Shorter NYT: Al Gore..who is he? You mean the liberal Al Gore and former VP of the Whitewater, blowjob, Impeached and disgraced president Clinton? That Al Gore? The Al Gore that campaigned for president with a Commie Chinese spy and lied about having invented the internet while simultaneoulsy flying to Texas/Oklahoma with James E. Witt to view a disaster area but it really happened on a different day? The same Al Gore that tried to cheat the masses out of electing that upstanding, integrity filled, Viet Nam Flying Ace and hero George Bush. You mean that Al Gore? Why would we want to cover anything he has to say when Karl Rove, a true hero and the man that tried to save our reporters from writing an erroneous story about Valerie Plame and her traitorous husband Joe Wilson is out speaking?
Posted by emal at January 21, 2006 06:40 AMI WOULD like to know about the comparative PR efforts on both sides. Not excusing the Times for not taking the initiative in covering Gore, but were invitations and copies of the speeches, indeed, entire PR pieces, sent to the major media by the Gore people? Because you KNOW that Rove did that. Hell, he probably gave background briefings to his buddy Ad Nags before and after.
We need to start playing the game. 2006 will be a fundamental change election, and the traditional media needs to start working with us, if they want access after the election.
Posted by Jonathan at January 21, 2006 07:03 AMLoved the second graph though:
Mr. Rove called for civility in politics in his speech to the Republican National Committee, and then for 26 minutes offered a lacerating attack on Democrats that other Republicans said was a road map for how the party would deal with a tough electoral environment as it battled to retain control of both houses of Congress.
Posted by blueman at January 21, 2006 07:24 AMemal....exactly
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 07:27 AMThe Rove and Gore speeches are not eqivalent in newsworthiness. Rove is the chief strategist of the sitting president. He's not just offering a persnal commentary. He's outlining the strategy that the Bush whitehouse and its congressional allies will most likely adopt. Gore was merely speaking truth. Ho dot hum.
Was there a Democratic or bi-partisan coalition in place to endorse Gore's remarks and follow-up? Was there any, as Jonathan asks, any advance briefing--to reporters? to supporters? to endorsers? It's up to the folks who agree with Gore to make the speech newsworthy.
Posted by Mickeleh at January 21, 2006 07:36 AMOne more thing: Adam Nagourney and the NYT did the left a favor by publishing an early warning on how the GOP plans to run. We've had a lot of practice at running against the Fear Machine. Have we learned anything?
Posted by Mickeleh at January 21, 2006 07:42 AM"The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party ...."
To be truthful, not a typical Rove characteristic, he should have ended that sentence with "....need to be put out to pasture."
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 07:47 AMWould have been nice if some Democrat, any Democrat, had called attention to Gore's speech. "Hello", anyone out there?
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 07:50 AMThere are small enclaves of the NYT staff who choose to follow the profession of journalism. But the majority, including its management, are only interested in supporting this president and his adventures. To expect more is to court disappointment.
Posted by m at January 21, 2006 07:59 AMGod, I hope Dennis doesn't realize that emal was being sarcastic. I hope that was a true, "With ya brother!"
Posted by Dilapidus at January 21, 2006 08:22 AMI've got a link on my blog to a very interesting Media Matters report comparing the resources devoted to the Lewinsky scandal to the resources devoted to the NSA story.
http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com
Posted by Edward Copeland at January 21, 2006 08:36 AMand we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in
For once, I agree with Rove, which is why we need to get Bush out of there now, so we can actually do something about the threat rather than say we're doing something as US democracy is being dismantled, privatized, and doled out to cronies who care about nothing but profit.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 21, 2006 08:40 AMGood non-conventional thinking by Micheleh, thanks.
When Reid was asked about the Gore speech by Lehrer himself on the Newshour (which also had no coverage of it), Reid took pains to distance himself from it, and immediately started talking about Bob Graham's take on Nero's lawbreaking. Why?
