieve their own ends? They’re ramping up an arms war between India and Pakistan from the looks of it, trying to keep Pakistan on its toes, and all of this in utter contravention to all the anti-nuclear proliferation work done over the last two decades.
I’d like to know if this has Bolton’s fingerprints on it, too; does this shite go back to his tenure pre-U.N.?
Reader of Tea Leaves – this is brilliant =
US political discourse was auctioned off to the highest bidders, chopped into mini-morsels of time, and sold on a commercial basis — as if politics was no more important than toothpaste, denture cleanser, or cars.
I’d be interested in hearing from our Nutmeggers just how the Courant’s fared in calling winners recently, wooden shoe?
If you haven’t checked in on Pull Up a Chair lately, you’ll want to (as you trust ME) . . .
ember @ 57, lol ;-)
Rove sez: “… journalists and columnists… don’t like sharing the field of play. Perhaps they want to draw attention away from the corrosive role their coverage has played focusing attention on process and not substance.”
Does ‘corrosive’ only apply to coverage of things like Katrina, an Iraq meltdown, Enron malfeasance, Abramoff pimping legistlation to House Repubs, actual footage of GWB’s moronic diatribes (a la WH press gig on 7/28), global warming, Abu Gharib… ?
TRANSLATION: “Unless y’all are kissing our asses and making us look good, u r are corrosive, evil, bad pepl.”
Rovian. Shitfest.
Fred – is that Courant article supporting the (is it Hillary?) Clinton angle of non-leftiness that (I think) has been referred to as “New Dem”? Still trying to build that “centrist” middle ground? If that article was written to spec for the Lieberman campaign, it seems that this could show a real weakness in his angle. Didn’t the Republicans already take that hill, and the relocate it a few miles right?
don’t forget that Pach keeps Jonah in a cage in the back yard, or something like that…..
oh I hope there’s a bear somewhere in there too.
M, hit F5 — that comment almost got obliterated but it is sanitized now. Never use terms like that in here! NEVER
Aw, punaise, you can’t hold that against me. . .
jussumbody, due to the name you called that reporter, you have zero credibility with me from this moment on. Just thought I’d let you know that . . .
Thanks *ilson.
*ilson — the use by M should also be Windexed. Increases the mystery, at the least. Consistency, hobgoblin, whatever.
p.s. *ilson- I hope you can track this jerk, BTW
Eli – enjoy….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iokihTfEhMw
He’ll give ya a gigabyte in a nanosecond ;-)
*ilson- your call re: Rayne’s idea- sounds good to me! It’s not something that comes up all that often. Maybe those comments should just automatically be deleted (as best as crew can) in a timely way. thanks
Here’s some video from Spazeboy of Made Marion running interference for Lieberman at an event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..+steinfels
Exactly how creepy is that shuffle of her’s anyway?
Rayne’s suggestion was duly noted, mulled over and then done …
Ann 63
What really makes the inaccuracies and half-truths in the usual reporting is that, for the most part, they all cover the same few stories.
If one paper breaks a story, then the others aren’t exactly reinventing the wheel when they use the same story.
Seems like the least they could do is some of their own checking to make sure everything is accurate.
And when you think of all the stories they *aren’t* covering, they really ought to get those few they publish rigorously accurate.
My thanks too *ilson. I totally appreciate how our real gentlemen in our FDL family stand right up with us Ladies to craven misguided misogyny.
He’ll give ya a gigabyte in a nanosecond ;-)
Oh my.
“I have a love child who sends me hate mail.”
Ah the sublty of Jane’s writting…
i think they both have too much money.
they should give some to me.
i don’t care where it comes from.
(actually, i would consider money from halliburton tainted, but i’d still take it.)
reporter to a newly flush dylan “what are you going to do with all your money?” dylan, “i’m going to keep it.”
reporter to a newly flush dylan “what are you going to do with all your money?” dylan, “i’m going to keep it.”
But how can you enjoy it without spending it?
The crucial words of Dodd’s advice to Jozo quoted above:
…”as painful as it is”…
TO OPENLY DECLARE YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT.
‘Hey, look! I’m Jozo and I’m a Democrat!’
—-
With the lede from Courant, they’ve got Karl’s back:
“In an era of exceptionally corrosive politics,…”
—-
Big Papi Ortiz wins for Sox in extra innings (11). Again. There IS hope, folks. For everything.
The crucial words of Dodd’s advice to Jozo quoted above:
…”as painful as it is”…
TO OPENLY DECLARE YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT.
‘Hey, look! I’m Jozo and I’m a Democrat!’
It’s kinda like Bush declaring himself a “strong leader”. If you have to *tell* people…
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
shaig@ap.org
I just received this response to the email I sent Sue. Anyone able to get through?
Anyone have an alternative email address?
Dear Ms. Haigh,
Have you checked your retirement holdings lately? Do you have any American, Vanguard, or Fidelity funds? If so, I can practically guarantee that you, too, are holding Halliburton stock, in a manner of speaking. Why not include a comment on the massive insitutional holdings of Halliburton and, if you’re feeling plucky, comment on how the “average” middle-class American ends up funding the military-industrial complex in ways that may not technically exceed her control but that are so buried as almost to escape detection. You might in one of your duller moments also consider the sheer effort required to purge oneself of all odious corporate connections (seen any graphs that show how the supposed organic food industry is tied to the giants? or that show how “social choice” funds substitute one evil for another?).
