I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Micheal Mooer was kickass yesterday in Tampa
and Moore, too.
back on topic, is anyone else even surprised by this?
Is it a coincidence that Flavor Flav has been appearing on VH1's Surreal Life?
CNN's a joke in your town.
From the Left, some lefthanded dude we pulled off the street...
Fascinating read.
On a related note, I was pleased to see Fox get slammed in this morning's newspapers. NY's free daily, amNewYork, ran your story on Faux News' false reports.
what does it say for those who are not subscribers?
Marty Peretz is known for turning TNR into a blue-dog democrat / pseudo neocon rag. He filled the magazine with raging wingnuts and the editorial line of the magazine became one step short of all-out Republican, always endorsing very conservative policies yet keeping the cloak of being a "liberal magazine."
CNN's Blitzer has always been an all-out neocon, and filled his interviews and "debates" with pro-war, pro-neocon assholes. For instance, James Woolsey was so often in his show in the months leading to war that he seemed to be the co-host. His show on CNN has been an open mic for the neocon amateur hour.
Here is the ultimate debate question that Jim Lehrer should ask in debate number three. And if he doesn't ask it...John Kerry should demand that he does.
If it's asked, John kerry will win the election in a walk.
I get so sick of the phoney balance thing on ALL the networks. For crying out loud, a right of center guy like Peter Beinart matched with Wingnut-o Goldberg is just slightly less ridiculous than HANITY and colmes.
For those of us without a suscription (and not interested in giving the WSJ any hits), could you guys post some excerpts of the article?
Thank you!
Wasn't Peretz one of Al Gore's college roomates?
We ahve beenfound out keerry did have something illegal in his pockets.
http://home.comcast.net/~uberneu...an/
bushmind.jpg
gggrrrrrr Drudge you can't get anything by him!
Am I the only blogger, with blogger posting problems today?
Posting is like my crack and I got the shakes!
Here is the ultimate debate question that Jim Lehrer should ask in debate number three. And if he doesn't ask it...John Kerry should demand that he does.
Hesoid: That is spot on. Oh please, from your keyboard to Lehr's ears!
Here is the ultimate debate question that Jim Lehrer should ask in debate number three. And if he doesn't ask it...John Kerry should demand that he does.
If it's asked, John kerry will win the election in a walk.
Hesiod
Moderator for third debate is Bob Schieffer of CBS, not Lehrer.
(For Friday's townhall debate, the moderator is Charlie Gibson of abc.)
Anyway, this question of 9/11-Saddam link has been effectively dealt with
by Kerry in first debate. He said "Saddam did not attack us on 9/11. Osama did. al Queda did." That and Bush's weak reply were played over and over on TV for the last couple of days.
So the question doesn't have that punch anymore. Besides, third debate is on domestic issues.
Am I the only blogger, with blogger posting problems today?
Attaturk,
I'm doing OK today, but my broadband was down off and on all weekend and part of this morning. Maybe star wars is fucking with the signal.
If you are on landline, I have no clue, only sympathy.
Anybody notice that the stocks going up ever since Kerry won the debate?
hey Julius, why not just come out and say it:
"Blitzer= JEW"
"Peretz= JEW"
enough with the neocon smokecreen bullshit
Wasn't Peretz one of Al Gore's college roomates?
Cleveland Bob
Peretz was Gore's professor and Gore was one of his favorite students. One of the reasons Michael Kelly was fired from TNR editorship by Peretz was that Kelly was unrelentingly critical of Gore.
Peretz was a flaming liberal in the good old days. Don't know what happened, as he grew older and TNR was bleeding millions year after year. I think he sold part ownership to a neocon and TNR became a neocon mag with liberal aura. The original subscriber base has moved away and its best writers have moved away also.
I disagree that the Saddam/911 question is finished. Hesoid is asking where 40% of the population got the impression that the two were related. Clearly, because Bu$h and the Dick were pushing it.
pvt,
FUCK YOU!
How can you possibly twist my words to get that fucking idea? I didn't even know Peretz was jewish, you asshole.
pvt the preferred euphemism is 'ZIONIST' or LIKUDNIK .
pvt, how on earth did you come up with that one?
'Don't know what happened'
maybe he got sick of hearing the sophomoric mantra 'one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' from phony liberals such as the ones on this board.
pvt is attempting to set up today's strawman- this troll should definitely not be fed.
ecoast,
Thanks for the update and the editorial asides.
I subscribed to TNR for years until the shift occurred 2-3 years ago. The change was subtle at first and then it just became blatantly obvious that they had thrown their lot in with the evildoers.
Oh, and by the way, Chimpy and Crashcart are poopyheads.
Here's a photo showing Bush's against-the-rules ebate cheat sheet.
Spread it around.
'pro-war' is not a strawman?
GO WAR!!!
