zed

o/

The above YouTube is one of my fave Sam the Eagle moments. Enjoy, gang. *g*

John Edwards live at Iowa rally on CSPAN!

yeah sam “the legal” eagle rulz!

Elizabeth Edwards taking calls on CSPAN 202-737-0001 for Dems. coming up.

And I agreed right back atcha, Christy… we need to hold their feet to the fire just as you’re holdin’ Rosenthal’s, et al. And layin’ down the gauntlet for one Wm the Bloody Kristol, methinks…..

Definitely not settlin’ for business as usual from any of these guys.

“This list is now inoperative.” Kids would never get that reference, but we adults do. Shades of Watergate sneaking into out children’s shows? How subversive! ;)

was one of the few family sit down shows of my era

The idea that the NYTimes would hire someone who clearly hates them is ming boggling. If I wanted a job with a particular company, the last thing I would do is slam them publicly. If I did, theyd never hire me. The Times is acting like a battered spouse.

Gotta fly for erranding, but here’s some happy news to contemplate:

McClatchy-MSNBC: Edwards poll surge

And then there’s this liveblog: Edwards up close

Brace yerselves MSM and Punditry. Feel the tide…it be risin’.

I think we should start a movement to have Digby named a columnist at the NYT.

na, blogs are better, blogs are global!

They are not mutually exclusive.

Christy,
The “High Broderism,” “Factually accurate,” and “give a crap” links are all to the same Media Matters post. FYI in case you intended other landing points, and “Never Mind” if it was intentional.

Right. What we’ve witnessed these past six years is the Nixonization of America. His “outrages” are now “business as usual.” Anyone who expresses outrage is dismissed as “unserious.” Glenzilla has the details.

Kristol = “serious respectable intellectual conservative”

Bah hahahahahahaha! Oh gawd. That’s funny. Well, I suppose he would appear that way to those who love torture, illegal invasions, and our rights as Americans being spit on everyday.

From SourceWatch:

Kristol said in a January 14, 2003, PBS Frontline interview “that the significance of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address in 2002 (the ‘axis of evil’ speech) is too easily forgotten — that it was a rare moment, ‘the creation of a new American foreign policy’ — and that Bush deserves credit for realizing very quickly after Sept. 11 that his presidency would be judged by how he handled the post-9/11 threat of weapons of mass destruction.“

Well, Bill – how damned prescient. Let’s hope you’re correct.

i think so! lol :)

and that perma shit-eating-grin!

I’ve had the NYT online in my bookmarks for over a year now, and I’ve read it daily, often more than once per day, thus subjecting myself to thousands of exposures to their advertisers, whose presence finances the NYT online.

No more. With “Bloody Kristol” now on their payroll, I’m finished with them. Sure, I realize this probably doesn’t really make any difference to the NYT, but if lots and lots of FDL readers did the same and encouraged all their Internet family and friends to do likewise, then it’s possible that the NYT hit counter would plummet, the advertisers would pull their ads, and the NYT would get the message where it counts most: in their pocketbook.

Aaaah, I’m probably just p**sing in the wind.

Yep! Oh yes, the ‘perma shit-eating grin’ is used to fake out the masses and to give the impression that all that has happened over the last seven years is just so silly, you know, the unimportant “stuff” Americans complain about when a highly-serious-respectable-conservative speaks!

I love Elizabeth Edwards. She’s doing a great job on C-SPAN2.

Edwards is the last great hope for the United States. He is the only one willing to take on the corrupt centers of power in the country. Any other Democratic winner will merely delay the ultimate collapse. Obama’s “Can’t we allo just get along” is a feel good sentiment with no substance.

The Times is leaking subscribers. The management believes that providing some reactionary schlock, they will take some from the New York Post. It’s a business now, not a vocation or a public service. Bottom line dominates all. Not to mention an owner who never exited adolescence.

Laura Ingraham is on C-SPAN2 right now. Is it because of the time difference where you are? *bleaching eyeballs & inside ears* from having looked at her today.

is that while surfing pass girls gone wild commercials *g

My mistake. I just came in from outside, flipped on the TV & assumed it was on C-SPAN2, You are right, EE was on C-SPAN.

calling krystols ridiculous rhetoric a ’serious opposing point if view” is asinine

the fact that he makes claims doesn’t make them serious, if I say water is wet and he says “no, it’s dry” and you want to allow him the same credibility, that isn’t being “balanced” it’s being an enabler to lies

this man is not only wrong about everything he says, he knows he’s wrong before he says it, he is nothing less then a liar

Sam the Eagle of Muppet Show fame.