The speech would have become much, much bigger news if elected Dems would have been willing to embrace it, praise Gore and THANK him---but I haven't seen any evidence they did. Has anyone else?
As to the NYT, I'm confident we are going to repeatedly feel betrayed by them. They are corporate media and that is not ever going to change.
But even with the craven, inexplicable, year long "delay" in reporting the piece, they are the press body responsible for alerting the nation to Nero's clear, intentional, calculated violation of federal law---if they do nothing else in 2006, that was still a pretty crucial matter.
Dan Rather could not have been more right.
"Call me what you want, but I firmly believe there is such a thing as news. From where I sit, too many people want to advance their own partisan agendas and cast it as "news." A surprising number of people are willing to accept it as such. Three people sitting in a room shouting at each other may be interesting, it may be entertaining, but it's not news."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/#a014198
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 08:55 AMAlgor is old news. Yes Emal, you did a wonderful parody, and the reason it was so wonderful was the ring of truth that sprang forth from it.
You forgot that Algor's marriage was the inspiration for Love Story..... oh, he also picked Tobacco, hauled it to the barn, dried it out and, then years later blasted tobacco for the horrible death it caused his sister...
Hillary is your only hope in 08, and she is the right's biggest fear.
Dean is a nut case, getting nutterier. Daschel couldn't hold the Senate nor his own seat, even with paying the indians in beads in fire water, and John Edwards is nothing more than the "breck girl" as Rush says.
You need someone with gravitas, and Hillary is the only one that has that. So quit your bellyachin' and start grovelling at the feet of Queen Hillary. Its inevitable, inevitable.
Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 09:09 AMThe Times produces a breakthrough piece, then it lays down on the job. Did bu$hco get to them?
It's all so disgusting I can't bring myself to comment on it further.
carpediem, turn your comment 180 degrees and I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Well, besides the part about emal's parody. That was good, and showed the shame of the media lies, lies and more lies. And you seem to admire that. What a putz.
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 09:23 AMas far as emal's nytimes piece..it's really not that far off as to how al was covered by the mainsteam media...and as you can see in carpy's piece many fools fell for it
carpy...i asked you a question a few days ago that you never answered....have you seen the videotape of the wartime commander in chief reading "my pet goat" to the kiddies...what did you think of the frauds reaction when he was told "we are under attack"...what did you think?
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 09:25 AMit's a fairly simple question..requiring a fairly simple answer....what did you think?
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 09:33 AMCarpe, I'll play along, because I think you are capable now and then of substantive thought behind the ad hominem attacks. Give me several paragraphs on why you think the Right fears a Hillary candidacy in 2008?
I really want to know your thinking here.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 21, 2006 09:37 AMDear Dennis, I remember the video tape. I can't recall the particulars of it, only my recall of how the media protrayed it. Ergo, my recollection was that your assessment was similar to what I recall. Bush did not re-act as I would have wanted him to. He did however, ACT appropriately in the hours, days, months and years afterward, except maybe we should have taken our armies into Syria while we had the chance.....wishful thinking.
Judith, I think the word Rather was looking for was "truthiness" made famous by Stephen Colbert. It is defined as the truth/facts as one wishes them to be and not as they are.
As for my first post as a parody... well I disagree. I think it tends to be more toward the category of "the truth being stranger than fiction" comments. I just regret not working in the Love Story angle too.
Posted by emal at January 21, 2006 09:48 AMit's an answer....albeit i throurghly disagee..first 24 hrs he was nowhere to be seen..i saw karen hughes on tv before i saw him..it was a moment of definition that he failed miserably..an indication of his true character..nevertheless i apprecate you responding
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 09:50 AMAccording to Salon, dem consultants think the spy story is a loser, that's why no one supported Gore.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 21, 2006 09:54 AMDear Steve, re: the right's fear of Hillary.
I can't cite any other journalist/commentators on point, because I don't desire to dig that deep.
