quote:

Originally posted by Markle:

quote:

That Rumsfeld was supposedly an incompetent boob is one of those fantasies.

In the very first week of the war after Saddam fell, and people started looting government offices and museums in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, Rumsfeld did NOTHING to stop it. He just shrugged and said, "Stuff happens." That was the breakdown of authority. Wiser heads than mine have said that that is where the insurgency started, when the Iraqis saw that the U.S. couldn't or wouldn't keep order.

Rumsfeld's genius ended with the fall of Saddam. Everything that happened the next day and thereafter was a disaster.

Brad has hypnotized himself into thinking that every thought in the head of a non-right-wing nutjob is a fantasy--an EVIL fantasy--and that everyone on his "side" is a paragon of virtue and ability, striding through the world accompanied by a choir of angels. He defends the indefensible. I used to have really interesting dialogs with Brad in forums and e-mail. It's sad to see how his thinking has constricted to far-right tropes and slogans and quotations from wingnut websites in recent times.
.

quote:

Originally posted by thalo:

quote:

In all seriousness (not that the above comment was facetious), do you actually feel comfortable with a VP who can't handle the pressure of the media and who can't come across as being even slightly astute unless asked softball questions that are tailor made for her so that she can rely on her very limited, scripted, demagogic speeches?

I think the campaign made exactly the right decision, because the media is unfairly treating Palin. They are not holding Obama and Biden to the same standards, so the "pressure" on them is totally different. As sister Ann says, some of the things uttered by Biden would be in gigantic headlines on the front page in the NY Times, had Palin said them instead.

So they are going to the news network that's the least biased. Of course that looks to the left like their rabid right-wingers, but I've watched it, and it ain't true. I still argue, best news on TV. Like I've said many times, yes, they have more conservative editorial opinion shows, but their interviewing and and news reporting has clearly showed both sides. I didn't think Greta was softballing Palin at all. Hannity was, but he is a pundit, not a journalist. Greta was a trial lawyer, I don't think she has it in her not to be direct in questioning. She popped a few difficult ones on Sarah.

Palin will spend plenty of time being covered. She's in a win-win. The more she keeps her mouth shut to the liberal media, the more coverage she'll get. She'll be able to speak freely on her terms, and so will retain the option of who she wants to speak to. She can, in effect, get her message out, and avoid every single gotcha interview. She's in a sweet position.

I don't think it's that she "can't take" squat. It's politics. And they're playing it very smart. On the one hand, they're keeping their cards close, creating a HUGE demand for every utterance... and so when she wants to, she can and will be heard. Very crafty.

It's a very unique situation. The McCain Palin campaign, by shunning the liberal dominated media, ends up taking its message directly to the American people. All the media can do is sit back and moan that she's not doing interviews with them, but they physically won't be able to keep cameras off her when she speaks in front of them. It's actually a rather magnificent "screw you" to media bias.

quote:

Rather than hide and choose their venue, they should come out with loaded guns and reckless abandon.

quote:

I think the campaign made exactly the right decision, because the media is unfairly treating Palin. They are not holding Obama and Biden to the same standards, so the "pressure" on them is totally different. As sister Ann says, some of the things uttered by Biden would be in gigantic headlines on the front page in the NY Times, had Palin said them instead.

So they are going to the news network that's the least biased. Of course that looks to the left like their rabid right-wingers, but I've watched it, and it ain't true. I still argue, best news on TV. Like I've said many times, yes, they have more conservative editorial opinion shows, but their interviewing and and news reporting has clearly showed both sides. I didn't think Greta was softballing Palin at all. Hannity was, but he is a pundit, not a journalist. Greta was a trial lawyer, I don't think she has it in her not to be direct in questioning. She popped a few difficult ones on Sarah.

Palin will spend plenty of time being covered. She's in a win-win. The more she keeps her mouth shut to the liberal media, the more coverage she'll get. She'll be able to speak freely on her terms, and so will retain the option of who she wants to speak to. She can, in effect, get her message out, and avoid every single gotcha interview. She's in a sweet position.

