The Steelers play the Bills, I am feeling sick, and this is all you get.
*** Update ***
Another win, and I only feel slightly dirty for rooting for the Browns as they beat the whiny-ass Bengals.
by John Cole| 32 Comments
This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance, Sports
The Steelers play the Bills, I am feeling sick, and this is all you get.
*** Update ***
Another win, and I only feel slightly dirty for rooting for the Browns as they beat the whiny-ass Bengals.
by John Cole| 42 Comments
This post is in: Politics
In what can be fairly described as the greatest development in the 2008 election campaign, Alan Keyes is signaling that he is going to jump into the race.
Blogging just got easier.
Obligatory caution that this is WND doing the reporting.
by John Cole| 77 Comments
Rep. John Boehner is getting beating about the head and neck for some remarks he made the other day, and they are not fair lumps he is taking (although they are fairly big). In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boehner stated the following:
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
This statement is being bandied about as if it means that Boehner is indifferent about the lives of soldiers, and that is unfair. And before I go on to explain why, let me make something clear- I don’t fault the Democrats and lefty bloggers for making hay out of this. I can’t. There is simply too much evidence of the right doing similar and worse, spending hundreds of thousands of hours lying about what Democrats have said and spinning their statements to make them look like traitors and treasonous.
Hell, as I write this, John McCain is viciously attacking Hillary Clinton for having the temerity to ask what can only be characterized as cautiously forward questions of the newly anointed Caesar, Gen. David Petraeus. The same John McCain who rotted away in the Hanoi Hilton for a half-dozen years while Robert Macnamara and William Westmoreland lied their asses off about Vietnam is now trying to inflict maximum political pain on Hillary Clinton for fulfilling her obligations as an elected United States Senator (*** Update *** A commenter notes that “Westmorland had been gone for five months when McCain was shot down, and McNamara was out of office three months later.” My point remains the same- insert the names Nixon and Kissinger, and I believe Westmoreland was Chief of Staff of the Army from 68-72. Bashing Clinton for asking a few questions is ludicrous.).
So I understand why folks are making hay of Boehner’s remarks, but that doesn’t make it right. Rep. Boehner is asking exactly the right question- the question that every member of Congress SHOULD be asking regarding Iraq, and that far too few are asking:
“Is the price worth it, and can we succeed?”
In Boehner’s judgement (flawed as I think it is), the price is worth it for America. You don’t have to agree with him, as I surely do not, but it would be nice if the “Gotcha” crap would stop. The Republicans are too base and crude and unprincipled, I doubt it will ever start with them.
by John Cole| 46 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Republican Crime Syndicate - aka the Bush Admin.
And doesn’t speak highly of the Deciderer:
Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Oh noes! Criticism of Bush. Wingnuts- SET PHASERS ON SMEAR!
by John Cole| 33 Comments
This post is in: Media, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing, General Stupidity, I Read These Morons So You Don't Have To
The Confederate Yankee, Monday:
s there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged MoveOn.org for their full page “General Betray Us” advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?
***If Tapper’s numbers are correct, MoveOn.org paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I’m fairly certain that nobody pays “sticker” prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal.
I don’t know, intrepid sleuth. Why not call the NY Times advertising department and ask?
Oh, wait. Someone did, and you didn’t believe the the NY Times, and on Wednesday, had this to say:
ABC’s Jake Tapper, who first reported what Moveon.org paid for their ad, is on the story again today and reveals that a conservative organization who ran a full page ad the next day paid “significantly more.”
Oops.
It appears that the NY Times may take a much bigger hit to their the credibilty and the bottom line than they ever anticipated as a result.
I doubt stockholders will be pleased.
Of course, those investigative juices never got a flowing and you never inquired to know why the conservative group paid more (like, for example, their ad was in color, set to run on a specific day, etc.- not to mention these are Bush’s rich buddies and not too worked up about cash). Finally, after a week of pretending the NY Times did something wrong, you concede defeat (in your own special way, of course):
In other words, all the attention came as a result of the New York Times not putting their standby pricing on their rate cards, and the majority of the angry pixels expended in this incident were more than likely “much ado about nothing.”