Peretz was very pro-Gore in the 2000 election. (If I remember correctly, he and Al Gore are personal friends.) Back in 2000, though I supported Gore, I often thought Peretz's articles should a lack of thought and a less than perfect understanding of the facts. I haven't read the WSJ piece , but his Bush leaning articles in TNR lately have shown the same intellectual sloppiness. Peter Beinart is another case. He is certainly left of center, and though I don't always agree with his position, his stuff is always well thought out. Except for Peretz's stuff, I'd highly recommend TNR. Jonathan Chait's article on Bush hatred is a classic. Importanly, TNR is one of the few places in today's media where intelligent discussion between conservatives and liberals actually occurs. Certainly, sometime the magazine leans a bit more to the right than I would like, but that's not a bad thing. Unlike the president, I think being challenged by an alternative point of view is a good thing.
P.S.
John Kerry should demand that Bush be searched ahead of time to make sure he doesn't smuggle another cheat sheet into the third debate.
Unless, of course, he smuggles it in via his socks.
LOL!!
Jeremy Paxman on the BBC is Jewish and he is a fantastic anchor. James Rubin is the cat's whiskers. I also like Barak. I also like Marx. Dreyfus got a bad rap.
Did the poster confuse Podhoretz and Peretz?
I had a double take when I saw the post as well.
Sorry. He's a better link showing the
OT - don't forget poland
PARIS (AFP) - Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said after talks in Paris that Warsaw wants to withdraw all its 2,500 troops from Iraq (news - web sites) during the course of next year
from yahoo news
Podhoretz is a wanker.
I am interested to hear precisely what's so nutty about this piece.
Podhoretz is a wanker.
Sorry. He's a better link showing the
http://us.news2.yimg.com/
us.yimg...20041001jpg.jpg
"I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."
Trial lawyers know when to stop asking questions and let the answers resonate.
Good as Hesiod's question is, there is no "silver bullet." Re-visiting this issue gives Bush a chance to revise that answer, and people looking for an excuse to sponge that whiny response from the public mind would leap on the opportunity.
Better to let sleeping dogs lie. That statement by Bush is positively deadly to his campaign, and as Herbert's column reflects, it is growing "legs."
Let it be. It's going to get around just fine on its own. When they are won by a "devastating blow," political campaigns are usually actually lost, because the blow is almost always self-inflicted. No one prompted Bush to whine like that. Daring him to do it again, is a dangerous gambit.
And the whine is actually more devastating than a bad response would be.
CNN is basically fox news minus the adorable tabloid factor. Combine the worst traits of Bill O' Reily and Andrew Sullivan....
TADA!
CNN.
disagree that the Saddam/911 question is finished. Hesoid is asking where 40% of the population got the impression that the two were related. Clearly, because Bu$h and the Dick were pushing it.
Nah, Bush would just give some peevish, flippant response to the effect of "Well, how am I supposed to know that? I'm not a mind-reader." And then change the subject. You aren't going to get this joker to cop to anything.
"Blitzer= JEW"
"Peretz= JEW"
I don't much like the way that looks, but what bothers me even more is that these days I find myself again and again wondering if this or that talking head is Jewish. I was interested enough to confirm with a search that Wolf is a Jew. I sort of wish I had not done that (it is true enough).
But are you ready for this: John Kerry's (paternal) grandparents changed their from Cohn to Kerry when they immigrated to America. His father married a Forbes of the New England Forbs family. A rich maternal relative came up with the money for him to go to fancy prep schools.
Kerry speaking live now, he's hitting the stem cell issue! I'm so happy.
Kerry: "What if we had told scientists working on smallpox that they were engendering false hopes."
"We have a President who refuses to face reality. He is playing to the cheap seats."
Part of the neocon smokescreen is to yell "anti-semite" when anyone mentions the neocon lable. Most Jews are not neocons and most neocons are not Jews but several of the more famous ones are. Neocons are simply those who became attracted to the conservative 'movement' after 1968. The more famous members of the movement had been very active leftists until then and became something else out of frustration and a sense of betrayal. While often contrasted with paleocons they are more accuratly a diametric opposition faction to the so-called 'realists' like Kissinger and Powell. The Jewish thing is only important with respect to the pro-Isreali imperative that underlies all questions of foriegn policy. Domestically they feel at home enough in the GOP tent not to rock the boat too much when it comes to the pandering to the fundie Christian base for money and votes.
Here are a couple of other questions that might sink Bush:
Mr. President, should America feel safe with a president whose brain power is dwarfed by that of standard low voltage under-cabinet lighting?
Mr. President, one train leaves St. Louis for Chicago going 100 MPH and another train leaves Chicago for St. Louis going 100 MPH. My question, sir: What state is Chicago in? And, as a bonus, what state is Missouri in?
Author Philip Roth says you're not fit to run a hardware store. When you are voted out of office in November, would you be willing to run a hardware store to prove him wrong?
Mr. President, if we are indeed doomed to repeat history, where do you think we're going to find a band of fuck-ups in the future who can screw things up as badly as you and your friends have?
Oh, and as a follow-up, fuck you for ruining my country, sir.
As a Jew who long ago (as a child) was beaten up by anti-Semites, I can tell you that any effort (by trolls or David Brooks) to cover up the evil done by Jewish fascists by the cloak of anti-Semitism is a despicable betrayal of the deepest Jewish heritage of compassion for the suffering, as a product of being "strangers" in every land for 20 centuries.