My opinion is that those of us on the right fear the Clintons. Why?
I can only speak for what I perceive the problem to be.
The Clintons have a way of learning from their mistakes. They have a way of hiding their true agenda and snookering the public with thier ability to frame the issues. They are masterful at that, especially Bill, and with the help of the main street liberal media, they had their way with the American Public.
Ex: Clinton sold his soul to the devil by reading the polls and signing the welfare reform act. He never believed in it, but he stole it from the republicans to get elected.
The Clintons will stop at nothing to get elected. Hillary will suffer through a 60 minutes interview claiming she is no Tammy Wynette, Standy by your Man, and then we learn that they literally destroyed the lives of any women that might stop the Clintons. (Big liberals pretending to care about raped, sexually harrassed and abused women, only then to smear them in every way they could.)
They are LIBERALS, make no mistake. They only care about what they "feel", and sometimes their liberals goals are over shadowed by their selfish desire, which is liberal, to stay elected. i.e. national heathcare-disaster because they were incompetent. ..gays in military-they copped out by just not allowing the question to be asked, instead of saying its okay to be gay and in the military.
What they do is they sneak up and get their liberalism agenda approved in "increments" and they do it with a quirky grin on their face. Health care was a mistake and they learned not to do that directly again. So they sit back and wait and learn.
Hillary is taking a very moderate position in most cases so that she can run as a centrist like Bill did, but make no mistake, she is just "wink, wink, nod, nod" to you on the left, but you guys are too angry and dumb to allow her to sneak in there under the radar.
The Clintons have no shame, no ethically standard too low that they can't go lower, no qualms about their selfish desire to again live in the White House, and the ability to be patient and carefully craft their plans to get what they wanted...
Be careful, Gore is not that dumb he knows about Hillary, but he isn't smart enough to figure out how to stop her without her slapping him down.
Shorter crappy: I am afraid of Hillary, 'cos LIBERALS are SCARY and I AM A WUSS!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 21, 2006 10:03 AMThe spy story is a loser, you libs just can't figure it out. Bush is giving you the finger and you can't do anything about it, but make it worse when you scream and cry like you really care about civil liberties.
The key to winning this year is to work the Abramhoff story up and hope, against all hope that the truth about how the Democrats got similar payoffs from Abramhoff's clients never sees the light of day.....
Look at Canada, the conservative party has a shot at winning. Why? because of a scandal dealing with money.
Oh and Jon Stewart showed the commercials in Canada for the candidates. Again the liberals show how much they hate Bush, even in Canada, and the Conservatives merely show the hypocricy of the Liberals...It was a riot.
Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 10:08 AM....The OUTING of the spy story.....or the spying on Americans story????
I don't think the dem consultants think anything is a winner so "let's just roll on over...."
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 10:30 AMThanks for the info, iamcoyote.
If the Dem consultants think the domestic spying story is a loser, it must be because opinion polling supports that conclusion.
And apparently opinion polling on Clinton'e blowjob lying showed the issue was a winner, i.e. shitbrains cared.
If lying about blowjobs is a "winner", and intentional presidential violations of federal law is a loser, then this country really is a degenerate, failing nation and culture, richly deserving of its decline.
Posted by euzoius at January 21, 2006 10:52 AMrepublicans are afraid of hillary because she's married to bill..and maybe they don't have any shame.....that's what makes the clintons just like them...hillary will regret her position on this war..mark my words..
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 10:56 AMMy opinion is that those of us on the right fear the Clintons. Why?
For once your opinion is right. But the why is wac.
Let me tell you why. Republicans are run by fear. Fear of being laughed at for a tiny penis. Fear of being shunned by the cool kids at recess. Scared of those dispicalbe physcotic urges they so want to give in to.
So Rush and Sean and Karl have figured out how to do transference and conditioning. It all started when they were able to get their first specimen to start jerking and foaming at the word liberal.