You missed a great time last night, you should throw this one on the list.

Not to mention an owner who never exited adolescence.

Saw Pinch on C-SPAN several years ago & that’ the impression I got. I think he doesn’t know what he’s doing. NYT unlikely to pick up red voters around NYC and don’t know what their circulation looks like in the rest of the country. I’d expect it’s pretty concentrated in blue areas, so p*ssed off readers are likely to exceed new wingnut readers.

Sulzberger has a house where my country house is, and he is a rock climber. I had this notion of appoaching him to contribute to the causes I work on up here, but first I talked to a good friend who’s on the Mohonk Preserve board, a private organization that owns a good portion of the climbing cliffs. Turns out Pinch is Grinch. Why are we not surprised to find that out?

Exactly. It’s amazing that that part of the population is aware of anything at this point. LOL

eCHANomics, thanks. I’m not an Edwards fan but it’s always a good thing to listen anyways. ;-)

All they have to do is hire people to write the truth. These days that’s shocking enough to freak readers out, and should drive up hit counts.

Anyone should be able to slam the system and live in it…

As one moves through life it is usual to scale the span out side and in between Conservatism and, Liberal. After one studies the current politics and how things change because of today’s new technology in the Internet, its obvious those in traditional power years ago feel the change in understanding, and popular truths that most in the know have no recourse but to help more have a better life.

How this is done, make life better for everyone, is question. Looking at the politics today in America one can easily draw the conclusion that Conservatism is a shallow practice, where the only true Conservative in the real sense is Ron Paul from Texas. My personal admiration for the man stems in his understand of America’s histories most cockeyed Institutions, The Federal Reserve System, establish as a safety net but actually is counter productive to the basics in our Constitution, that has propped up an economy for almost a century that is now witnessed to be exclusive to the rich, and dampening to the majority of American’s.

The term used in Wikipedia were the Federal Reserve Act, is a quasi-public banking system is very laughable in terms of an “ACT” that works for Democracy in this American Republic. Don’t forget, and let me stress this point that in a Republic it is the law that is the guideline, and in the Democracy it is the majority that rules. So, the pendulum of time in cultural effects shift since America is this combination of a Republic and Democracy, all is an interesting balance that has not served the electorate to its full capacity. Even as one studies the American baking system one can see deeply a grossly connected family of foreign and American influence that steer the majority, most of the time not for the advantage of the majority. Mostly an advantage for the few. The concept of all for One is there, but that One for all is totally diminished.

As Ron Paul suggested, powers that be have trillions of dollars on the sidelines and live the good life, while controlling the media and confusing the electorate is easy to do in a system that has been embedded in American culture for almost a century. Turning all this around would actually be a benefit to all concerned, however there are those hardliners such as the Neo-Con/ Evangelist currently in power who endorse methods that chocks the soul. That is, War, which is the simple economic actions that wear down everyone while building a barrier that hardens, hate, bias, and more confusion in humanity, which they the Neo-Con deem as necessary to clean. All the wrong way to move through life.

In our new leadership they will need to show that ideals in education are shifting and knowledge is not supposed to be expensive. Learning can be done in new ways freely and openly though the Internet. Current institutions can thrive through research and development, but basics of learning can flourish in a wide open environment that can release, leverage, and catapult humanity to a new levels. All very controversial, but as one concludes, those in power and working in our system are developed and derived from our very elite educational process. However we all find our selves emerged floating on top a huge pool of corruption, that doesn’t appear to an end any time soon, as it currently works.

With that said, and considering the deep promotional technology during the Clinton administration, were the Internet was tied together to form one of the most inspiring and cultural developments ever since the printing press, one can share and appreciate the awe of its inspiration and conclude the vision that was needed to help the many rather then the few. A very complelling reason to give Hillary Clinton, with Bill Clinton a chance at untangling the current mess America is in. Of course many will criticize this as idiotic, but in the real sense a second opinion can characterize a political team like, Hillary and Bill is an enormous advantages with hind site is a very powerful combination for all sides of the political and economic spectrum.

