Obama Plot EXPOSED!

Karen,

Is the "American" media going to look into this charge, or is it determined to think that the Bush Administration (and Rovians now running McCain's outfit) couldn't possibly run their 178th consecutive ruse?

Swiss public radio cited an unidentified source “close to the events, reliable and tested many times in recent years" as saying the operation had in fact been staged to cover up the fact that the US and Colombians had paid $20 million for their freedom.

The hostages released on Wednesday, including Ingrid Betancourt, the French-Colombian politician, "were in reality ransomed for a high price, and the whole operation afterwards was a set-up," the public broadcaster said.

The report added said the wife of one of the hostages’ guards had acted as a go-between after being arrested by the Colombian Army. She was released to return to the guerrillas, where she allegedly persuaded her husband to change sides.

The report claimed that the US, which had three citizens among the hostages, had been behind the deal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4270908.ece

And, of course, the release occurred on the very day McCain and his "insane clown posse" (of Lieberman & Graham who apparently have NOTHING better to do) arrived in Colombia?

Please, Please, Reporters with Brains

By Josh Marshall

... And I must confess to being little short of astounded by the avalanche of press BS I'm reading on Barack Obama's position on Iraq.

The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don't appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I've even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they're passing on the revealed truth. McCain's campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama "has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground."

I've watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I've listened to Obama's position on Iraq. He's been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

This is an elementary distinction the current occupant in the White House has continually tried to confuse by claiming that his policies are driven and constrained by the advice he's given by his commanders on the ground. There's nothing odd or contradictory about Obama saying that he'll change the policy to one of withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq with a specific timetable but that he will consult with his military advisors about how best to execute that policy.

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it's the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn't some gotcha line. It's a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's role in the world and future in the Middle East. Reporters who can't grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush's game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202750.php

KT here--

Attaturk: I just finished reading the NYT story on this very subject, and thought it was quite intriguing.

Davis Guggenheim spoke briefly to your pooler before realizing he shouldn’t be...

Our intrepid pool reporter has apparently forgotten the unwritten rule that states that every someone says is on background unless it is specifically agreed otherwise in advance(usually in the form of prepared remarks!)

Speaking of suggest topics, I think some enterprising reporter should dig through the archives looking for what Randy Scheunemann, James Woolsey, Dennis McDonough and Richard Danzig were all saying between June 2002 and May 2003.

Without any partisan spin necessary, it would present a clear picture of who we can best trust going forward as we work to clean up the wreckage of the last five years.....

Karen, do you think it's weird the way the Associated Press has basically endorsed McCain? Their coverage has been remarkably slanted, beginning with their coffee and donuts moment with McCain and moving forward, don't you think? They've gone so far as to start moving McCain spin as fact. The AP's basically jumped the shark.

quit picking on the AP Florida.

They are bringing us all donuts with sprinkles on it if we just wait our turn.

The Situation Room on Thursday was trying to hype a story that McCain had some responsibility for the hostage release. Finally cooler heads persuaded her that it was probably not true and she should move on. Does seem an odd coincidence that the old feller decided to change his plans and suddenly go there.

As to Florida's comment about the AP, I am surprised at the McCain slant everywhere. If you listen closely, it is always there. Subtle maybe, but there. Even NPR. It can simply be a tone of voice or a word and emphasis in a story, but it is there. From the constant carrying on about Obama and public funding with NO mention of McCain's current problem violating the law to Obama's position on Iraq, which is played so that Obama comes off on the defensive, the underlying message is favorable to McCain.

Florida, don't you think it's weird that the Swampland blogers coverage of the campaign has been remakably slated. They report McCain spin as fact when they are not writing silly posts about Obama filming a campaign comercial or where he took his wife to dinner last week. It's not like there are any real issues the American people care about. If only the media in this country was not made up of a sizable percentage incorrigible morons. Then maybe real issues could be discussed.

KT - glad somebody's posting this weekend. Barack seems to have celebrity treatment in some ways, but this means the poor guy doesn't get a moment to himself (without someone reporting in Politico, e.g., that he yawned six times at his daughter's soccer game.) In the meantime, McCain gets to take the weekend off.

There are actually McCain supporters "complaining" that Obama's getting more press coverage, when most of the coverage he's getting is reporting McCain's charges against him as if they're fact. I can hardly believe the amount of coverage Barack's "refining his position on Iraq" got. (MSNBC is still covering this at this very moment). I'm discouraged by the press this cycle. It was a foregone conclusion that McCain and the Republicans would be making mountains out of molehills, but I missed the likelihood that the press would follow along like lemmings.

In fact, all through the primary I naively kept assuring my fellow swamp denizens that all this would change after the primary, when McCain's gaffes would get coverage. Can we please imagine how much coverage we'd be giving a fellow senator saying he'd seen Obama throttling a foreign diplomat?

It did seem a little bizarre right from the start that McCain just happened to spend one day in Columbia on the day the hostages were freed. It also seemed a little bizarre that the press was treating this as a "happy coincidence." There should be a little more healthy skepticism. Hope you guys pursue this.

dfh,

I've definitely noticed that there is a pattern to Michael Scherer's posts here on Swampland. If it's a positive story about McCain or a repetition of McCain spin, Michael posts it as a stand-alone story. If it's a negative story about Obama or negative spin about Obama from McCain, it gets posted as a stand-alone story. If there's a negative story about McCain that Michael has to post, it gets posted in a story about how both candidates are guilty of the same offense.

Like the AP, Michael's pretty much in the bag. That must've been some tasty BBQ.

Florida - I've noticed this too. Just when I think Michael's achieved a little objectivity, along comes the "Obama does it too" motif.