I don't think it's that she "can't take" squat. It's politics. And they're playing it very smart. On the one hand, they're keeping their cards close, creating a HUGE demand for every utterance... and so when she wants to, she can and will be heard. Very crafty.

It's a very unique situation. The McCain Palin campaign, by shunning the liberal dominated media, ends up taking its message directly to the American people. All the media can do is sit back and moan that she's not doing interviews with them, but they physically won't be able to keep cameras off her when she speaks in front of them. It's actually a rather magnificent "screw you"

quote:

Katie Couric didn't make her look like an idiot; she did that herself.

quote:

If she has to be coddled and protected and kept from the media, she's not fit to hold high public office. Getting softball questions only from Fox "News" is nothing but being interviewed by employees of the Republican Party.

quote:

This is somewhat moot anyway. She'll be going back to Alaska in about a month.

quote:

I don't know about you Brad, but I've never strapped on the uniform. I can't imagine what they go through. EVER. EVER. Yet, I've spent significant time at the VA listening to soldiers who suffer from PTSD and want help. Soldiers who, if left untreated, many times kill their friends, their spouses, and themselves. And if they don't kill anyone, suffer from deep despair. I've dedicated a significant amount of my time over the last few years trying to understand what causes PTSD and how we can overcome and prevent it. I feel for the soldiers. Not that I can understand their trauma and pain, but I truly want to help, in any way I can.

quote:

The idea that we can fight terrorism over there, rather than preventing them from coming over here, is a fucking sham. Why should we sacrifice real lives "over there" and then sacrifice more lives back here due to PTSD because of the real costs of war, when true and honest defense of the homeland means we don't have to sacrifice anyone over there or here? It's bully politics run rampant. The new conservative creed of pre-eminent war is fear-mongering and power-grabbing all in one. Fighting terrorism "over there" is just an excuse for another manipulative platitude for a fucking neglectful weak policy of ignorant governance and neglectful protection of the homeland.

quote:

Barack Obama's world-class ability to rationalize is his most frightening skill.

quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-on...0,4631448,full.story


ON THE MEDIA
Fox News' faux documentary sets new low

Sean Hannity's Sunday report, 'Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism,' relied on innuendo and guilt by association to label the Illinois senator a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 10, 2008


Now and then, Fox News makes a stab at living up to its "fair and balanced" tag line.

At other times, the cable network's operatives throw off all pretense, let their neatly trimmed hair down and do what they seem to love best -- blame all of the world's evils on those pointy-headed, America-hating liberals. Like, say, Barack Obama!

Fox host Sean Hannity and his producers served up a heaping portion of just such red meat Sunday night on "Hannity's America." And they've since been making lame defenses of the faux documentary, which bore the subtle title: "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism."

Fox's hourlong screed is just the kind of media coverage that has contributed to the increasingly angry and irrational tone on the campaign trail. Even by the low standards of this election's advocacy journalism, the program plumbed new depths -- relying on innuendo and guilt by association to paint the Illinois senator as a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Much of Hannity's report was based on interviews with half a dozen partisan commentators, whose main qualification seems to have been a previously expressed disdain for Obama.

Near the top of the program, the host introduced one of them, Andy Martin, as an "author and journalist." But reporters in his Chicago hometown know Martin better as a perennial political candidate and serial litigant.

The Chicago Tribune has spent some time examining Martin's past. He was refused entry to the Illinois bar in the 1970s, in part because his Selective Service records showed his thoughts exhibited "a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."

In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." And a federal judge noted his history of "vexatious, frivolous and scandalous" lawsuits.

When he ran for Illinois governor two years ago, Martin quoted a nearly 30-year-old Tribune editorial that called him "an absolutely brilliant campaigner" when he was running for a Senate seat. He didn't mention that the same editorial said he "has no more business in the U.S. Senate than an elk has in a phone booth."

The producer of the Hannity program declined to be interviewed, so it's impossible to determine whether Fox didn't know about Martin's history or just didn't care.

Perhaps the producers relied on the gadfly's own website, which assures us he is "a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk-show host, broadcaster and media critic." And expert in all things Barack Obama.

