June 08, 2004

• West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft
• Don't spoil the fun. This is so much more amusing if it only gets released thirty years from now when official papers get declassified.
• from the cap hill blue FAQ: So you must be part of the great right-wing conspiracy, right? Wrong. We're charter members of the great Buffalo wing conspiracy. We meet once a week over a platter of wings and a pitcher of brew at our local Hooters and ponder important issues like: Do you think those are real? Don't you take anything seriously? Nah, we leave that to the politicians (and some of our readers). They take everything, including themselves, far too seriously.
• As mentioned on MeFi, it certainly seems to be a credible site, just with a sense of humour...
• yeeee-iiiikes. I think it's bad enough that this is believable, regardless of being true or not.
• read between the lines. he's quoting "aides" and "staffers." that's the absolute bottom rung on the d.c. "unnamed source" totem pole. if this were indeed going on, "senior administration officials" would be talking about it to the washpost. really.
• I'd agree with the unnamed source part, but somehow I seriously doubt senoir staffers would undermine the President on the record - which is the only way the wash post would print it yes?
• The Mefi thread about this is as frightening as the article.
• if bush were indeed seriously going off his rocker? yes, "senior administration officials" would go on the record. they'd see it as their duty to the country as opposed to the president. they wouldn't be named, of course. a good example is what's leaking out of the pentagon, from "senior defense department officials." they're taking rumsfeld down. or at least trying.
• Too much anonymous citing in these Blue stories for them to have any credibility whatsoever.

  Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove. [....] "Yeah, the President will miss Tenet like a boil on his butt," one White House aide confided today. [....] In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, [...]

  I think Atrios (Sully, where the hell are you? This is your role, not mine) described this article fairly:

  Porn for Democrats As I said yesterday, one should not trust Capitol Hill Blue, but I thought this article nicely catered to all of our prejudices so it's a fun read if nothing else.

• Hmm. Well, I'm not convinced, but I would hope your scenario would happen if need be. And until then I'll stick to my "Bush is Dumb" paradigm and take this one with a grain of salt. And yeah, the MeFi thread went all googly. wtf? on preview - werd up goetter, fun to read but until further events warrant . . .
• Blues Brothers rocket88: heehee--That's my favorite line, too.
• Personally, I think that anyone who even clicks on this link is a baby-killing communist freedom-hater with long hair and multiple piercings who yearns to suckle on the bloated, stinking buttocks of the Evil One as he rides his electric car with all his terrorist buddies through Iraqi slums, screaming out the lyrics to Heavy Metal songs and performing abortions on mid-Western childbrides on his way to battle the One True God. But that's just my 2 cents.
• quidnunc kid i told you not to eat that 4th bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. Somebody get a long pole, help me get him off the ceiling.
• Did a little digging on the author of the piece. His bio on his site CHB plays up his journalist creds, but leaves out his political experience (to which he alludes in this Reagan eulogy). FYA.
• quidnunc, please tell me where I can sign up?!?!!
• Me, I think he's back on the sauce. That would explain the erratic behavior, the mood swings, the mispronunciations and the general awkwardness. But the only explanation for Ashcroft is that he's an asshat. Cheney is a corrupt puppeteer, Rumsfeld is dying for the glory days of empire, and Rice is just a power-crazed lesbian wannabe. Colin Powell - the jury is still out. I think maybe he tried to do the right thing, but his position does not allow it.
• drivingmenuts - you say "power-crazed lesbian wannabe" as though that's a bad thing.
• Yeah really. Was he trying to insult her?
• where do i sign? I want an oil tanker named after me!
• Me, I think he's back on the sauce. That would explain the erratic behavior, the mood swings, the mispronunciations and the general awkwardness. I'm confused. Are you talking about Bush or quidnunc? I quid, I quid! Nixon was know to get schnitfaced and act bizarrely in his darker moments. That's not "said one aide", that's accepted pete_best: Yeah, now it's accepted. At the time, everyone would have reacted just like you (except, of course, for the wild-eyed Nixon-haters). Doesn't mean this is true (though I incline to believe it is), just that your argument doesn't hold water.
• I think it's bad enough that this is believable, regardless of being true or not. Kimberly brings up an interesting point here. That was exactly my reaction: I wasn't sure that it was fake, and I wasn't sure why. Is it because it's honestly plausible that Bush could descend into this kind of behavior, or is it rather because my dislike of him and his administration has grown to the point where he's become the boogeyman in my mind? In the interest of fairness, I admit I really don't know. I'll admit that, when it comes to him, I left objectivity behind awhile back.