Ahh, yes. It is the NY Times fault. You see, they failed to make all their ad prices clear to people who:
A.) never intend to spend a penny advertising with them
B.) hate them
C.) refuse to believe them when they call and ask their ad rates
D.) don’t even read their paper unless they think they can find some bias to wail about.
That, my friends, is how the right-wing blogosphere “investigates.” Create a charge, accuse someone of something, trumpet it wildly, get a bunch of mouthbreathers in a furor, and then, when it is obvious to everyone you have no proof, blame the person you accused.
Fun stuff. Never retreat, never surrender.
*** Update ***
I should probably add that my absolute favorite thing about this affair so far is that even when conceding defeat, the CY links to Dan Riehl, who has this to say:
But I would add an additional point, or two. Being the topic of the news agenda is a far different thing than setting said agenda. And if it weren’t for New Media, particularly blogs in this case, this particular agenda item would likely have never even been set. Duh!
Just so we are clear, if I call Dan Riehl a stupid motherfucker or accuse him of some trumped up bullshit, I am not insulting him or falsely accusing him, I am AGENDA SETTING!. Welcome to Wingnuttia.
*** Update ***
Even funnier, Owens is now deleting comments of those who point out his folly, and leaving the fawning ones praising him for his “good work.” A profile in courage and honesty.
by John Cole| 82 Comments
This post is in: Media, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing, General Stupidity
Facts (and their known liberal bias) got in the way again:
“We are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view,” Mr. Giuliani said. He said The Times gave a “discounted” rate to MoveOn.org, which had expressed the “very excessive left-wing side of this dispute.”
The advertisement has become a major talking point for Republicans. Several have demanded that the Democratic presidential candidates condemn the advertisement, which they have not done.
Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.
Mr. Giuliani’s advertisement attacks MoveOn.org and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, while praising General Petraeus.
Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment” on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran.
Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted.
As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: “Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them.”
The question I have for our intrepid truth detectors- why is the NY Times making contributions to Rudy Guiliani’s campaign by running heavily discounted ads? And who will be the brave soul to call for an FEC investigation?
*** Update ***
Actually, I don’t know how I missed this. I know what the next line will be- ‘Of course they gave Giuliani the same rate! They had to after the blogospehre caught them giving MoveOn a discount!’
Who will be the first drooling idiot to say that? My money is on Uncle Jimbo, or a commenter at Ace’s.
by John Cole| 57 Comments
This post is in: War, General Stupidity, Republican Crime Syndicate - aka the Bush Admin.
I didn’t watch, as the Mountaineers were busy shelling the Terrapins. At any rate, why would I? Is there anyone who is under the impression he would say something new or interesting or honest? Take it away, Fred Kaplan:
President Bush’s TV address tonight was the worst speech he’s ever given on the war in Iraq, and that’s saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.
The biggest fiction was that because of the “success” of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.
Let’s be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone’s decision, much less some putative success.
No Way! Liberal Media! How dare you attack the decider! The NY Times:
Last night’s speech could have been given any day in the last four years — and was delivered a half-dozen times already. Despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he was offering a way for all Americans to “come together” on Iraq, he offered the same divisive policies — repackaged this time with the Orwellian slogan “return on success.”
Mr. Bush’s claim that things were going so well in Iraq that he could “accept” his generals’ recommendation for a “drawdown” of forces was a carnival barker’s come-on. The Army cannot sustain the 30,000 extra troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq beyond mid-2008 without serious damage to its fighting ability. From the start, the president said that the increase would be temporary. That’s why he called it a “surge.”
You can’t trust them! They cut sweetheart deals to leftie groups while SILENCING groups on the right! LIES! The Washington Post:
PRESIDENT BUSH’S explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure — because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.
Mr. Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops he announced. The president said that the tactical military successes meant that American forces could be reduced in the coming year to pre-surge levels. What he didn’t say is that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr. Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments. Another way of describing Mr. Bush’s plan is that it leaves every available Army and Marine unit in place in Iraq for as long as possible. If the war were going worse than it is, the deployment schedule probably couldn’t have been much different.
Yeah. I didn’t miss anything by skipping the president’s speech- we all knew what he was going to do. He would get up in front of the camera, lie his ass off, spew some ridiculous bullshit about us winning, tell us things were getting better, and then go to bed, leaving the task of covering up his foolishness to a willing group of sycophants. Mission accomplished.