So when Hannity wanted to know what Obama did as a young community organizer, Martin was ready with a pithy answer: "I think a community organizer, in Barack Obama's case, was somebody that was in training for a radical overthrow of the government."

Martin offered no evidence. None. But, when I called him, he helped me understand why this was not a problem.

"I do involve with the facts," he began, "but when the facts aren't all there, and the perpetrator has concealed all the facts and is basically refusing to testify, you are allowed to draw an adverse inference."

It sounds to me as if he's saying: When you can't prove something, you're allowed to make stuff up. And does that also mean you might as well assume the worst? I asked.

"The proof of the pudding," Martin responded, "is that they are on the verge of taking over the government."

So, if Obama is elected, that would constitute a "radical overthrow"?

Well, Martin conceded, "maybe I should have changed my words around to say there would be a change of the government that would put a radical in charge."

During the program, Martin floated other wild theories, including one based on Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayres.

He noted that Ayres had spoken fondly of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who, in turn, "learned from Fidel Castro of the Cuban revolution."

That led Martin to share this conclusion with Fox viewers: "If you love the Cuban revolution and Castro, and if you love what's happening in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, you'll love Barry Obama -- Barack Obama, as he calls himself -- in the White House."

Helpful. Now I'm starting to get it. Take opinions and present them as facts. Stitch them into patterns. Then pretend to your viewers -- as many as 2 million typically watch Hannity's Sunday show -- that those patterns reveal the truth.

But that was merely mortar for the program's building blocks: Obama's relationships. And if Obama knew them -- Ayres, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi -- it's pretty obvious (darn right!) he must subscribe to their most controversial ideas.

I take Hannity at his word -- when confronted on-air this week by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs over Martin's past comments -- that he and his Fox colleagues do not condone anti-Semitism. Martin has denied he ever made anti-Semitic remarks.

The Fox host seemed to excuse the lack of balance by arguing that he had interviewed liberals, such as Malik Shabazz and Al Sharpton, on other programs.

How that even remotely exonerates the Obama program, which made no pretense of presenting even a single defense of the Democrat, is beyond me.

Of course, there was no time in the Hannity hour to, for instance, interview the conservatives who helped elect Obama president of the Harvard Law Review.

Hannity was too busy probing deep into Obamaworld's shadowy corridors, like the one that leads to Saul Alinsky, the founder of community organizing.

No one denies that the young Obama, like thousands of others before and since, was inspired by Alinsky, who preached that society's have-nots should expand their power by working aggressively within the government.

As a young reporter here in Los Angeles, I learned firsthand the impact of such teachings, when Alinsky-inspired community organizations first shook the halls of power.

What did they do? They lowered auto insurance premiums on the Eastside. They drove liquor stores out of South Central. They organized an anti-gang program.

Hannity and his confederates ought to take a close look at that last one. It had the backing of another wild-eyed fanatic -- Richard Riordan, the city's Republican mayor.

__________________________


James Rainey has been a Los Angeles Times reporter for more than 20 years, focusing largely on politics, government and the news business. His opinion columns focus on the media.

quote:

In short, neither personal nor political lenses do Obama's vaunted judgment any favors. Barnum and Bailey built a big-top empire on fewer delusions, and that is why the last word on whether any relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers should be considered a legitimate subject for discussion properly belongs to John M. Murtagh, one of the people whom Bill Ayers tried to kill. 

Writes Murtagh: "Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends' and supporters' violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country."

You think Murtagh is wrong?

Me, neither.

quote:

Moreover, as Stanley Kurtz points out, when a New York Times reporter writes that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers' radicalism, "he's flat wrong," In fact, Obama helped bankroll that radicalism via grants to school projects and community organizing groups that teach what Ayers calls his "small-c communist" philosophy.

quote:

For most decent people, it's truly disconcerting how anyone of supposed presidential stature could associate himself with a guy like William Ayers.

quote:

Obama helped bankroll that radicalism via grants to school projects and community organizing groups that teach what Ayers calls his "small-c communist" philosophy.

quote:

What he can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children. As I have shown elsewhere in City Journal, Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools. In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated. Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.

Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.