Not very sincerely, etc.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
shaig@ap.org
I just received this response to the email I sent Sue. Anyone able to get through?
Anyone have an alternative email address?
Maybe it’s shaigh@ap.org?
rayne@96 and reader@99, Rove is stunning in his gall. projection, exactly.
shaig@ap.com doesnt work either (ap.com aint the news folk)
shaigH@ap.org hasnt bounced back yet … I bet that’s it !
OT
http://downwithtyranny.blogspo…..white.html
Nice lil Doonesbury cartoon linked by Keninny at DWT.
Great and timely post Jane. If anyone needs icing on this Hamsherian cake you must read Glenn Greenwald’s latest. Suffice it to say that many a question-to-ask warmongering Joe can be found.
~~~
“Remember Iraq?”
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
~~~
Also, cuz no one else has stepped up to the plate;
Jane!
*ilson- you likely have powers to edit Jane’s post to change the email addy or post a correction. Go into the edit post stuff.
shaigH@ap.org hasnt bounced back yet … I bet that’s it !
Me too *ilson, “shaigH@ap.org” has not bounced back yet.
WAY TO GO ELI !!!!!
Rockstar !!!!!
(((((APPLAUSE)))))
Subject : How soon can we look forward to a retraction?
Ms. Haigh, of all the riveting issues in the Lamont Lieberman race, why would you choose to write inaccurately about Halliburton stock ownership?
Please see this link for a fuller explanation.http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/29/iraq-is-in-flamesbut-what-did-ned-have-for-dinner/
Ms. Haigh, if you had bothered to read the written statements that the Lamont campaign sent you, you’d know the Lieberman campaign was using you.
Halliburton stock only started going north after Senator Lieberman helped President Bush get us into a $267,000,000/day occupation of Iraq.
Ms. Haigh, Ned Lamont is AGAINST the War in Iraq. This is very bad news for Halliburton stock holders. Senator Lieberman is FOR the War in Iraq. Senator Lieberman still own his Halliburton stock.
How did this escape mention in your story?
Please provide a retraction at your earliest convenience.
Eli says: “Maybe it’s shaigh@ap.org?”
July 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Yes, according to the final paragraph in Jane’s comments.
M — the correction has already been made to our Blogmistress’ post,
Dayum *ilson, you are fast.
New thread, won’t you please come to New Haven.
thank you
Second moeman @ 2:40 — Glenn is great and lets HoJo speak for himself (a lot) about Iraq. Ms. HaigH should ask if he still stands behind those statements.
Oh my – the punsters on FDL are in rare form today – I have been chortling non-stop as I read the comments! However, also causing me some mirth was in Jane’s post, where she wrote “Since this is the first time a millionaire has ever run for *pubic* office . . .” Am I the only one who saw that – or are you all more polite than I? Well, I am sure it was a typo – but I kinda like it as is! (-:
Kathie
Nice to see Lamont picked up NYT “YES”. That
Lieberman failed at seeing the Iraq War as a
mistake from the pre-war phoney threat ramp-up
or at least by mid 2004 is now coming full
circle. Consorting with the Bush WH on a serial
basis was really corrosive. The USA is no where
close to the nearest exit with this Bush WH’s
debacle in Iraq. It looks like THE DECIDER has
decided to “stay the course” out thru early
2009 then pass his “shitmess” onto the next
POTUS. Lieberman has no one but himself to
blame for getting sucked in by this Bush WH.
What is going on in Lebanon now only underlines
the hollow core of THE DECIDERS ‘WAR OF TERROR’
as applied to the world. It is all incredibly
misdirected. Many are dying for this stupidly
conceived and executed 9/11 react/response.
Correcting for it is going to hard. Very hard.
550 … User unknown>>
*************************
Do you have another address?
Kurt:
Well done. For an opening salvo, that will do quite nicely!
the correct address (we think) is shaigh@ap.org — notice the 2nd H
Thanks, ilson. Don’t know why they would leave off an H when I just cut and pasted the address from Jane’s article …. Anyway, I sent again.
as Jane originally had it, it was incorrect. others got their mail nounced too so we poked around and realized JANE HAD FUCKED UP so we corrected her post with a new, correct address …
Attack chicken, is that like jerk chicken?
Mr. Mod,
You attack the host at your own peril. Be warned.
it was hyperbole, egregious — just hyperbole
Is hyperbole short for hyper/manic bipolar? ;)
Ya I knew you wz kidding.
I hear Ned had broasted ChickenHawk fer dinner but I don’t believe it.
ChickenHawk is so tender it would just melt off the bone if yer broasted it.
Yeah I have spelling issues. What are you gonna do. Wilson gets my back again…
Hey, Lieberman has nothing to worry about. It’s just a short ride back to Connecticut.
Her name is really “Slimefels”? That’s nearly perfect, but she really should just go all the way and just change it to “Slimeball”.
Steinfels can say whatever she wants, but it was Sue Haigh’s decision to run it. And her editor’s. I would wonder whether she challenged Steinfels, but I think I know that answer.