The same holds true for Sharon's and Netanyahu's treatment of the Palestinian people at large.
The often-annoying Chris Matthews was on Today this am and I was struck by 3 things he said:
1. This is the biggest ever post-debate polling swing. Not sure if that's true but still interesting that he would say it.
2. He attributes this swing to the fact that Bush was forced to admit once and for all that it was Al Qaeda, and not Iraq, that attacked us on Sept 11. Since many people think otherwise he believes they found this to be a shocking admission by the President.
3. He actually used the phrase "disinformation campaign" -- on the Today Show! -- to explain why people believe that Iraq was involved in the Sept 11 attacks. The media might actually be moving out of their cringing obeisance to Republican blather as they sense the winds shifting.
PS -- This change might not even just be for careerist reasons. The Republican PR machine can be mind-numbing and hypnotic in its effect on all of us, including the media, even if they above all should know better. I certainly felt during the debate a sense of freedom that, wow, the real world can actually be discussed now!
If you read his article it sounds like the normal RNC "spin points" with a few "erudite" turns.
It is interesting that he uses Hussein's oppression of the Kurds and Shiites as demonstration of the UN's ineffectuality. Without noting that the Reagan and Bush I administrations (including famously Don Rumsfeld) at least ignored (if not encouraged or even enabled) the conduct. If the UN had wished to act, would the US have let them.
I've given up on TNR, seems I'm not missing anything.
c.
there are some great Zionist organizations out there fighting hard for a just peace between the Jordan and the Mediterranean
Trial lawyers know when to stop asking questions and let the answers resonate. Good as Hesiod's question is, there is no "silver bullet
I agree with Robert M. Jeffers on this one. Once you've gotten an answer from the defendant that helps your case, don't go back and give him a chance to clarify, clean up, and fix his bad answer.
Bush totally screwed up by answering a question about Iraq with the assertion that "the enemy" (his inclusive phrase, which he hopes we'll hear to mean both bin Laden and Hussein) attacked us. Kerry did a great job of capitalizing on Bush's mistake and making it clear how out of touch he is. And then Bush made it worse for himself by asserting "I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that!"
When I was in law school, they told us that rule number two was knowing when to sit down and shut up. Kerry drew blood on this one and I don't want to give Bush an opportunity to try and redeem himself.
Here's the question I'd like to see asked: Mr. Bush, why won't you take your annual physical?
bothers me even more is that these days I find myself again and again wondering if this or that talking head is Jewish
So, Fred, why does this wondering bother you so much? What, precisely, are you wondering?
I certainly felt during the debate a sense of freedom that, wow, the real world can actually be discussed now!
Bush has, since 9/11, been insider the shell of "everything has changed." And he's hidden quite well there.
But in the debates, he can't hide. Expect him to try to do better in the next two, but he's still an empty suit. If Kerry maintains his performance, Bush looks pitiful no matter what he does, and all evidence is he can only spout soundbites and vague and glittering generalities. Kerry can devastate him with brief, pointed specifics (numbers, applicable data, etc.).
Clinton did well in the town hall because he commanded both facts and charisma. Bush may out-"aw, shucks" Kerry, but Kerry will prove he can actually think on his feet.
And Bush, his protective shell having cracked, is going to leak out all over the ground. I'm beginning to expect he will lose handily in November.
Part of the kneejerk leftist smokescreen is to yell "zionist" when anyone mentions the state of Israel, suicide bombing, or uses the term 'terrorist' in a literal or unironic manner. Most liberals are not leftists and most leftists are not liberals but several of the more famous ones are.
Can we have tbone moderate the debates? God his "questions" @10:26 are great. Thanks for the laugh.
I don't look at this election the same way now as I did before the debate.
I have serious doubts now weather Bush is mentally fit. He shows symptoms of being out of reality, depression, confusion and fatigue.
He seems paranoid and his speech has changed.
I have always wondered if that little film Bush made about looking for WMD under desks and behind
the drapes would come back to haunt him. This surely takes on more meaning now.
' "strangers" in every land '
EVERY land eh? speaks volumes.
The often-annoying Chris Matthews was on Today this am
People, please, for goodness sake, quit salivating like Pavlov's dogs everytime Smathews does not completely suck. He's done this before and then he goes right back to his tacky routine. It's like getting excited every time McCain says something halfway human.
Smathews is not our friend and he's never going to be.
Hecate--
I agree with you about Matthews, but the report on his statements on "Today" might indicate a change in the "conventional story" about this campaign, a change prompted by the first debate.
If Matthews (or anyone; the person counts less than the message) can say those things on the "Today" show, it indicates that criticism of Bush is acceptable, and the anointing of the incumbent has come (perhaps) to an end.
I agree, Matthews is equal to McCain; but the fact that this message is starting to be spoken on NBC's flagship "happy talk" show, may indicate a new topic in the national "happy" conversation.
Love the great repartee here: wingnuts, idiots, trolls ... Can you be more smug about your own superiority?
