October 19, 2006
There is absolutely no demographic information given about the poll respondents. No party ID, no ages, incomes, no indication of how many of them actually voted in 2002 or 2004 (or an indication of who they voted for if they did vote), whether they consider themselves liberal, conservative or moderate. I mean, is context too much to ask of the MSM? No need to answer.And the data is "registered voters", not "likely voters". But, hey, it makes a great headline right?
October 03, 2006
Here's the funny part. Up until this moment, Liberals have considered the low-circulation daily to be nothing more than a GOP talking points rag and derided it every chance they would get.
Now watch them laud the paper for its profile in courage.
Bunk. Don Surber has hit the nail on the head here. The Times is taking the opportunity to force Republicans to clean house:
The Washington Times has an agenda to push the Republican Party further to the right, rendering it as useless as the lefty-dominated Democratic Party.Yes, the Right has its Kos-sacks, too.
There is no appeasing these loons on either side.
It's a fact that the Times often features the side of the story that the Washington Post and the NY Times won't. And I've often linked them to support my own arguments, as I will continue to do.
But this kind of a move, without the benefit of a full investigation, is ridiculous. And the fact that they leaked it to Drudge the night before to get the buzz going is indicitive of the agenda of their editorial board - a party purge.
Expect more from the ranks of the hard Right to echo the Times' demand. These are also the people who think it benefits the GOP in the long run to lose now so they can win later, with a more "ideologically pure" slate of candidates. Sound familiar? Maybe like the Ned Lamont supporters?
Sorry, guys. But losing is for losers. Not to mention the fact that the stakes are just too high.
Speaker Hastert would do well to ignore them.
...or better yet, as Hugh Hewitt advises: "Don't Resign, Speaker Hastert. Swing Back."
October 02, 2006
That being said, as the bigger story begins to spread to the GOP leadership who supposedly "knew" he was a pedophile, there's something about this that feels awfully familiar. Like Rathergate. The timing of this story is really suspicious.
And just as they did two years ago, the blogoshere is smelling a rat and doing some extensive analysis of the way this went down.
September 29, 2006
The premise of his new book - which oddly enough is coming out just before an election, imagine that - is that Bush is hiding the bad news in Iraq from the American people. Nixon is Bush and Vietnam is Iraq. Get the connection here? Woodward still pines for his golden days when his investigations blew the lid off of Watergate, leading to Nixon's resignation. Maybe he's hoping for a sequel to "All The President's Men". And Robert Redford would be only too happy to play him again. Once again, he'd be the darling of the media elite. Oh, to force Bush to resign! Just think of that!
As further "evidence" of some kind of White House cover-up, Woodward points to the increase in the number of attacks in Iraq against coalition forces. Like this is news? As if the MSM isn't thumping the drum on this one already? Whatever.
A senior administration official saw little new in Woodward's charges "except that Bob believes he has a lot of making up to do since the Washington establishment criticized him for being too soft in his first two books (on the Bush administration)."The American people are not exactly looking at Iraq with rose-colored glasses. Yet Woodward is spinning his book on "60 Minutes" this weekend as if he is releasing the 21st Century equivalent of the Pentagon Papers.
"We've seen this movie before, and we shouldn't be surprised of another critical book about the Bush administration 40 days before an election," said the official.
Bush's Republican Party faces a strong challenge from Democrats as it seeks to retain control of Congress in the November 7 elections. The unpopular war in Iraq is a major issue in the campaign.
The official added there was nothing revealing in Woodward's account of the daily attack numbers. "You print them all the time."
It's time for Bob Woodward and the rest of the aging Boomer Left to exorcise the ghost of Nixon and get over their paranoia. It's really sad.
September 21, 2006
In a nutshell, she tells long stories. I mean really long stories, often including details and information that I as the listener find to be unnecessary and even distracting. I often tell her, "Hon, give me the punchline first. Then go back and fill in the details" (in a gentle way, of course, from which she does not take offense).
That is similar to the way I read a New York Times article. I go to the punchline first.
