Politics | Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Brumar898/2/2011 8:46:05 PM
3 Recommendations   of 89967
 
HuffPO apologizes to Breitbart:

A HuffPost story on an exchange between Norah O’Donnell and Jay Carney incorrectly raised the possibility that Andrew Breitbart had “doctored” a video clip from a White House briefing to make O’Donnell look like she was “distraught over the debt compromise.” A viewing of the clip in question clearly shows that he did not. We regret the error, have removed the story, and apologize to Mr. Breitbart.

bigjournalism.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: KLP who wrote (83871)8/3/2011 2:53:43 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation   of 89967
 
Yup! Things are looking up some lately. Mom's able to get around a little better. I still need to spend a lot of time there though.

I'm going to try to start spending time back here as much as I'm able to, so let's hope for the best.

Tim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (83873)8/3/2011 2:54:55 AM
From: Sully-   of 89967
 
Thanks Bru! I think I can start adding some time here too now.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (83925)8/3/2011 4:18:39 AM
From: Sully-2 Recommendations   of 89967
 
"All of this demonstrates that the Left doesn’t use polls to gauge public opinion as much as to form it."


It's not much different than the left using newz to form public opinion rather to inform the public.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (83926)8/3/2011 4:22:11 AM
From: Sully-   of 89967
 
That's because leftists any more are impervious to any evidence that contradicts their most deeply held beliefs. Unfortunately their deeply held beliefs are centered around their religion.... politics.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (83928)8/3/2011 7:37:48 AM
From: jlallen   of 89967
 
lol

The new civility....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar898/3/2011 8:14:56 AM
1 Recommendation   of 89967
 
Can't get more partisan than CNN, the most busted name in news:


CNN’s Don Lemon Wants GOP to Compromise, Dems to Fight Harder
John on August 2, 2011 at 11:28 am

Hot Air posted this first clip yesterday. It’s about 8 minutes long and has to be one of the most slanted interviews you’ll ever see on television. CNN’s Don Lemon interrupts Sen. Rand Paul at least three times and towards the end even tells him exactly how to answer the question. If you don’t feel like watching, I’ve transcribed all of the questions asked by host Don Lemon just below:

Here are the questions:

  1. At this point though, and can we, can we do this…let’s do this interview without talking points, okay, let’s just talk to each other…Both Democrats and Republicans are pointing fingers at you. So I guess maybe the best question to start with is what will make you and the Tea Party happy at this point?
  2. Hang on…how did you vote on those plans?
  3. But on the Boehner plan how did you vote?
  4. Well, let’s talk about the American people, and I’m sure you have to know this, uh that the American people are–for the most part, except for the extremists, except for the people who are really far left and those who are really far right–most people in the middle want some sort of compromise and they feel that you guys should have gotten to that way before this point.
  5. Okay listen, the Democrats have made many concessions when it comes to, uh, what is going on here and even the Tea Party position–it appears to most people–remains rigid. The question is have you made your point and by continuing to go on with this do you feel like you’re overreaching and you’re going to lose the clout and really the respect that you’ve gotten because, you’ve really made your point here and most people would say you’ve done a good job at it. Do you feel like you’re overreaching right now?
  6. Okay, hang on, hang on, can we just stick to the…we’re going to get to that but hang on…let’s stick to the…hold on please be respectful here. We’ll talk about Moody’s and all that. If you answer the question I will give you plenty of time. Do you feel like you have made your point and now, do you feel like people are going to think that you’re overreaching and maybe you’re going to ruin the clout that you already have and the respect that you’ve gotten?
  7. Okay, now continue on…you were talking about Moody’s and our credit rating…
  8. You have been criticized here as I said by both sides and maybe the answer to this question is both sides are to blame, but if the US does default do you think…who will be to blame here? Will it be the President? Will it be the Democrats? Will it be the Tea Party? Republicans? Who is going to be to blame here?
  9. Okay, Mr. Paul, I’m going to ask you again, just a simple answer to my question. If we indeed default, who is going to be to blame?
  10. You should know that the public is really frustrated right now and they don’t know what’s going on. They don’t understand why we haven’t come to some sort of consensus or you guys haven’t come to some sort of consensus. Are you feeling that in Washington right now?
  11. But hang on, hang on one second again. Again…I’m asking you to answer the question. I don’t want talking points. With all due respect I’m asking you, do you feel the public sentiment in Washington?
  12. I’m not asking you what you did, sir, with all due respect. I’m asking you if you feel how the public feels in Washington. You don’t have to tell me what you did but are you feeling? Do you understand how people feel about this?
  13. So you are hearing the American people, you feel? Yes?
Now contrast this highly confrontational and at times partisan performance with the same host’s interview with progressive caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva. Same topic, same host, just one day later.