Some how Hillary and Bill Clinton will bring Ron Paul into the Administration. Because for the media masters Ron Paul is against the grain as a true Conservative.

Its really going to be a tough job, vote Hillary Clinton Democratic 2008

Speaking of pundiwankery, just watched the Mclaughlin Group. (*WRONG*) Mclaughlin brought up the FEMA fake press conference as one of the Worst Ofs of the Year, and Patrick Buchanan without missing a beat says, “Oh, we used to do that all the time in the Nixon administration” and cited an example.

good thing i skipped to the bottom first :)

I would not disagree with the assertion that Bill Kristol is a serious and respected radical within the neocon community.

But then I feel good. Us Democrats have Senator Hillary Clinton running around Iowa telling people what we now need to be, in the wake of the murder of Bhutto, very scared. And the she, HRC, is best qualified to confront this dangerous world. In essence, the Senator has no compunction about ‘pushing the button’.

As to Kristol? I won’t be reading his propaganda, in the NY Times or anywhere else.

I will not be voting HRC in the primary. And if the Senator is the nominee I won’t be voting for Clinton in the general, but by voting for my party’s Demo nominee (if Clinton is the nominee), I’ll be voting against the GOP.

Driftglass has a nice photoshop.

(And so does darkblack.)

My comment to Pinch Sulzberger would be: You’ve already disgraced yourselves with Queen of All Iraq Judy Miller…now what’s the point of replacing her with Bill Kristol?

P.S. I can not get my links to work…at least in preview.
~

Here is the email of the executive editor where you can voice your displeasure at the hiring of kristol. The hated voice puppet of bushco.

While I have great admiration for Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy and the rule of law, his views on economics are an extreme form of Reaganomics and Laissez Faire capitalism that got refuted a couple of centuries ago. In discussing Ron Paul, I wish progressives would stop listening for dog whistles and deal with the stuff that he openly advocates, namely his economic nonsense.

Except for some important foreign policy issues, Ron Paul is a fossil.

Bill Kristol is a polished fascist.

I love Elizabeth Edwards as well and cannot imagine a finer First Lady in these dark times much like Eleanor Roosevelt proved to be. Damn, I hope the Edwards prevail and win the Iowa primary!

No more. With “Bloody Kristol” now on their payroll, I’m finished with them.

CHEERS! to you

Speaking of fascists, did y’all see that story that Norman Podhoretz once propositioned Jackie Kennedy at a party, to which she responded, “Mr. Podhoretz, who do you think you are?!”

Hillary is now telling us if she becomes president not to expect major change. The Senator intends merely to tweak a few things. Well thank you Sen. Clinton, for confirming what many us already knew. Still not accepting questions from the voters in Iowa Ms. Clinton?

Paranoia alert: You have to wonder. Did they get some kind of info through surveillance that they use to twist arms, so as to get the NY Times to do their bidding?

Do they use the arm-twisting on the main candidates only? Leaving the lessor ones to voice things that make it seem as if we really have a democratic type system? Maybe there’s a threshold, a percentage of voter interest, that differentiates the one from the other.

Call me paranoid. But I’m asking anyway.

Lord, I hope Iowa brings some sanity to the Democratic party. Edwards or Dodd. Please. No to Obama and HRC.

Hillary is now telling us if she becomes president not to expect major change. The Senator intends merely to tweak a few things.

Can you suggest a good link for that? Thanks.

i think it is as simple as individuals logically buying into a particular mindset. idk

WOWO, that story and many other compelling footnotes are in Craig Unger’s book Fall of the House of Bush (Jan 5 Book Salon, highly recommended).

It’s amazing how much political “conviction” comes from being humiliated (usually publicly) by someone of the opposite political persuasion, innit?

Give me a moment. I saw it this am.

you mean like cows or sheep?

WOWO, that story and many other compelling footnotes are in Craig Unger’s book Fall of the House of Bush (Jan 5 Book Salon, highly recommended).

It’s amazing how much political “conviction” comes from being humiliated (usually publicly) by someone of the opposite political persuasion, innit?

I got my hands on that book, am soo looking forward to this particular Book Salon.