Taxes and Clinton were added as trigger words in short order. Dean became too powertfull, and was added to the list as was Micheal Moore and Move-on.
Next up? Al Gore, KOS, and probably Murtha.
Of course the whole scheme will fail when there are so many words on the list that no GooPer will be able to engage in a normal conversation with out starting to flop around on the floor like a fish.
Simple minds are the clay that evil men sculpt with.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 11:59 AMlarre - nice piece. The NYT became a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP many years ago. The only reason anything decent or credible still makes it on their pages (usually pg 28) is that there are enough hack GOP faux journalists around that can fill all the pages of the NYT.
Fortunately the number of Americans seeing through the NYT bs and getting their news from the internet and blogs that filter out the crap is increasing. This trend will continue and will eventually make the NYT politically irrelevant.
Posted by Marie at January 21, 2006 12:33 PMRepublicans are afraid, yes. They fear another Clinton in the WH leaving our country vulnerable to attack like Bill did. He refused to take Bin Laden when offered to him, he NEVER responded to other attacks on our people like he should and in so doing led the Islamic terrorists to believe we would do nothing after 9-11. He allowed Ms Gorelick to blind our intelligence agencies by not allowing them to exchange information when they should have been required to do so. He sent that hypocritical Carter to deal with the North Korean madman and see what we have there...we gave, they took, and now we have to deal with the madman with nuclear weapons. So, yes,I fear, I fear for the survival of my country.
Posted by iluvuusa at January 21, 2006 01:04 PMClinton blah blah blah Clenis blah blah Clinton yada yada.
Thats some tired shit. And thanks for this.
Republicans are afraid, yes
The first step is to admit you have a problem.
The next step is to buck up and quit being a yellow-bellied coward.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 01:13 PMThey fear another Clinton in the WH leaving our country vulnerable to attack like Bill did.
Beyond telling the Bush transition team that they should make Terrorism and OBL their highest priority, what could Bill Clinton have done to make the Bush team pay attention? After Clinton called all security agencies together in monthly meetings specifically to discuss this threat during his administration, the Bush team held no meetings, and took no action to deal with what they had been told by someone who ought to know was the most important threat.
What more could Clinton have done to help Mr. Bush respond to the warning more than a month before the attack entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States" instead of taking a month-long vacation? When the attack came, what more could Clinton have done to get Bush to put down the kids' book, cancel the subsequent photo-op and take action? Is there any evidence that the Bush team had a plan in place to deal with the consequences of what they had been warned about?
The 9/11 Commission report stated that an hour after the attack started, Bush still had not contacted the JCS or asked for any status reports, although he found time to pose for photographs. What could Mr. Clinton have done to make Mr. Bush take his job seriously? What could Mr. Clinton have done to force the Bush team to plan for a "worst case" scenario, something they obviously had not done?
Help me here. I know it's Clinton's fault, but I can't figure out how.
Posted by Repack Rider at January 21, 2006 02:17 PMRePack Rider, I just had a thought I never had before. That look on Bush's face that Moore so beautifully magnified in his move Farenheit 9/11, was the look of a 'guilty' person. For some strange reason that thought never crossed my mind until now.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 03:14 PMOkay trolls, Clinton is guilty of all the things that the right says he is guilty of. Now can we forget about Clinton and concentrate on this Administration, and stay in the here and now?
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 03:17 PMTheir highest priority? With Clinton it never was a priority much less "the highest priority"! President Bush meets every day with the heads of our intelligence agencies. Clinton rarely did. We had been getting these reports of possible attacks for a long time and they were working to start piecing things together but it was too late. Clinton left the White House in a mess, figuratively and literally, not to mention the fact that the new administration had not had the usual time for transition due to the election. As for the way President Bush handle the news of the attack, I do not believe he should've stormed out of there for show like Clinton would surely have done for the cameras. He had no need to frighten the children. He did the right things,such as in shutting down the air traffic and putting fighter jets in the air to bring down any other potential threats. He has done what he had to do to protect us. I doubt he could protect you, though, from being consumed by your irrational hate.