Here are the questions this time:

  1. Thank you very much Congressman, you doing okay tonight?
  2. Clearly the President caved, why?
  3. What would you have like to have seen the President do? Because even Mitch McConnell said on Saturday, he said listen, the President is the one who decides this. If he agrees with us then most of the Democrats will fall in line. What would you have liked to have seen from the President?
  4. Congressman I want to ask you this. Really it’s about the President’s political future, whether or not it has helped him, but let me read this first and then you can answer. Your colleague in New York Gary Ackerman said the Republicans invited the President “to negotiate as a strip poker table and he showed up half naked.” And then liberal columnist Paul Krugman calls the deal “an abject surrender.” Would the President be better off running as a conservative in 2012?
  5. It’s not that he’s too conservative, but do you feel he is strong enough when it comes to these issues, fighting for what Democrats want.
  6. You think this won’t matter by 2012, that he’s not going to be hurt by this politically?
  7. There is this chart that has been going around showing that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to want their representative to compromise. Democrats twice as likely as Republicans to want their representatives to compromise, all right to get things done. And then that Republicans are twice as likely to want the representatives to stick to their principles. Would it be better for the country if Democrats were more like Republicans or perhaps if Republicans were more like Democrats?
  8. It’s not done until it’s done. You know how that is. There are still more votes to be taken.
Quite a contrast isn’t it? When interviewing Sen. Paul, Don Lemon spoke for Democrats and for the “frustrated” American people about the need to compromise. When interviewing Rep. Grijalva, he seemed to be speaking for frustrated Democrats who want the President to fight harder and compromise less.

The framing of the entire Rand Paul interview is why won’t you intransigent Tea Partiers compromise now that you’ve made your point. On the other hand, the interview with Rep. Grijalva is about not giving in so easily.

It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that Don Lemon has a horse in this race or, more precisely, a jackass.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=27963


  • Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: Brumar898/3/2011 8:52:52 AM
    1 Recommendation   of 89967
     
    Poor Gabby Giffords, forced to vote for the debt deal lest tea party terrorists shoot her in the head again:
    -------------------------------------------------------


    'Civility': The Denouement The liberal elite grows even angrier and more desperate.


    By JAMES TARANTO Did Vice President Biden liken Tea Party Republicans to terrorists in a meeting with House Democrats? Eyewitnesses say yes, but he denies it, Politico reports:

    Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting. "We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden, driven by his Democratic allies' misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: "They have acted like terrorists." Biden's office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after Politico published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: "The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it's an appropriate term in political discourse." Whether Biden said it or not, all parties seem to agree that Doyle and perhaps other House Democrats did. And plenty of prominent elite liberals have sounded the theme. It's become commonplace on the opinion pages of the New York Times, where Joe Nocera rants:


    You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. . . . Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took. . . . For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough.
    Last Wednesday Thomas Friedman described the Tea Party as the GOP's "Hezbollah faction." The same day Maureen Dowd approvingly quoted "some Democrats" as describing the Tea Party as "the Republican 'Taliban wing.' " (In fairness we should note that the Times's Roger Cohen registered a partial dissent: "Hatred of Muslims . . . is a growing political industry. It's odious, dangerous and racist.")

    [ So isn't is 'islamophobic' to use terms like jihad, suicide vests, Hezbollah, Taliban to describe your political rivals? ]

    And it's not just the Times. NewsBusters.org quotes liberal Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson: "There's a nihilist caucus which is, 'Listen, we want to burn the place down.' I mean, they're not, they've strapped explosives to the Capitol and they think they are immune from it." NewsBusters also notes a cartoon from David Fitzsimmons of the (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star depicting President Obama ordering Navy SEALs to stage a bin Laden-style raid on the House side of the Capitol.

    Politico itself got into the act, running two op-eds last week on the theme: "The Tea Party Taliban" by Martin Frost (a Democratic ex-congressman) and "The Tea Party's Terrorist Tactics" by William Yeomans, former chief counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy. Mary Jo Kopechne's former chief counsel could not be reached for comment.

    Hey, what ever happened to civility?

    That's not a rhetorical question. Back in January, after a madman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a crowd of her constituents, gravely wounding her and killing six, the liberal elite briefly developed an obsession with the supposed dangers of uncivil political rhetoric.