Hello joze46 -

Thanks for your post. I pay close attention to people’s choice and why they support their choice. Will you caucus? BTW I am not a HRC advocate but am interested in what you have to say about your support for her. On Ron Paul, I find his statements too “the sky is blue” without substance to back up his position. Too many half-truths.

My feeling about Hillary is that the fix is in much the way we ended up with Kerry. It is disappointing to me because she will end up using the same Neocon advisors and thank-tanks at the current administration. In Louisiana there is a name for the Hillarys; they are called the old regulars (same old same old).

We have an opportunity for change but the Democratic Party is committed to the status quo. I’ll continue with my selection until the end of the road. Reluctantly, I’ll vote for Hillary if my choice is between Republican and Democrat. If she wins, I’ll give her hell for her entire term in office. I stand behind my position before I stand behind any president.

Truth captured in a nutshell:D

i suppose something like that maybe in an animal farm sorta way.

It’s amazing how much political “conviction” comes from being humiliated (usually publicly) by someone of the opposite political persuasion, innit?

I spoze The Dark Side looks kinda good after that to those of Pod’s ilk… ;)

if they want to do penance let them help out Mother Teresa’s order

I would not trust these people with downtrodden individuals. NO way!!! They are sociopaths. They would prey on anyone!

Penance? Let’s see if they are just doing lip service, when they whine that they have “seen the light!”

For wigwam at #50:

Eldridge, Iowa – Barack Obama and John Edwards might want to change the world. But Hillary Clinton wants to protect you against it.

That’s the unmistakable message that Senator Clinton is pounding out in this final phase of the campaign to capture the Iowa caucuses. In a world brimming with danger and uncertainty, she argues as she blitzes the Hawkeye State, there’s no time to waste daydreaming about pie-in-the-sky promises of reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..78720.html

If the NYT wants to let the whore in the door and look the other way while he pisses on the curtains, thats their business. I have to think that a lot of people, including Republicans, are well aware of Bloody Bill’s hit/miss ratio and are just going to turn the page.

Many thanks.

NASHUA, N.H. — Former president Bill Clinton yesterday delivered in stark terms a version of his wife’s central campaign message: that her experience in Washington better prepares her to “deal with the unexpected.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews

I’ve thought about your theory, but I’m not sure I buy it. These folks read the polls. They know what the citizenry are for and against. Something else is going on, says my inner “bullshit detector” (apologies for the strong language, but it’s apt in terms of the meaning).

They can’t just be “doing this” like cows or sheep follow the leader. Methinks there is some negative consequence held out, some “hold” over people, that prevents them from acting differently.

JMHO.

She didn’t need time in DC to have that experience. Just being married to Bill should have helped her to learn to “deal with the unexpected.”

i suppose looking at motive is subject

From Mudcat:

That said, I am constitutionally incapable of sitting back in good conscience and quietly listening to Hillary Clinton’s words to the people in Iowa and then her 180-degree spin to the national press.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..78412.html

Bill sung a different story about the value of experience when he was running back in 1992.
~

Very good. ;0)

I think that’s correct.

One need only understand that Kristol wanted the Times brought up on treason charges for the CIA story and that he called the Times ‘irredemable’ to know that Kristol is the crassest of whores.

Not a principled bone in his flaccid body.

-G

Seems like the least the NYT could do is dedicate a permanent title/heading to every article penned by Kristol.. PNAC Attack By Bill Kristol

I agree with you totally, and this was probably a business decision and a terrible one, by Punch Sulzberger and his biz brain trust to somehow try to pull readers in, and including from places like the WSJ going on line soon.

WSJ has many fine articles, but their editorial page, and also that of Investor’s Business Daily (with very useful stock/investment charts) and a good technology set of pages, reads like a comic strip. It’s truly that bad and moves beyond the pale of reality into fantasy.

When the Libby trial was on, WSJ (and I watched very carefully) had a few wacky editorials by Rubenstein and Toensig trying to rally the troops to support Libby and of course railing at their perception of the stupidity of Fitz (even though Fitz is 1000X the litigator that Toensig and her husband are). They had not one scintilla of a news article covering the Libby trial that was obviously newsworthy.