• Atrios (king of the left wing bloggers) has said that this site is not a credible source. It is the left wing version of the Drudge Report. Something the left doesn't need (like talk radio). Serious note: I'm a lefty, but I am willing to point out bogus stories (regardless of political party). Next time I see a right wing member of this group start flaming a thread, linking bogus stories as fact and stating the credible links are false I think it's time to vote the troll off the island. There is a difference between political beliefs and a disconnect from reality. And quite frankly, the silly trolling is getting boring.
• What? All I see there is heated political debate. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing worth booting anyone out over. Admittedly it sunk a bit low once or twice, but we're all big boys and girls here.
• I'm not.
• Fling Poo! Fling Poo!
• In Sully's defense, that thread got pretty damn ugly. This has been repeated here ad nauseam recently, but nobody wants to see this place turn into MeFi-esque bitchfests. I don't know that banning people solves the problem, but it'd be nice if we could engage in honest-to-God calm debate without getting all het up. On the other hand, I like this thread, not because it's liberal, but because I think it raises some legitimate questions -- not about Bush, but about how we perceive him and talk about him. The political rift is getting bigger, maybe because of him, maybe not, but it is, and it won't get better unless we talk about it and try to find something resembling common ground. That, and debate is fun, so long as it's clean.
• So, is George W Bush your Margaret Thatcher? (Creating a massive divide between people, changing the party from conservative to radical, shifting the political ground further right so that the left has to rush across to fill the gap, etc, etc)
• What bothers me is I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need facts to prove my point. Then (cough) f8x will go into "why are you picking on me" mode. If a member puts links to articles that are debunked on the thread. This was the same thing on the Reagan thread. I am coming to believe that f8x isn't even a conservative. He's just pushing buttons. Let's keep in mind what was said in The Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
• WELL WHADDYA KNOW LOOK AT THIS GREAT MONKEY PURSE! *distract distract*
• no distract! Fling Poo! Fling Poo!
• F8x is OK, he just believes different stuff to the majority here, and I think sincerely so.
• How dare he! He's a witch!
• Nice try SideDish. Keep those pictures of puppies and clouds coming. If you really want to disstract them you should link to this. Everyone needs a bedpan with the face of their favorite indie rock singer.
• dng, I personally think so. I don't know for sure that he's the one who started it (though many of my fellow libs are probably screaming HE DID! HE DID! right now), but pretty much every insider who's been interviewed on the point will emphatically attest that this is the ugliest political climate in decades, some say in the history of the US. It's debatable who flung the first poo, but it all does seem to boil down to Bush administration pro/con. And yeah, he does seem to be going to the right of much of his party. And Sully, I agree with you 100%. I think those crap posts would have some value if we were to comment on the posts themselves (like I described above, for instance), but I think that might be too much to ask when there's such a hot-button issue on the line. People's feelings are really wrapped up in the election over here in the States. There's not a lot of middle ground to be found here. And that scares the living crap out of me.
• dng's previous Thatcher post. Not the witch thing.
• view the blog as a medium. as long as both sides are still talking to/at each other, then all is not lost.
• I love me some monkey purse. Yesiree bob. Also, I just bought this t-shirt.
• Hollywood conventional wisdom states that the movie has yet to be made that would not be improved by the addition of either monkeys or ninjas. Two words: NINJA MONKEYS!
• Lay off the personal attacks, Sully. They're both inappropriate and beneath you.
• Actually, Goetter. I'm thinking of making this a Curious George for tomorrow.
• hey you kids get outta my yahd! *shakes rake* If we could *ahem* get back to Bush acting bizarrely, the story about it, and related topics a like so . . . hat wait, are you saying that the stories about Nixon drinking himself stupid and doing strange things are questioned? I'd be willing to hunt up them thar truffles, but I took it that they were agreed-upon by all but the deeply unmotivated. In fact, wasn't there just a news item about Kissenger's tapes that talk about Nixon being incoherent or "not to be believed" or some such during Watergate because he was wasted?
• I'd agree with the unnamed source part, but somehow I seriously doubt senoir staffers would undermine the President on the record - which is the only way the wash post would print it yes? Nope. This has been repeated here ad nauseam recently, but nobody wants to see this place turn into MeFi-esque bitchfests. I don't know that banning people solves the problem, but it'd be nice if we could engage in honest-to-God calm debate without getting all het up. Yep.
• This POTUS* is not so bright as a pretzel, and all his behaviour worries horrifies me. *Thanks to pete_best for expanding my vocabulary.
• it'd be nice if we could engage in honest-to-God calm debate without getting all het up What's wrong with getting all het up? Seriously? As long as name-calling (insufferable asswipes) stays out of the arguments, then in my book, it's all good.