Case in point is yesterday's article on a recent poll related to the performance of the U.S. Congress, "Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress". Starting with the headline and meandering through the opening paragraphs, the article paints a picture of a Congress that is ripe for turnover:
With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve reelection, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.The following paragraphs are dedicated to the statistical unpopularity of George W. Bush, something that - in my opinion, anyway - bears little relevance to how the public feels about Congress. Now the Times is clearly implying that dissatisfaction with the performance of the Senate and the House of Representatives (and oh, by the way, the President as well) is a harbinger of a Democratic takeover, similar the the GOP wins in 1994. And a lazy reader (or one who is eager to accept this notion) would stop there and come away with that conviction. The paper is probably anticipating this result.
The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end four decades of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold onto power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.
But wait. If you bother to continue down (and way down) to the end of the article you get this observation:
For all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent who said it was time for someone new. What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats would experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most political analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with more than 100 seats at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties...See what I mean?
...Voters said that Democrats were more likely to tell the truth than Republicans when talking about the war and Iraq and about the actual threat of terrorism. And 59 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush was hiding something when he talked about how things were going in Iraq, while another 25 percent said he was mostly lying when talking about the war.
Not that Democrats should draw any solace from that: 71 percent of respondents said they believed Democrats in Congress were hiding something when they talked about how well things were going in Iraq Â— while 13 percent said they were mostly lying.
So here's my advice: when reading the Times, read the punchline first. I't could save you from a big waste of time.
And I think that "punchline" is an apt term, considering what a joke that paper has become.
September 06, 2006
The electorate is pretty surly these days, true. But the part they've been leaving out is that there is absolutely no polling data to suggest that voters are ready to turn over control of Congress to the Dems. Granted, the GOP seems to be going out of its way to anger its base and turn off everyone else. But the Democrats offer no reasons for voters to move in their direction.
Here's the bottom line: Voters are disaffected. What else is new? And in different times that would be enough reason to expect a change of control in Congress. But these are dangerous times - serious times. And with the safety of our nation so much at risk, swing voters may look at the Republicans and hold their nose. But when they look at the Democrats they hold their stomachs.
Dems hold an advantage in polls focusing on the generic Congressional ballot. Can anyone remember a time when this was not the case heading into an election? And how many times in the past ten years have those poll advantages led to Democrats taking over either chamber of Congress? Republicans can still do a lot to screw themselves up. And as I've said all year, the GOP will lose seats in the House and the Senate. It would be historically unprecendented if they didn't.
But as long as Democrats keep taking the bait and talking about national security, the uncertainty and uneasiness of handing the reigns over to the party that thinks we should release all the detainees at Gitmo so they can try and kill Americans again, eliminate surveillance programs that monitor the activities of terrorists, repeal the Patriot Act and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq will make the possibility of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi replacing "minority" with "majority" in their titles highly unlikely.
Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutorÂ’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. CheneyÂ’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.Personally, I'm all for a new investigation. An investigation into a special prosecutor who knowingly pursued a bogus witch-hunt when he knew the answers the whole time. Or maybe one into Richard Armitage and Colin Powell who sat on their hands and let this silliness drag on while it distracted their Commander-In-Chief during a time of war.
ItÂ’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course.
At the very least, the White House needs to call out Patrick Fitzgerald for the partisan hack he is. And they should do it every day for the next two months.
h/t: Captain Ed
No, this time he pulled his "assertiveness training" routine with Tony Snow.
Gregory could usually get former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's goat. But the Snowman wasn't having any of it. When he suggested that Gregory's question was a nice summary of "the Democratic point of view" on Iraq, the White House Correspondent lost his cool (not that he really possesses any). Part of the exchange:
MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.No who's getting who's goat?
Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.
MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.
Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.
Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.
MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --
Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
September 04, 2006
When anything gets under the skin of the libs, that's a good enough endorsement for me to support it. I first heard about this over at Hugh Hewitt. Despite the pressure on ABC by the pro-Clinton Left, Hewitt doubts there will be any last minute editing changes because there have been a sufficient number of reviewers who have already seen it; and to make changes now under political pressure by the liberal Left, would have a negative backlash.
August 28, 2006
GAZA (Reuters) - The missile struck the "P" of the bright red "PRESS" sign on the roof of the armor-plated Reuters car as Gaza cameraman Fadel Shana hurried to film an Israeli raid.
Shana saw only a sheet of flame and the doors of the vehicle fly open.
He regained consciousness in hospital on Sunday, hours after the missile strike, with shrapnel wounds in his right hand and leg. He could not hear in one ear because of the explosion. His eyes were swollen and red.