Posted by iluvuusa at January 21, 2006 04:00 PMRePack Rider
I admire your attempt to actually try to educate this one.
But he/she/it is fresh out of the Rush institute of trollogy, and just full of the oxy-kings latest brilliant offerings.
Thus we were treated to the second post of insane blathering.
All anybody has to do is read Richard Clarkes against all enemies. Anybody who gave a shit about whats really happening already has.
I suggest we completely ignore this one, as he/she/it makes Carpy look like a genius.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 04:07 PMThat look on President Bush's face was a true look of horror. I know it was on mine and all of my family's, also. I can only imagine what any of you had on your own face or were thinking then.
Posted by iluvuusa at January 21, 2006 04:11 PMSnark, when all else fails, be insulting.
Posted by iluvuusa at January 21, 2006 04:13 PMiluvusa:
"President Bush meets every day with the heads of our intelligence agencies. Clinton rarely did. We had been getting these reports of possible attacks for a long time and they were working to start piecing things together but it was too late. Clinton left the White House in a mess, figuratively and literally, not to mention the fact that the new administration had not had the usual time for transition due to the election."
Boy, you are engaging in some revisionist history there, aren't you? Richard Clarke would dispute everything you said there, and he has forgotten more about this subject that you will ever know. And stop with the "they didn't have time" defense. Condi was given the lay of the land by Sandy Berger very early, and a report, which she ignored and gave to Cheney, who also ignored it until September.
If you want to ignore facts, please go somewhere else. We tire of the right wing fingerpuppets like you around here.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 21, 2006 04:35 PMBy the way iluvusa:
I wasn't aware you also were having an identity crisis. Since you are also posting as Carpe Diem from the same IP address, please figure out who you are, and then try and talk rationally about other folks' judgement and emotions. Because you have no grounds to comment on anyone else until you get over your own issues.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 21, 2006 04:40 PMSteve
He is becoming completely unhinged. I wonder if it is spilling out into his real life?
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 05:03 PMThere's no "real" in most of the trolls' delusional lives.
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 05:23 PMSo why did no one comment on Carp's comments conerning the parallels between his fears of Clinton and our fears of Bu$h?
"They have a way of hiding their true agenda and snookering the public with thier (sic) ability to frame the issues."
And Bu$hCo doesn't?
I'm going to politically invert the comment in the interests of saving space and let the readers look it over:
They are masterful at that, especially Karl, and with the help of the main street conservative media, they had their way with the American Public.
Bu$h sold his soul to the devil by reading the polls and subverting the right to vote. He never believed in it, but he stole it from the Democrats to get elected.
Bu$h will stop at nothing to get elected. Laura will suffer through a 60 minutes interview claiming she is Tammy Wynette, Standy by your Man, and then we learn that they literally destroyed the lives of any women that might want to get divorced. (Compasisonate conservatives pretending to care about raped, sexually harrassed and abused women, only then to abuse them in every way they could.)
They are conservatives, make no mistake. They only care about what they can steal, and sometimes their neo-con goals are over shadowed by their personal selfish desires, which is literally to stay elected. National heathcare is a disaster because they are incompetent. ..gays in military they drummed out just because, not allowing the question to be asked if they were good soldiers, instead of saying its okay to be gay and in the military.
What they do is they sneak up and get their conservative agenda approved in "increments" and they do it with a quirky grin on their face. Social Security reform was a mistake and they learned not to do that directly again. So they sit back and wait and learn.
Condi is taking a very moderate position in most cases so that she can run as a centrist like George did, but make no mistake, she is just "wink, wink, nod, nod" to you on the right, but you guys are too angry and dumb to allow her to sneak in there under the radar.