• hat wait, are you saying that the stories about Nixon drinking himself stupid and doing strange things are questioned? pete, I don't want to get snarky here, but did you read what I said? I quote: "Yeah, now it's accepted. At the time, everyone would have reacted just like you..." I even emphasized the "now" to make myself perfectly clear. Here: 1969 (Nixon erratic) ~ 2004 (Bush erratic?) 2004 (everyone knows Nixon erratic) ~ 2039 (everybody knows Bush erratic?) Bush-erratic not accepted now, just as Nixon-erratic not accepted then. Therefore can't compare Bush-erratic not accepted now to Nixon-erratic accepted now. Capisce?
• Oh, and I agree with Darshon: het up is fine, as long as no poo is flung.
• Middleclasstool - so tell us, what's the, middle ground
• Doesn't mean this is true (though I incline to believe it is), just that your argument doesn't hold water. ahhh - no I see what you meant now. No, I wasn't saying _because_ reports that Nixon was a psycho wristbender being correct means that Bush is a loon. In fact I was saying what you've already articulated twice. err . . QED. Of sorts.
• In my rant about you all being communist baby-killers (etc etc), I forgot to also mention that you all smoke cuban cigars and practice witchcraft at your homosexual weddings where you indulge in cussin' and video-piracy that funds the production of hate-literature for drug-running lesbian extremists from axis-of-evil countries. Sorry: I'll try to be more careful in future.
• I agree with the quidnunc kid.
• I disagree with everyone, on principle.
• I disagree with that, BBF.
• I don't.
• I disagree with your agreed disagreement, but will agree to the death with your right to be disagreeable about it. On other issues, I am undecided.
• typical!
• Gary Johnson's right about Howard Johnson being right about Gabby Johnson being right. Yeah, het up is good in and of itself -- maybe should have been clearer. What I meant by "het up" was really more like "Hey you (Commie/Nazi), you just (hate/love) Bush because you and all your (pinko/fascist) buddies hate (America/poor people), and I'm tired of hearing your LIES!!! Middle ground may be nothing more than avoiding this kind of discourse (to be clear, when I referred to a lack of middle ground "here", I didn't mean MoFi, I meant the US). In other words, rather than trying to "win," exchanging ideas and honestly listening to what the other guy has to say. But media pundits are at least contributing to political polarization, if not causing it outright. Right now there's a lot of screaming going on between the left and the right, and people seem to be less and less able to understand where the other guy's coming from (guilty, meself).
• exchanging ideas and honestly listening to what the other guy has to say Interesting point - in "Manufacturing Consent", Noam Chomsky makes the case that Uhmurkin Media is not set up to adequatly air or consider full opinions - mostly soundbites and limited debate. Therefore the shortest, most rhetorical spin wins. Secondly, I find the most prominent (or perhaps outspoken) right-leaning people aren't that interested in "listening to what the other guy has to say." Not specific to a given point but in general - open mindedness, worldview, etc. But I'm open to what the other guy has to say about it . . .
• Yeah, I think our mile-a-minute media has done a hell of a lot to (perhaps unintentionally) make sophistry the highest art of political debate. But I've seen as much intolerance and unwillingness to listen on the far left end of the spectrum as on the far right. It's just pointed in the opposite direction.
• Secondly, I find the most prominent (or perhaps outspoken) right-leaning people aren't that interested in "listening to what the other guy has to say." Not specific to a given point but in general - open mindedness, worldview, etc. Exactly like the most prominent (or perhaps outspoken) left-leaning people.
• Humility an open mindedness aren't qualities of outspoken people in general.
• I disagree. It's not the media's fault at all. There is plenty of full, in-depth coverage of every important topic imaginable. It's the American people who choose not to read/watch/listen to those issues that are the problem. People who would rather read the sports section than the news/opinion section, or just read the front page and thus let the newspaper editors decide for them what is "newsworthy". People who read "People" but not "Time" or "Newsweek". People who discuss "Survivor" and "American Idol" with friends, but never Abu Ghraib or Valerie Plame. The truth is out there, but people get distracted by shiny objects. They deserve their fate.
• Hey, have y'all heard what happened to Laci Peterson?
• True, rocket, but most of those who are getting their news get it from TV, in which the soundbite is king and nuance is all but dead. I don't think the media orchestrated it, but unfortunately most people seem to have chosen the one medium most poorly suited for reporting to give them their news.
• No...there's plenty of in-depth news & political analysis on TV. But most of it is on Sundays- at the same time as NASCAR.