    Before a suspect had even been identified, as we noted Jan. 10, Fitzsimmons, the Tucson cartoonist, was on CNN blaming "the right in Arizona" for "stoking the fire of heated anger and rage" and making the attack "inevitable." Fitzsimmons later apologized, but former Enron adviser Paul Krugman did not. Sources inside Krugman's head told him that the Tea Party dunnit:

    For those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. These stories were false--which didn't stop the Times from publishing an editorial scapegoating conservatives for the Tucson shooting after it was clear the suspect had no recognizable political motive. And Krugman not only did not apologize for his error but dowdified a quote from Rep. Michele Bachmann so as to charge her falsely with employing "eliminationist rhetoric."

    There were many other examples, including Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker, who complained of "shocking vituperation and hatred, virtually all of it coming from people who call themselves conservatives." When his fellow liberals falsely accused conservatives of mass murder, Hertzberg was unshocked. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter had Giffords's future all planned out:

    Sad to say, if Giffords had died, she would have been mourned and soon the conversation would have moved on. But Giffords lives, thank God, which offers other possibilities. We won't know for weeks or months whether she can function in public. If she can, she will prove a powerful referee of the boundaries of public discourse--more influential, perhaps, than the president himself. Then it was February, and the liberal elite lost all interest in policing "the boundaries of public discourse." The faux goo-goo group Common Cause held a rally where participants urged the lynching of Supreme Court justices. Liberals--including at least one Democratic congressman--employed actual violent rhetoric against Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker, whose state budget reforms stripped government employee unions of many of their expensive privileges.

    And now, of course, all of liberaldom is likening the Tea Party to terrorists. But really, that message is entirely consistent with the one in January, and indeed with the message the liberal elite has been propagating since the early days of the Obama administration: that the Tea Party is illegitimate.

    "Terrorist," "racist," "uncivil," "insane," the list goes on--in this context, these words have no real meaning. They are mere epithets. The Obama presidency has reduced the liberal left to an apoplectic rage. His Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual mien and facile adherence to lefty ideology make him the perfect personification of the liberal elite. Thus far at least, he has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation.

    Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, and that is why their ressentiment has reached such intensity. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. And if there is one thing they know deep in their bones, it is that they are entitled to that authority. They lash out, desperately and pathetically, because they have nothing to offer but fear and anger.



    View Full Image





    Reuters Rep Giffords returns.








    Meanwhile, some wonderful news: Thanks to America's superlative medical system*, Rep. Giffords has recovered sufficiently that she returned to Congress last night to cast a vote on the debt deal. She looked frail and shaky as she exchanged greetings with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, but she also talked and waved and seemed completely alert. Even watching at home on C-Span, it was hard not to be moved. "The #Capitol looks beautiful and I am honored to be at work tonight," Giffords tweeted last night.

    Giffords voted "yes" on the bill--the one to which the Tea Party "terrorists" had forced the president to agree.

    online.wsj.com 


    * That would be Memorial Hermann in the Texas Medical Center in Houston TX.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: TimF8/3/2011 12:14:50 PM
    1 Recommendation   of 89967
     
    From the “I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Thinik It Means” Files
    August 2, 2011, 6:24 am
    Via Ed Driscoll, from Richard Cohen in the Washington Post:

    The odd thing about the Tea Party is that it uses Washington to attack Washington. This is a version of Hannah Arendt’s observation that totalitarian movements use democratic institutions to destroy democracy. (This is what Islamic radicals will do in Egypt.) Note that the Tea Party is nowhere near a majority — not in the House and not in the Senate. Its followers have only 60 seats in the 435-member House, but in a textbook application of political power they were able to use parliamentary rules to drive the congressional agenda. As we have known since Lenin’s day, a determined minority is hands down better than an irresolute majority.

    The Tea Party has recklessly diminished the power and reach of the United States. It has shrunk the government and will, if it can, further deprive it of revenue. The domestic economy will suffer and the gap between rich and poor, the educated and the indolently schooled, will continue to widen. International relations will lack a dominant power able to enforce the rule of law, and the bad guys will be freer to be as bad as they want. Maybe the deficit will be brought under control, but nothing else will. I worry — and I envy (but will not forgive) those who don’t

    Yep, those dang totalitarians — always trying to shrink government and diminish its power and reach.

    coyoteblog.com 

    LoneSnark: If I didn’t have a dictionary, I’d think the word totalitarian meant “those that won’t let me use the government as I see fit.”

    coyoteblog.com 

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: TimF8/3/2011 12:24:51 PM
    2 Recommendations   of 89967
     
    NYT op-ed: "Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people." By Joe Nocero, who is one of the regular columnists now. Quite aside from the outrage of comparing tea partiers to terrorists, Nocero is — presumably unwittingly — insulting Muslims.

    ADDED: It was Joe Biden, you may know, who started calling the GOP "terrorists." My point here is that substituting the word "jihad" goes against 10 years of political chiding about the way peaceful, moderate Muslims use the word.

    althouse.blogspot.com 

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.