Here's a joke: a guy using the word "patriot" and "liberty." How simplistic.
It's here:http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
You've read him before, but today's post means this wingnut deserves some of your vitriol.
So who do we see weighing in on Friday at The New Republic, the morning after a debate Kerry clearly aced, with all that would mean for November's election. Yeah, you guessed it.
The Evil Lesser, by Marty Peretz: Bush was right about Iraq in all the important ways even if what we have now is an irreparable mess, and besides Bush oversaw the creation of many windfarms as governor of Texas. So put that in your Kerry pipe and smoke it.
This man is not an ally.
'but what bothers me even more is that these days I find myself again and again wondering if this or that talking head is Jewish.'
I wonder that all the time too. They're everywhere.
I think Bush is his most dangerous right now. Those faces of Bush during the debate prove he's nuts.
Hecate - thanks for that. I don't quite get why it is that people think Mathews is going to do anything other than what he does - bleach his hair and his teeth, put on make-up and go out and do his show-biz thing.
These people are not journalists, they are entertainers. That's one reason, in my opinion, the polls are still so close - the ratings for the news shows and political broadcasts are very high this election season. The talking Barbies and Kens are going to stir the pot enough to keep things simmering.
It's not the "Jewishness" of the most pronounced chickenshit chickenhawks which is troublesome; it is their fascist Zionism which is the danger, and their alliance with the apocalyptic radical 'Christians.'
Still waiting to hear why Marty's a wingnut. Not many WSJ subscribers in the crowd methinks.
It's kinda sad, the trolls have really gone downhill lately. I guess the debates were hard on them. Poor guys.
Hey, don't worry, tomorrow you can make fun of Micheal Moore for being fat (because we all know how dead sexy Karl Rove is).
I too have been wondering why Bush doesn't get a physical. Kerry found time to. Bush took the day off yesterday, so it looks like he has time. It would be reassuring to know that he is not suffereing from any long term mental or physical defects.
Do not waste your time clicking on Carson Bee's link to Lileks.
Lileks is a waste of time. (As always.)
OT, but I just emailed the fundamentalist preacher this: A few years back, one of the crew on a space shuttle mission orbiting the Earth, noticed a turd floating outside in space. Always with anything unusual during a mission, it was reported back to mission-control. From their altitude and position in their current orbit, mission-control soon knew the turd was from a previous mission over a decade earlier and one crewmember was sent out to retrieve it. Once the shuttle was back on the ground, scientists began examining it and were amazed they were able to revive the different micro-organisms in it. Previously, it was always believed that no organism could survive the intense cold, vacuum and solar radiation of space. This finding greatly increased the probability that billions of years ago, possibly another space-faring alien species passing close by a young Earth, flushed a turd from their spaceship which fell into our sterile primordial seas and seeded life on this planet by beginning the process of evolution. Which means, the very earliest origins of anyone you know was probably an alien turd. It also means that this theory on the origins of life on this planet is mathematically far more probable than the belief that a God waved everything into existence some 6000 years ago.
That's really going to piss him off. I've learned with our emails he has a really bad but controlled temper. I'm hoping to eventually set him off....
BWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
What's up with The Note? I thought it was supposed to be a non-partisan provider of political news but I've been seeing a distinct right leaning tilt lately. Consider today's entry:
"15. Do those who remain unswayed by Bernie Goldberg need any more evidence than gained by comparing the press' coverage of Zell Miller (almost universally negative, typical of what conservative Democrats get … ) to today's New York Times slobbering over Lincoln Chaffee (who gets the normal glowing coverage afforded moderate, heretic Republicans)?"
I mean, WTF?
Don't forget, kids... Mistah Howie "The Head Ho" Kurtz, live, online at noon.
Put on your thinking caps and submit your questions now. He don't gotta answer 'em, but you'll feel better for having made the effort.
Hesiod:
The link in your 10:12 a.m. post doesn't work. Please repost. Thanks.
"It would be reassuring to know that he is not suffereing from any long term mental or physical defects."
On the contrary - it would be reassuring to know that Bush is, in fact, suffering from some mental defect or other. It would explain a LOT of things.
David in NY sez: "I too have been wondering why Bush doesn't get a physical. Kerry found time to. Bush took the day off yesterday, so it looks like he has time. It would be reassuring to know that he is not suffereing from any long term mental or physical defects."
The Preznit puts his faith in Gawd, not in Gawdless science!
Hesiod:
The link in your 10:12 a.m. post doesn't work. Please repost. Thanks.
Bo,
The press has become so inured to this that they don't even press on the stories they report.
Yesterday CNN had a report of "2 western appearing bodies" one male (beheaded) and one female (shot in the head). No further reports. You'd think someone is missing and might warrant a story.
c.
it would be reassuring to know that Bush is, in fact, suffering from some mental defect or other. It would explain a LOT of things
Maybe it would explain why he's refusing to take his annual physical. I think before America votes for Bush and Cheney, who we know already has serious heart disease (in more ways than one, but I mean, physically), we deserve to know what's wrong with Bush's health.
For anyone wondering, yes, it's true.
CNN = sheeple in Fox clothing.