They could not have afforded to get the quality of reporting that went on from Jane and Christy, and possibly others from this blog from the courthouse, and they didn’t have the sense.

There is one helluva distinction between someone who has an opposing view, or a different view that can be constructive for all of us, and Bill Kristol, who like many of the diehard Iraq Neocons are well beyond the point of delusional thought processes.

If Kristol were to have the guts to travel Iraq outside the Green Zone, and he was blown up by a suicide bomber, and could then write a column about it, he’d construe it as an acceptable right wing cloning mechanism because stem cells weren’t involved.

Kristol’s columns are going to be fodder for a lot of blogs to dissect, and they’ll be quintissentially low hanging fruit.

for all who feel the same way I do about the Bloody Kristol digg this post

and TBogg’s “The Isiah Thomas of War” (this one comes with pie in face :)

and TBogg’s A Family Affair aka a “serious, respected conservative intellectual” my ass

George W. Clinton.

-G

I must say I absolutely adore irony:

AP – Mike Huckabee called Mitt Romney a dishonest politician who couldn’t be trusted with the presidency, turning up the heat Sunday in a close-and-getting-closer Republican race in Iowa. Romney’s camp accused hard-charging Huckabee of “testiness and irritability,” a description that could apply to almost any candidate in the tumultous Iowa showdown.

Seems like the least the NYT could do is dedicate a permanent title/heading to every article penned by Kristol.. PNAC Attack By Bill Kristol

The New York Times: The paper of record ******

I think it a matter of stunt casting in their drive to keep their relevancy.

Can we start settling primaries with Ultimate Fighting cage matches?

It would be much less demeaning.

-G

The Wall Street Journal has combined a very good news section with a batsh!t insane editorial page for some time.

That’s not Rupert Murdoch’s style, however. See the NY Post. All garbage, everywhere. That’s where I expect the WSJ is headed.
~

Damn immigrants!

-G

Shame on Hart, Nunn, Boren, and Robb for lending their once (?) proud Democratic names to this absurd effort in a year when our party has the most extraordinary field of candidates since, well, ever. The idea of reaching out to the GOP, which has created the mess America is in through its slavish devotion to the ego of Dear Leader — it’s patently absurd.

Ooops, gotta run upstairs….

Remember the Killer Bees?
~

Yet HRC hasn’t been above making the usual glib bullshit promises–like a fix for the mortgage crisis (precipitated by a lot of phony realestate agents and complicit banks and allowed to steam roll by Greenspan) that may well usher in a recession.

In a number of ways HRC reminds me of her former early Senate Rival Rudy (”I don’t care if every sentence is noun/or verb 911 and I helped up the death toll during it by having no communications for firemen who went in and could never have gotten out”) Guilliani. In the crunch, she loves evoking fear and terror. It’s a fitting accessory to her robotic, calculating persona.

I put HRC as way way less acceptable than her two real competitors, and Richardson, Biden, and Dodd who aren’t, but I’d much rather see as President. It has nothing to do with her being a woman for me at all. It is way overdue that a woman should have been President of the U.S. and ridiculous for people to fret about whether a woman can.

If women can be thoracic surgeons and neurosurgeons and every subspecialty in medicine, they sure as hell are capable of being President. Can you imagine Dubya/Junya scrubbin’ on an AV malformation, or managing complex internal med problems? I for one can’t. You don’t get a pocket veto there when Fred Fielding and Gillespie want to fuck with Congress and confuse the issue of Recess Appointments and the *two Supreme Court “pocket veto cases” from 1929 and 1938.

THE POCKET VETO CASE OKANOGAN, METHOW, SAN POELIS (or San Poil), NESPELEM, COLVILLE, AND LAKE INDIAN TRIBES OR BANDS OF STATE OF WASHINGTON
v.
UNITED STATES. 279 U.S. 655 (1929)

WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 583 (1938)

I don’t remember seeing “polls” for what they’re worth pitting the 2nd teir of the Democrats (as to chance to win the nomination) against the mutts who are Rethug frontrunners.

I’d be the most elated if Obama were the candidate, and very pleased if Edwards won.

The problem with MSM is they own television and radio stations which the government licenses. Getting too critical of an administration can get expensive. It is not a good situation. It would be better if the internet developed journalistic sources and published something resembling the Times, but that is unlikely. Kristol is an a**hole for sure, but they also publish Rich and Dowd which justifies visiting its site and buying a hard copy now and then.