Bu$hCo has no shame, no ethically standard too low that they can't go lower, no qualms about their selfish desire to again live in the White House, and the ability to be patient and carefully craft their plans to get what they wanted...
Be careful, Bolton is not that dumb - he knows about Condi, but he isn't smart enough to figure out how to stop her without her slapping him down.
End of political inversion.
There IS one difference Carp noted between the Clintons and Bu$hCo:
The Clintons have a way of learning from their mistakes.
Your own words on this last line, Carp!
Posted by pessimist at January 21, 2006 05:32 PMLOL, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have called it his analouge life instead.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 05:34 PMActually, I thought iluvuusa did a pretty darn good job. Since I was away watching the Thrashers get thrashed, I couldn't post. So "she who must be obeyed", whose opinions I rarely change, joined in.
So yeah, me might have the same IP address....but i dare ask.... Are you monitoring my civil rights by checking behind our IP addresses as a means of intimidating us?
I mean you scream and hollar about people having their cell phones monitored when terrorists from Afganistan starts calling. Or you are worried, so much so that you vomit coffee when someone merely takes note of the comments their professors are making....
Are not your actions in monitoring IP addresses also somewhat CHILLING in their effect......
The thesuraus (sic) for hypocricy is liberal....
Jeeze Carpy, please stop, you are seriously embarrissing yourself. Your ignorance of the internet is unbelievable. Put down the bottle and go to sleep. Try to think about something else besides hate.
You might sleep better, and drink less.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 08:42 PMMy ignorance of the internet is embarrassing, I guess. I don't know how you go about checking IP addresses, but I imagine that the listowners can track it in someway, but again.....
you insult my limited internet knowledge while ignoring the validity of the post.
You dont' want people's right to privacy to be taken away by students who monitor their teachers, but wooo unto me, if my lovely bride of 25 years uses the other computer to post a message or two, and then you have to check my IP out.
Are you guys gonna start sending me spam and virus' now?
Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 09:11 PMstop...you're cracking me up...can't stop laughing.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 09:15 PMYou forgot that Algor's marriage was the inspiration for Love Story.....
Another GOP FUCKING LIE.
Posted by at January 21, 2006 09:18 PM"So why did no one comment on Carp's comments conerning the parallels between his fears of Clinton and our fears of Bu$h?"
Pessimist, because no one gives a crap what he thinks.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:26 PMAre you guys gonna start sending me spam and virus' now?
No way....thats like keying a car or some other low class crap. You seriously do not understand us. We are glad to beat you in a stand-up fight. Skulking around and dirty tricks is Karl Roves world.
I am going to do you a favor and explain something for you. Steve has this on a server. Anobody who has admin rights(which Steve most definitly does) can see your IP, always have and always will. There are ways to anonimize, but we wont go into that. I don't bother, but sometimes I post from differrent areas due to work so I will have different IPs.
If you post from a high speed internet you will have a static IP.
What happened is Steve was front-paging and scanning the comments when he says another Carp-clone spouting all your favorite talking points. So he looks at the IP and sure enough it is the same as someone else posting on another thread. You. Busted.
You think that little thing was kinda scary for ya, theres a thing your mad little dictator inhereted called Carnivore. That thing was scary and its probably 4.0 by now.
BTW...I knew it was you by that little thing you like to drag out, about how I do personal attacks when I have nothing. Dead give-away. Steve just confirmed it.
Your just not as slick as you think you are.
Dont bother to reply, as you basically add nothing to the conversation. I am bored and off to better hunting.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 21, 2006 09:36 PMBusted? I'm sorry I didn't know it was against your rules to have more than one member of a family to post their thoughts. My husband told me how much fun he has with you guys so I thought I would, too. And,often we agree, yes but I am no "clone". We just don't need to use silly and obscene language when we do disagree.
Posted by iluvuusa at January 22, 2006 08:10 AMDo you cross dress in your analouge life too carpy?
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 22, 2006 08:56 AM