Hey trolls, the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming Freedom train.
bwaaahahahahahaha
si vis pacem, para bellum
A Suggestion for Edwards/Cheney debate.
The MSNBC "news" story on missile defence here smells fishy. It looks like Cheney is about to use is as a sign of accomplishment in the face of "naysayers". If he does, I would suggest this meme. Bush administration doesn' want to allow stem cell research because there is no proven medical benefit (yet). Laura Bush has said just that, and it appears to be the republicans' line to deflect criticism. On the other hand, they are more then willing to spend untold billions on missile defence, which also happens to have no proven benefit.
Um, yah. Don’t forget Poland
Oops forgot the article squib Polish Leaders Differ Over Iraq Troop Pullout Date - The Defense Minister thinks they should pull out at the end of 2005 & the Polish PM is pissed.
hesiod: wazzup with all the brokenass links this morning?
Ok so no one has access to the peretz piece but me and Atrios. Fine.
"There is a stifling formalism so Sen. Kerry's conception about how one does diplomacy. He likes summits (three mentions) as if they are not commonly mere stage sets for grandstanding. He also likes special envoys - James Baker and Jimmy Carter in particular - as if they were whats needed to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, although he did not mention this hackneyed and failed fixative on Thursday night failed not only in the Holy Land but in Ireland, too."
"Sen. Kerry is allergic to force, as we all should be, at least somewhat. But there are times when force is necessary, even unilateral force or force deployed by a small cohort of nations. Sen. Kerry seemed to praise Bush pere for the limits he put on the ambitions of the 1991 Gulf War, that it did not target Saddam. But Sen. Kerry - it is important to recall - voted against even that war although it was backed by a far larger coalition of countries, many Arab states included."
"At one point in the debate the candidates switched sides. President Bush took credit for making the diplomacy around the growing NK atomic arsenal multilateral. He is right: Japan, China Russia and South Korea all have interests in a non-nuclear Pyongyang. They are good leveraging assets with Kim Jong Il. Sen. Kerry, on the other hand, suddenly wanted the US to go unilateral in the dispute with the Koreans. Why? He did not explain. Maybe he didn't grasp the irony of his position."
In other words - Kerry understands alliances and Bush doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks, including the citizens of this country. And we are his boss.
"Mr. Kerry claimed in the debate that, had the U.S. gone back to the Security Counil on Iraq yet again (and presumably, again), our "allies" would finally have supported the war in Iraq. He is smoking weed." Our "allies," in this case Russia and France, were actually functional allies, really partners of the Baathist regime in Baghdad, and these two states had been mobilizing to have sanctions lifted from Saddam which they were about to succeed in doing. President Bush did not have the wit to point this out. It is true, nonetheless."
My question to Howie:
Why do the same foreign policy makers (Perle, Abrams, Cohen, Gaffney, ect.) that were so eager to invade Iraq, support Chechnya as they "understood what it feels like to be under the Russian yolk"?
Why has the US given asylum to Chechan leader Ilyas Akhmadov against the wishes of Russia? Putin has openly stated his intent on pre-emptive attacks, why are we not cooperating with him on this terrorist issue?
'In other words - Kerry understands alliances '
Huh? How the hell do you get that?. The point is that Kerry doesnt understand (or does, and pretends not to) the valuelessness of diplomacy in some contexts.
'And we are his boss.'
Lest you forget, 'we' includes the healthy majority of Americans who endorsed the war in Iraq.
I'm with Anonymous, lacking a WSJ subscription. Could someone let us know the details? thx.
As a long time and long suffering TNR subscriber I have learned to ignore Martin Peretz's rantings. Peter Beinart is still a very good writer and as an editor he has greatly improved the magazine from it darkest days under the control of Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelley(the lowest point).
The endorsement of Joe Lieberman and the amazing total non-mention of Kerry, I attribute as the hand of Peretz. I also thought some of the attacks on Dean were a little rough but some did have a point.
There waa a prinicipled liberal position in favor of invading Iraq , even if I did not agree with it. The problem with the TNR is that Peretz dispises anyone with a the tradional Liberal/Conservative Realist viewpoint as much as he hates worst of 1970's liberal silliness. This is a real problem because TNR misses an important balance to the phony Neo-Wilsonianism hiding the looney NeoCon/Likudnite line. Therefore TNR can go off in incredible flights of fancy that have little to do with facts on the ground.
Even if you truely thought Saddam had to be over thrown, who in the their right minds thought that after 9/11 and the Tora Bora fiascos that the Bush Adminstration and the Neocon crazies would not totally fuck up the Iraqi occupation.
However, TNR is spite of Peretz's influence is a must read. I know Peretz has done lots of damage to TNR he has had sell partial ownership to Right-Wingers see
Whos is Roger Hertog?
http://www.prospect.org/print/V1.../tomasky-
m.html
I still hope that TNR will survive Peretz tenure as publisher.
llamajockey, do you think Michael Steinhardt is a "right winger"?
'sociologically right in every way. They are committed Zionists.'