Let's look at some of the pictures that accompanied this story. Here is an AP photo of Fadel Shana/Shama'a arriving at the hospital.
I'm curious about the rather unaffected appearance of this individual who claims to have been a victim of this alleged attack. Not one inch of him or his clothing looks singed from the sheet of flames he described. Looking more closely, his eyes and the area around his eyes do not appear to show any type of burn or laceration that would cause the swelling described in the Reuters dispatch. Another detail that caught my attention: This cameraman, who has been bloodied and exposed to a sheet of flames from a missle attack, has remarkably managed to keep his t-shirt an immaculate shade of pure white.
Another picture of the Fadel Shana/Shama'a in the emergency room:
Notice the copious amount of blood on his right hand and the pristine white t-shirt. Now look again at the above picture of Fadel.......the bloody limb seems quite clean. Hmmm..shades of Pallywood?
Here is a photo of the Press vehicle after sustaining two missle strikes according to the caption provided by Reuters:
Residents look at a press armored jeep after it was hit, according to witnesses, by an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)
Here is another view of the damage to the same press vehicle:
Compare the above pictures to this picture, curtesy of Zombie, depicting the remains a of car after a missle strike in Gaza:
Hmmm..I'm no ordinance expert by any means, but one can't help to notice the startling difference in amount of damage sustained between the two vehicles, both of which were allegedly struck by missles.
Naturally, Reuters is demanding a full investigation of what they label an "outrageous targeting" of their vehicle.
Michael Lawrence, Reuters Managing Editor for Europe, Middle East and Africa, said: "We are deeply concerned at this attack on a clearly marked press vehicle as journalists were doing their job to report the story from Gaza.
"We understand that the army says it had no intention of targeting the media, but this incident is totally unacceptable and we urge a careful examination of how this happened to ensure there is no repeat."
The Foreign Press Association described the attack as "outrageous targeting" of the vehicle and rejected the army's "excuses." It also demanded a full and transparent investigation.
I'm not sure the truth Reuters is looking for will be to their liking regarding this incident.
The following bloggers are weighing in on this latest 'story' from Reuters:
Comments? Questions? Leave me a message at MidnightBlue
August 13, 2006
The real, undoctored Beirut photograph reveals intervention by the Federation flag ship:
EU Referendum is on top of this conspiratorial cover up by Reuters.
June 23, 2006
June 16, 2006
Dan is the guy on the right standing next to the Cuban dictator.
Once the dean of news anchors (back when the three networks had a monopoly on the information they wanted you to hear), Rather publicly embarrassed himself and lost all trace of journalistic credibility last November with his "fake but accurate" TANG story about President Bush. His attempt to stand by a story based on completely fabricated evidence was so pathetic and cringe-worthy that CBS forced him to retire his seat at the CBS Evening News anchor desk and hoped he would quietly retire. Apparently, Dan couldn't (or wouldn't) take the hint. Now he'll be wandering around his house in his pajamas, pining for the days when it seemed like he mattered.
Just because you want a story to be true, Dan, doesn't make it true. Too bad some sharp kids in the blogosphere were able to recognize a Microsoft Word generated font when they saw one.
Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out!
Oh, and Dan?
April 05, 2006
The headline for this A/P story: "Poll Shows Viewers Oppose Couric Move".
"Asked if they prefer to see Couric in her longtime role as anchor of "Today" or on the evening news, 49 percent chose mornings and 29 percent said evening news, an AP-TV Guide poll found."Now, personally, I don't think this is necessarily a good move for Katie Couric but what the hell do I know? Apparently, most of the "615 adults" asked over the last couple of days don't either. And what kind of sampling is that? Do these "adults" even watch the Today show or the evening news on a regular basis? This is how you qualify "most viewers"?
But don't you just love how the A/P frames this? Viewers "oppose" her move to CBS. What? Are you kidding me? It's her career and she can do whatever she pleases. The fact that the MSM thinks this dumb poll is newsworthy says a lot. Oh gee, do you think Katie is going have second thoughts now?
March 23, 2006
John Green, executive producer of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America" (I didn't even know it had a weekend addition), writes:
"Are you watching this? Bush makes me sick. If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke."The funniest thing about this is the idea of a grown man in charge of network show (such as it is) coming across like a 15-year old girl sending a text message bitching about her Algebra teacher.