• Damn people.
• Not nearly as much as you can get from a newspaper or news magazine. The statistic is that you can fit all of the information from a half-hour news broadcast onto half of one page of a newspaper, or something like that. Now, a one-hour news magazine show that focuses on two or three stories is going to give you some really good in-depth coverage, but you've only got two or three stories there. Newspapers give you the best of both worlds -- both breadth and depth of coverage. More stories in more detail. Not to mention the fact that print reporters generally ask tougher questions (yeah, I know there are exceptions, mostly on the Sunday shows). There are public figures, for instance, who won't even let print reporters ask questions when they can get away with it. Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft have all come to Little Rock recently, and they didn't even give prior notice of their arrival to print media, but the TV stations were contacted.
• find the most prominent (or perhaps outspoken) right-leaning people aren't that interested in "listening to what the other guy has to say." NO! *jaw drops in disbelief, sways left, sways right, falls over
• Humility an open mindedness aren't qualities of outspoken people in general. Fair enough Zemat, I'll go with that. There is plenty of full, in-depth coverage of every important topic imaginable. rocket88 Step 1: define "in-depth coverage" Step 2: define "plenty" Step 3:" define "important topic" Step 4: ? Step 5: Profit!
• Yes, but TV has neat-O videos of important, life altering news events, like that 10 sec clip of Kobe Bryant walking into the courthouse and A-Rod interviews.
• Hey, somebody just told me that "Time" and "Newsweek" are two DIFFERENT mags with important topic in-depth coverage. I never KNEEEEEEEW that. Anybody remember these: Media is the gateway. Who will watch the watchers?
• pete Without defining every term, since they are largely subjective....I was responding to your implication (that's how I took it, anyway) that the media is failing us by not adequately airing or considering full opinions - just sound bites. I'm saying the media is not to blame. Those full opinions are out there, but you won't see them on an evening news show that has to fit national news, local news, international news, weather, sports, movie reviews, and hollywood gossip into a 30 minute package. You have to seek out and find the "real" news....the "Meet the Press" or "Washington Week in Review" type of shows, and people just aren't willing to do that. How many people vote, but have no interest or knowledge of the issues? What is their vote based on? I agree with you that they probably vote based primarily on the sound bites they see, but I don't blame the media for it. I blame a lazy, uncaring electorate.
• And you're probably right on about the uncaring electorate, I was just asking for definitions because I disagree that there's enough information out there. So for example I'd say: "in-depth coverage" would mean coverage of an issue from multiple viewpoints with at least a solid 15-30 minutes dedicated to each viewpoint. Example: (well there aren't any, really, but consider a one-on-one interview like Larry King, Charlie Rose, Ted Koppel, Jim Leher and multiply it by the differing viewpoints or experts on a single issue - for example industrial pollution. A Senator, an EPA person, an industry spokesperson, a third party scientest, an economist, a power company CEO - that's about 3 hours of discussion there.) "plenty" would mean two or more instances of "in-depth coverage" as defined above per week. "important topic" could mean a national issue that has local implications i.e. tort reform and how it would affect my local justice system with practical examples . . or . . something like that. I just disagree that that's what's out there today. I think there is a siginificant number of people who don't care and don't act (or lazy & uncaring) because it's mostly spin, soundbites, photo-ops, and meme-creation (i.e. "regime change", "jack-booted thugs", etc.). With the huge number of publications and broadcasting stations you'd think we could diversify more than what's out there to include plenty of in-depth coverage of important topics. 60 minutes, ABC nightly news, NPR, and USA Today are okay but not nearly enough to adequately engender meaningful debate on a national and local level. no money in that. But i'll stop now. :)
• You see a lazy, uncaring electorate. I see a flock of easily lead sheep by way of a few strategically placed propaganda billboards, community 'leaders' (reverends, preists, ministers et al) and 'grass roots' organizations (NOW, NAACP, NRA). As long as our candidate is repeatedly elected, keep the citizenry dumb and stupid. It is in their best interest if they don't know what is going on. The burden on the masses would be a terrible psycholocial trauma. You wouldn't want uneccessary pain and suffering, would you? That makes you Evil if you don't agree. Not to mention the cost of keeping the electorate informed. That money could go towards far more kind, peaceful applications. You do want peace, don't you? Why would you not want peace? A lazy, uncaring electorate is more easily controlled. Now if we can just take away their guns....
• B.F. Skinner for President!!!!
• middleclasstool: I'll salivate to that.
• was that a bell?
• No, this is a bell.
• Everyone, please get out and vote, vote, vote! Unless your a masochist, you may want to simply scroll down to the summary.