"committed Zionist" ? and they are NOT sociologically right in every way, as the earlier paragraphs make quite clear.
I live in the DC area. We have a 24 hour news radio station, WTOP. It generally wins ratings as the most-listened-to station in the area, and it is the station I set my clock radio alarm to each day.
This morning, I woke to the voices of two news anchors questioning someone from the Center for American Progress about yesterday's NY Times article, the one about how Cheney and his cronies ignored the CIA's assessment of Iraq before the war. The fellow said they indeed ignored the evidence. The anchors asked about Powell's speech before the UN and was that based on bad evidence, too. The expert said that yes it was, and in his opinion, Colin Powell had destroyed all future credibility for himself.
The significance of this interview is that it will be played many times over the course of the day, so many people in the MD/VA DC area will hear this person's assessment. We won't tell them the expert hails from a liberal think tank....
'Hertog had no role in the Enron debacle. Even so, for The New Republic, a magazine whose editorial pursuits may take it in any number of directions, the presence of an owner whose business interests will also range far and wide is new and potentially fraught.'
New and potentially fraught, eh?
It is both not-new, and not terribly fraught with anything.
Michael Kelly was fired from TNR editorship by Peretz was that Kelly was unrelentingly critical of Gore.
Sort of a pity it wasn't because he was a slime ball phony.
llamajockey, warn me before you do that. At on allergy medication you can't tell right away if it's deja vu, an actual memory or if your blood pressure needs attention. Warn me, please.
Marty is an example of why a magazine that becomes someone's hobby shouldn't be taken seriously anymore. Several of our larger newspaper chains also qualify. TNR, I can't take it seriously, certainly not since Farley and his silliness. A lot of their writers were not liberals when they were writing for the magazine, lots of them reminded me of those people from the early days of TV who had hit shows in the 50s and thought they were still stars thirty years after no one remembered them.
Sully and Kelly would have been the low point for the Enquirer too but they're still Marty's fault.
'Marty is an example of why a magazine that becomes someone's hobby shouldn't be taken seriously anymore'
also see: Lapham, Lewis
'Marty is an example of why a magazine that becomes someone's hobby shouldn't be taken seriously anymore'
ALL political magazines serve as someone or another's hobby.
Peretz dispises anyone with a the tradional Liberal/Conservative Realist viewpoint as much as he hates worst of 1970's liberal silliness.
With the stuff he's printed over the years? Does it get sillier than some of the shit he printed about gay people in the 70s?
I seem to remember reading someone opine in TNR that "homosexuals" didn't need or want civil rights but only craved attention. Some aging, white, washed-up scribbler. A print version of the Henry Morgan of the old Merv Griffin show. Grumpy old fart. Never could figure out who he was until someone told me he'd been an actor of sorts.
ALL political magazines serve as someone or another's hobby.
anonymous
Not if they don't have loads of money and a good day job. And not if they are more serious about the magazine than their money or their day job.
anon writes 'we are the ones who supported the war in Iraq' but whose utter refusal to pay one stinking additional cent for it will hamstring this country for years to come.
Ifanyone wants to read the article, I'll post it, but it would be a waste of time. It's a whining piece of deivel.
Oh, and anonymous, supposedly the American people supported the war because Bushco scared the bejeebus out of them with all the hype about WMDs and mushroom clouds.
How forgetful of you.
drivel
'Not if they don't have loads of money and a good day job.'
magazines as a rule being HORRENDOUS money losers, they are usually owned by rich ideologues or funded by think tanks. viz. Lew Lapham, society liberal and political hobbyist.
There may be exceptions, but they are uncommon.
allies are overrated anyway.
'supposedly the American people supported the war because Bushco scared the bejeebus out of them with all the hype about WMDs and mushroom clouds.'
pie, he also said a bunch of other stuff about UN resolutions that seems to have escaped your attention. And a fair portion of the WMD stuff held water, in the absence of perfect foresight.
press flippity floppity?
It's remotely possible that the press, which sees/knows a lot more about Bush than they print, is now using the debate -fiasco opportunity to reveal what they DO know about his personality.
They are like sharks when there's blood in the water.
I can hope, can't I?
shorter anon----"Wars are great things if other people are fighting them and I don't have to pay for it."
And a fair portion of the WMD stuff held water, in the absence of perfect foresight.
Oh, really?
You know if we were to start a war with every country that violates UN resolutions (I believe Spain has violated a few themselves) we'd be a perfect military state.
he also said a bunch of other stuff about UN resolutions
That's crap. There was NO justification for this war. And the fact that Bush so horribly botched the aftermath of the invasion by showing an incredible lack of planning only makes the whole situation that much worse and more tragic.
Never, never, never should he have made this decision.
robby mack, glib reductios such as that may earn you a slot in the Kerry state department. keep up the good work.
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
I am really unaware of which last names are Jewish, so maybe in written articles about leading political figures and journalists we should start putting a descreet (J) next to their names so us less clued in people can be sure to avoid ever critisizing a Jew.