—-
When I’m confronted with fact-challenged idiocy from the punditocracy…
Or what you think of the value of “factually accurate” or “honest” or “integrity” as words which are rarely if at all applied to what your newest columnist writes.
—-

I’ve been trying to get my head around how this happens, which ties into how people reason. So, I will now channel George Lakoff, to the best of my understanding of his perspective. George Lakoff would say that, if we continue to follow the traditional Enlightenment view of reason (i.e. just tell people the facts and figures and they’ll reason to the right conclusion), we are engaging in a naive and dangerous pursuit. He says the Enlightenment view of reason is wrong, and false in every single detail.

To recap, the traditional (and wrong) view states that REASON is:
* Conscious
* Logical
* Literal (fits the world)
* Unemotional (emotion gets in the way of reason)
* Unembodied (mind and body are treated as entirely separate entities)
* Interest-based (it’s there to serve your interests)

The newer and more accurate understanding of REASON is:
* It’s 98% unconscious (no one understands their own system of concepts which affect how they reason)
* It requires emotion (even when/if you aren’t conscious that emotion is affecting your reasoning)
Emotions are essential to reasoning and decision-making.

I would also add from my own study that emotions are essential to manipulation. I distinguish legitimate persuasion from manipulation in this way:

* Persuasion uses the truth, or a truthful framing of reality, to convince a person to support an idea.
* Manipulation uses falsehood, false-framing, and skews/distorts their perception away from reality (i.e. delusion) to convince a person to support an idea. The person’s emotions are abused to coerce that person into supporting the idea. (Most people don’t recognize when they are being manipulated.)

All politics is about morality. Arguments for legislation are always based on moral positions, even for bad legislation. So, one could assume that a moral argument for good or better legislation would be stronger than a moral argument for bad or weak legislation. A moral argument is based on a frame. A weak or false frame should easily be defeated by a stronger, more truthful frame.

Once a frame is activated (truthful or false), you can’t erase it. You can’t get rid of “War on Terror.” The best you can do is either:
* combat it with a powerful alternate frame (invoke frames that are already there with people) or
* you make fun of the original frame and add to it to show its absurdity.

If you merely repeat the frame and negate it (i.e. say it’s not true), you are actually activating the frame and reinforcing it. It’s better to let it whither on the vine and not give it any more attention, unless you are altering it in a powerful way. For example, in Montana being an “environmentalist” has a negative false frame. So, Brian Schweitzer got elected talking instead in terms that have a positive frame with voters like “love of the land” and being a good steward of the environment.

Lastly, people perceive truth through authenticity and trust. Lakoff discovered that 3 elements play into whether or not a person, like a pundit, is trusted by others:

1) Does the pundit believe what he/she is saying?
2) Is the pundit trying to deceive his/her audience in some way that harms the audience or helps the pundit? (The manipulation question)
3) Is what the pundit saying true?

Lakoff said authenticity and trust are determined by number 1 and 2, while number 3 is least important to how people reason. This explains why people can be so easily deluded (i.e. Saddam involved in 9/11).

So, unethical pundits understand that it doesn’t really matter if what they say is true. All that matters is whether they come across as believing what they say and that their audience isn’t picking up on their deception/manipulation.

One of the takeaways from Lakoff is put your issues in terms of your values and already established frames out there. I think the trick is cataloguing all of the existing frames so you know what to choose from.

There it is in a nutshell.

- Tom

Regarding the Times self-immolating decision to hire William “Bloody” Kristol, the Times seems to have fallen victim to Bush Syndrome: it fears being called womanly if it doesn’t occasionally do something galactically stupid.

Perhaps The Times has too much intestinal fortitutde: not content to stand up to its enemies, it felt compelled to give them a stick (and a national platform in an election year) to beat them with. Perhaps the problem is more mundane: the Times outsourced its hiring and its editors thought they were adding Billy Crystal to its election-year commentariat. Or, perhaps the editors fell asleep and the Times is now led by the pod people. My bet is that the Times felt unable to compete and make money, and Rupert Murdoch bought two newspapers for the price of one.

Shorter Unity Party: Edwards ‘08