Note, I failed to notice something significant about the email. The date is September 30, 2004. This was the date of the first Presidential debate against John Kerry in St. Louis, MO. So he sent this to someone (possibly at ABC) as he was watching it. Considering how things turned out on November 2, 2004, that makes this even funnier.
Any doubt that Bush made this guy "sick" enough to present the news in a way that favored Kerry over the following five weeks?
March 02, 2006
Curt at Flopping Aces does a superb job of picking this one apart.
Even MoveOn.org has wasted no time trying to capitalize on the potential fund-raising effects of this silliness. Their most recent email reveals the latest strategy to undermine Bush's ability to "keep us safe", which of course has always been the President's strongest issue.
"There can now be no mistake: President Bush had a chance to lead, and he failed to keep us safe. [their emphasis]Oh, and it wouldn't be a proper MoveOn.org email if it didn't wrap up with a reminder to its members to "support our member-driven organization" and they can "give now" by check or a pledge online (link provided in email). Pathetic.
In the next few days, we'll be tracking this story carefully and coordinating our response with partners in New Orleans and around the nation."
These Liberals are so vested in the idea that if they keep chucking rocks at the White House they'll eventually hit a window.
March 01, 2006
I have to say it's really strange to take a quick look at your Sitemeter report and see a pillar of the MSM listed as a referrer. I note that Kurtz has to provide a euphemism for one of my words (replacing "piss-ant" with "low-level"). I have no problem with that. But it reminds me that anything a blogger writes could end up being reproduced anywhere and you're less likely be quoted - and taken seriously - if you lace your ramblings with obscenities as so many of the Liberal blogs do. This is one of the reasons why I usually make it a point to "temper my enthusiasm", if you will.
UPDATE: 3/6/06 8:30am
Thanks to Robert at BlatherReview for alerting me that that original link has been archived. I have updated it accordingly.
February 13, 2006
Why was the White House relying on a Texas rancher to get the word of Cheney's hunting accident out over the weekend, asked Gregory, accusing McClellan of "ducking and weaving.''Jesus, what a prima donna.
"Â“David, hold onÂ… the cameras aren't on right now,'' McClellan replied. "You can do this later.''
"Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras,'' the newsman said, his voice rising somewhat. "DonÂ’t be a jerk to me personally when IÂ’m asking you a serious question.''
"You don't have to yell,'' McClellan said.
"I will yell,'' said Gregory, pointing a finger at McCellan at his dais. "If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I donÂ’t appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because thatÂ’s wrong.Â’Â’
Â‘Â’Calm down, Dave, calm down,'' said McClellan, remaining calm throughout the exchange.
"I'll calm down when I feel like calming down,'' Gregory said.
I have to say I'm getting a lot of enjoyment watching the Left and the Old Media work themselves up into a frenzy over this non-story like it's some kind of conspiracy. You would think Cheney broke into this guy's house, raped his wife and put a bullet between his eyes the way the reporters are going around calling the VP "the shooter". What a bunch of weenies.
And the Lefty bloggers in the fever swamp are frothing at the mouth. I'm surprised PETA hasn't called a press conference to denounce Cheney for hunting quail in the first place.
January 27, 2006
And, there she was sitting in the center of the front row yesterday waiting to ask such moronic questions as "You said you didn't go in [to Iraq] for oil or for Israel or for WMDs. So why did you go in?" For crissakes, this has only been the most discussed policy issue of this Administration. We've only been over and over and over this ad nauseum for the last three years. That wasn't designed to be a serious questions, it was meant to be an insult - a way for this Left-wing loony-toon to show her contempt for the President of the United States. Well, she kept waiting and before she knew it, the press conference was over. Now she's sulking about it. Boo-freakin-Hoo.
Helen Thomas thinks she's somehow entitled to ask her questions in these press conferences because she's never understood that past Presidents would call on her simply for their own amusement. Finally, we have a President who's willing to acknowledge that she's a joke. And when a joke stops being funny, you ignore it.
January 25, 2006
Here's a portion:
Hugh Hewitt (HH): I want to make sure I quote it correctly. "I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car." Evidently, supporting the troops is a bumper sticker position?So Stein is pretty adamant about how he feels about our military and their various deployments overseas when he sits down and craps out what he undoubtably believes is a masterpiece. But when asked for clarification, he doesn't have the sack to say what he really means - that deep-down he really would like to spit on returning Veterans they way people like him used to do back in the good old days. But the most he's comfortable advocating these days is "no parades please".