For Example: Wolf Blitzer (J) interviewed Richard Perle (J) yesterday on CNN. Pat Buchanan later questioned Doug Feith's (J) loyalty towards the United States and many parents are questioning the wisdom of drafting their teenage sons so that Paul Wolfowitz's (J) coniving fantasies can become reality.
After reading this I would instantly know that I can only question Pat Buchanan wisdom, not the others.
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
anonymous
I don't known what to make of Steinhardt but if this quate from the American Prospoect makes it seem that he a cranky, though perhaps more liberal, kindred spirit of Peretz
"Steinhardt chaired the DLC for six years but left in 1996 in disgust, not over Whitewater or women, but because in his first two years in office, according to Steinhardt, Bill Clinton "went wandering back to his historic, ultra-left-wing home" -- as if Clinton were in league with Amiri Baraka and Noam Chomsky."
Everybody Else:
Look If you want to throw stones at TNR than go ahead. It is big target and has had it coming for a long tine.
Still Folks you are not going to find a better piece of writing then this week's TNR cover article.
www.tnr.com
Even Digby agrees.
THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART III.
Hero Worship
by Noam Scheiber
TRN reminds me of that great bit of overacting by Al Pacino. No, not Scareface but GodFather III.
“Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.”
Martin Peretz advocates the genocide of the Palestinian people. He is a fucking pig who should not be allowed to write in anything more serious than the PennySaver. The WSJ is a piece of shit propaganda newspaper that represents the right wing of fascist capitalism. I am so sick of seeing the WSJ quoted on CSPAN, which never ever quotes from left wing papers like the Daily Worker.
Occasionally Peretz lets his racist contempt for and hatred of Arabs slip out. It is ugly stuff, worthy of Lester Maddox.
"... advocates the genocide of the Palestinian people."
I was trying to avoid this aspect of this thread, but honestly this is just such repugnant and malicious slander.
In case it isn't clear to non-Jews out there: accusing a Jew of advocating genocide or of being a Nazi or of being the same as Hitler is like saying an African-American advocates slavery -- maybe even worse.
It is a hateful thing to say and, clearly, only said in order to be hateful and hurtful. If someone alleged the analogous statement about an African-American we'd say they were racist.
In other words, Punji, you are an anti-Semite. Seek help.
accusing a Jew of advocating genocide or of being a Nazi or of being the same as Hitler is like saying an African-American advocates slavery
Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing with what Punji wrote (I haven't seen the remark from Peretz that Punji was talking about, so I'm not going to address its veracity) but you seem to be suggesting that it is inherently impossible for a Jewish person to advocate genocide, simply because they're Jewish.
They're people too, and they can produce monsters just as easily as any other group of people. It's got nothing to do with religion or ethnicity: they're human, and that is, sadly, sometimes what humans do.
Of course any Jew is as capable of any gentile of advocating genocide. I doubt however that Punji could produce a single instance of Peretz work that comes close to doing so.
One thing that gives me the creeps: the tendency (as seen in that Tomasky TAP piece) of certain left-wingers to assign a pejorative meaning to the expression "Zionist". EG, 'they are committed Zionists' intoned suggestively. Is it Tomasky's idea that to endorse the very existence of a Jewish state is a right-wing position?
One thing that gives me the creeps: the tendency (as seen in that Tomasky TAP piece) of certain left-wingers to assign a pejorative meaning to the expression "Zionist". EG, 'they are committed Zionists' intoned suggestively. Is it Tomasky's idea that to endorse the very existence of a Jewish state is a right-wing position?
Whenever I see that term used in that way, I interpret it as the writer's perception that the "Zionist" in question would prefer Israel to be a Jewish state, instead of a democracy. Strictly speaking, it can't really be both. The growing limitations on civil liberties of regular Palestinians reveal the delicate nature of this balancing act between democracy and the security that would theoretically come with being a purely Jewish state.
I think that usage of the term "Zionist" may also refer to someone whom the writer thinks is supportive of the IDF's reprehensible behavior in the disputed territories.
I have never heard any progressives/leftists who say Israel shouldn't exist. Most of us would just rather find a more productive solution than ignoring or encouraging the tiny minority factions within the Israelis and Palestinians who are constantly trying to obliterate each other. Israel, being recognized as a democratic nation, is often viewed to have a somewhat larger obligation to regulate their government's actions.
The biggest tragedy is that most people on both sides just want peace. There are very small groups on each side that will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of their opponents, and they're making it impossible for the regular folks to get on with their lives. And these small groups succeed in radicalizing more and more of the other side, thus ensuring that the conflict will continue indefinitely...
' Strictly speaking, it can't really be both.'
I disagree and the example of the occupied territories [in my opinion and that of the Israeli supreme court not part of Israel] is no proof. From 1947 Israel proper has been regarded as a Jewish state and as much a democracy certainly as any of the worlds many Islamic republics and a great many nominally christian ones. Singling Israel out as undemocratic seems like selective logic [not to mention unfair and inaccurate, considering the very open character of israeli political life.]
'I have never heard any progressives/leftists who say Israel shouldn't exist.' and here you've just implied that very thing. Zionism simply means the establishment of a Jewish state. Defining the Jewish state away or as natively undemocratic amounts to a real suggestion that the jewish state should not exist. Unless the view is that all states with religious affiliations are incompatible with democracy and should be eliminated this will be perceived as antisemitic no matter what.