Joel Stein (JS): It's not. Supporting the troops is. I think a lot of people have bumper stickers, and really don't do anything else, and are against the war, and have the bumper sticker anyway.
HH: "And at the end, I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after Vietnam." That's big of you. "But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea." What I'm trying to figure out is what do you think is a good idea for the military to do?
JS: Well, again, that's not what my column was about, and that's something that people talk about constantly, and people give opinions on. There's a lot of Americans who are against this war and still think we should have a military.
HH: Now wait. This is the last...well, let me give you the two last paragraphs of your column. "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War. But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health, and a safe and immediate return. But please no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable." So you obviously do not honor their service?
JS: I don't honor their service? The people serving in Iraq right now?
JS: I honor them as human beings, and I want them home safe.
HH: But you don't honor their service?
JS: And honestly, I think that all these...for people who don't believe in the war and are putting up these stickers saying they support the troops anyway, my fear is that it's prolonging the war and putting them in further danger they don't need to be in.
HH: But Joel, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about what you honor, and you obviously don't honor military service.
JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any...I just think that...
HH: You do honor military service?
JS: Yeah. No, I'm grateful for people that serve in the military.
HH: But you don't support our troops?
JS: I don't...I don't believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don't believe in.
HH: And so, that would be everything I've named thus far. So I guess...did you support and honor the troops in the Pentagon on 9/11?
JS: Sure, yeah.
HH: All right.
JS: All the troops that are here to defend our country, I'm very, very grateful for. I'm grateful for the police...
HH: Provided they don't leave the country?
JS: Yeah, provided they don't fight in wars that I think are endangering them for no reason.
HH: And the moment they do, you stop honoring them?
JS: The moment I do, I think it's a poor idea to show support for them and prolong that engagement.
Reading through the transcript, I can't help but recall a quote from the movie "Goodfellas" when Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito says "You know Spider, you're a f*****' mumbling stuttering little prick. You know that?"
UPDATE: From around the 'sphere:
Supporting the troops really just means that you appreciate that they stand ready to carry out the policies of the United States in defense of our freedom and liberty, as expressed in the policies of our elected government. That has no bearing on any particular mission or enterprise, but instead comes from the sacrifice offered by our fellow citizens in uniform to give their lives so that we may remain free -- free to select our own leaders, free to write blogs, free to disagree with each other ... and in Stein's case, free to make an ass of himself by writing one of the most ill-conceived pieces of tripe published in a major media outlet.
LetÂ’s break this down. Patriotism means Â“love and devotion to oneÂ’s country.Â” Dissent means Â“to withhold assent or approval.Â” Showing love can include disagreeing, but most often is an expression of approval and acceptance. Unless youÂ’re a bumper sticker lefty, in which case according to the one on whoÂ’s car I spotted the ratty sticker, the highest form of love of country that itÂ’s possible to show is one that constantly withholds approval of that country. Period. Being a bumper sticker, there werenÂ’t any qualifiers like Â“when itÂ’s clearly, unambiguously wrongÂ” or Â“when itÂ’s run by totalitarians like Stalin and Hitler and freedom has to be won back.Â” Just any old time, the best thing you can do for your country is to disapprove of it.
Very nice. I guess that makes me a very patriotic Frenchman.
WhatÂ’s most disturbing is that the same person who thinks that bumper sticker is true enough to make it a part of their car is actually allowed to operate that car on the same roads as the rest of us.
In the final breakdown, the sticker really is an exercise in self-flattery. Â“I disagree with this country. And that makes me better than you and all those deluded fools sent off on that war and stuff.Â”
Dr. Rusty Shackleford:
The underlying assumption of [Stein's column] is that wars are fought by Administrations, not by nations. By joining the military a soldier is volunteering as an extension of the Bush Administration. Hence, the soldier is complicit in Bush's alleged crimes.
While Administrations may start wars, they do not fight them. Nations fight wars.
There was no war against the Nazis. We fought Germany. And the Roosevelt Administration did not fight in WWII, America did. America is at war. When did the Left stop being part of America?
This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America.
There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.
In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for--it is inciting to treason.
UPDATE II: Another article by the unfunny Stein that shows how he really feels about the military.
123 queries taking 0.0661 seconds, 297 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.