Anyone see "Shattered Glass?"
Peretz makes everyone circle commas and he acts like a fucking bitch.
that's the old definition. today zionist means an expansionist. in our 'manifest destiny' mold.
Unless the view is that all states with religious affiliations are incompatible with democracy and should be eliminated this will be perceived as antisemitic no matter what.
Religious affiliation in itself doesn't lead me to question whether a country is a democracy or a religious state. But when attempts are made to prevent Palestinian workers from getting to their jobs, and laws passed forbidding Israeli Jews from marrying Palestinians, how could we not question whether the commitment is to democracy, or to some arbitrary concept of Jewishness? This goes back to the central point I was trying to make: from the polling I've seen, most people in Israel don't have any interest in pursuing these apartheid-like policies, but a small, radical minority is complicating the situation. Just as with the Palestians, most of them want to live in peace, but a tiny group of maniacs are intent on wiping Jews off the planet.
I don't see why it's somehow anti-semitic to point out that such things make the overall situation that much more difficult to resolve.
It's not anti-semitic to notice that the behavior of the hardcore Likudniks is distinctly unhelpful, and it's not anti-Palestinian to observe that the suicide bombings are atrocious. It is possible to see fault in someone's actions without blaming their entire race or religion (or country, or family, etc).
some of your facts are wrong, so it's not good to put them out there as if they were accurate - as the poster above pointed out, Israel is a Zionist/Jewish state, and a democracy, so for you to suggest that it can't be both contradicts reality (which reminds me of GWB.) Zionism is the movement for a national homeland for the Jewish people, which was Israel in long ago times, and is Israel today. There are no Israeli state laws against Jews marrying Palestinians - not sure where you got that one; were that fact to be true (which it is not) you might also reflect upon the fact that while the U.S. regretfully at this time doesn't allow Adam to marry Steve or Jane to marry Sally (which I hope will soon change)the U.S. is still a democracy, despite its own shortcomings, as it was when the woeful interracial marriage laws were on the books. True fulfillment of civil rights for Israeli Arabs lag behind on some fronts, as is the case on some fronts with minorities in the U.S., but Israeli Arabs have full citizenship in Israel, have greater civil rights than most Arabs throughout the Arab world, and, as the poster above pointed out, the status of the territories and the Palestinians living there is not the same as the past situation in S. Africa, so the apartheid comparison is also not accurate.
william, what do these supporters have in common?:
gwb can do no wrong.
kerry can do no wrong.
israel can do no wrong.
now my curiosity is peaked.
can somebody post excerpts from the peretz/wsj link?
y, I posted three [manually typed!!] excerpts above, scroll up.
oy. thanks!
heres the whole thing (scroll down)
Lapham a hobbyist? You don't produce the best magazine in the United States on a hobby basis.
Z, In These Times, The Funny Times (for that matter, The Progressive, The Nation.... These aren't hobby projects.
That is if anyone is still reading this thread.
to y, above -
I'm not aware of any thinking person who would make any of those statements (note the modifier "thinking...")so I don't know what you are trying to imply. Likewise, I would hope that no thinking person would make the converse statements - that GWB/Kerry/Israel do nothing right, and/or are responsible for all the ills in the U.S. or the Middle East. Either tunnel-vision position (the one in your question, or in this reply)is inherently inaccurate, and adds nothing constructive to any debate.
and also to y -
just for the record, re: your other comment above, "that's the old definition..."
It's not up to you to define Zionism, especially incorrectly. The poster to whom you were replying had the correct definition, regardless of how you would like to confuse or slant the issue. Check any reputable dictionary or encyclopedia, and try to build your arguments on accurate facts.
The Clinton News Network has been more "fair and balanced" than Fox News for a long time? The list of conservatives at CNN starts with Novak (who opposed the war in Iraq), and ends with Lou Dobbs, Kate O'Beirne and Tucker Carlson.
Self-described liberals at Fox News include Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, Ellis Hennican, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Eleanor Clift, Geraldo Rivera, Cici Connolly, etc. I have reported, you decide. You, kind sir, cherry-picked anecdotal nonsense from Blitzer's amusing broadcasts. Rathergate must've stung.
If you get around to it, explain to your readers why anyone with a three-digit I.Q. would take you seriously. Thanks, and have a nice day ( :
Sorry, I phrased the law incorrectly. They could still intermarry, but the Palestinians in the marriage wouldn't be allowed to live in Israel.
Seraphiel, many EU nations (Germany in particular) employ the principle of jus sanguinis in their immigration policy. A broader point is that both immigration and border issues (addressing as they do a nations ontological status -- its geographical and human makeup -- rather than its governance) do not help prove that Israel's government is less than democratic. I hope you'd admit that it's possible to denounce the policy of settlements in a full voice without condemning Zionism.
I hope you'd admit that it's possible to denounce the policy of settlements in a full voice without condemning Zionism.
Of course it is.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