I just wish that the MSM could write maybe spend ten minutes each week (or even each month) talking about the real contrasts between the canidates. What would health care be like for a typical American family uder each candidate's plan? What would the tax burden be for a family with a $50,000 income? Would my city see an increase or decrease in spending on transportation needs. Would IDEA be fully funded by the federal gov. It's not hard for reports to find out the answers to these questions byut they refuse to do it. How many times do we have to hear about flag pins? If I was this bad at my job I'd be fired!

I just wish that the MSM could write maybe spend ten minutes each week (or even each month) talking about the real contrasts between the canidates. What would health care be like for a typical American family uder each candidate's plan? What would the tax burden be for a family with a $50,000 income? Would my city see an increase or decrease in spending on transportation needs. Would IDEA be fully funded by the federal gov. It's not hard for reports to find out the answers to these questions byut they refuse to do it. How many times do we have to hear about flag pins? If I was this bad at my job I'd be fired!

sorry for the double post my computer burped

John McCain is a sacred cow.

Every discussion of John McCain requires the DC journo to recall his POW status. On TV, every piece about John McCain requires we view the footage of him as a young man lying on his bed as a POW. No one is permitted to discuss John McCain's public record as a politician.

We, the people who would wish for a rational discussion of McCain's public record and his performance in office in this century is destined to be disappointed. It is not to be. Our efforts to discuss the shortcomings of John McCain, the politician, will be roundly rejected and the perpetrator of such a radical attempt will be accused of traitorously "dissing" the unimpeachable record of John McCain. One mustn't "diss" the sacred cow. The immutable narrative is already set.

John McCain, Washington's sacred cow.

When does the protective press pool of McCain start?

The press demanded that we know were Obama is every second of the day but have they done the same for McCain? Apparently not.

Is that just because they think it would be incredibly boring and assume Obama will be the next Prez?

KT wrote that '"Protective pool" is usually assigned the President, primarily (and I'm being blunt here) in case something unexpected happens to him.'

Is it because they think it is more likely something bad could happen to Obama?

If every place Obama goes is reported on, then I want the same coverage of McCain. Yeah, I wont read it and I wont care most of the time. I assume it will be boring as hell but if he is making surprise visits to his Dr's office, to slimeball political operatives like Karl Rove, or blowing tens of thousands of dollars at the craps table, I'd like it reported.

Obama can't work out, get his hair cut, go to a restaurant or go to his kids soccer game without every detail being chronicled for the public. The same isn't true for McCain - WHY?

Like the AP, Michael's pretty much in the bag. That must've been some tasty BBQ.

Just a point in fact, Michael wasn't there. AMC was.

Will the MSM pick up this story from the politico...that McCain campaign manager Mr. Black has being proud of playing race card to win in the past...just think what will happen if someone working with obama is linked to such event from the past...here is the link below...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/The_connection_is_Charlie_.html#comments

The "protective" pool is on Obama to make sure if he screws up, someone will be there to report on it. Don't think that "protective" means anything other than protecting the press' prerogative to get a juicy story. It was instituted when Obama met with Clinton away from the watchful eye of the press.

The press is protecting *itself* with the "protective" pool.

SUGGESTED READING:

"Obama's very bad June suggests two possibilities: He may be one of the more unprincipled politicians we've seen recently - remember, Obama once mocked the Clintons for their prevarications, saying "They don't tell you what they mean." Or perhaps his mistakes are honest - which would make the Obama campaign one of the more intellectually disorganized enterprises in recent presidential history.

It's unclear which prospect is greater cause for concern."

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080704_Is_his_campaign_dishonest_or_disorganized_.html

Sorry Stan, but Obama and Rev Wright already beat anyone else to the "race" game. The feeble attempt of Obama's campaign to make white folks believe that voting against him and his ideals would be a "racist" thing to do has been exposed. Obama threw down the first racial words to rally the black vote against Hillary in the primary. He was successful. And, as we know now the "first black President's" wife was defeated.

So, now that we see the reincarnation of Obama to assimilate back into the general population the focus is creating political ads that have Obama in the middle, a so-called "centrist". Centrist my butt. Obama is so far out in the left, center for him is someplace between Code Pink and the Weathermen Underground.

Pointing a finger at anything racial from this point to November needs to start with the Obama Campaign.

So sad,

Iraq Vet in Famous Press Photo Dies from Overdose

PINEHURST, N.C. A former Army medic made famous by a photograph that showed him carrying an injured Iraqi boy during the first week of the war has died of an apparent overdose, police said.

Joseph Patrick Dwyer died last week at a hospital in Pinehurst, according to the Boles Funeral Home. He was 31.

The photograph, taken in March 2003, showed Dwyer running to a makeshift military hospital while cradling the boy. The photo appeared in newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts worldwide, making Dwyer became a symbol of heroism.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003824518

Great article poh123, I am emailing it out now to all of my friends, family and associates.

Rusty weighing in on race is always illuminating-"The sleeping WHITE giant shall awake"

You know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to post pieces by people like Jonathan Last, editor of the Weekly Standard, a "magazine" that has so completely and thoroughly discredited itself. That rag is like old Soviet propaganda, rightfully consigned by thinking, reality-based people to the dustbin of history.

Thanks, Florida. Since I'm from Philadelphia, I had to click on that link from poh123 -- couldn't believe it was Polman or Bunch.

When I went to the bottom and saw it was Jonathan Last, it made sense. Last was brought on as a columnist for the Inquirer after the paper was purchased by a group of local Republican businessmen. Last is one of several wingers added for "balance" to the other, more centrist columnists. He is close to the bottom of our barrel -- some of the others are often worse. Of course we don't need any liberals for balance.

When rustydog said "The sleeping WHITE giant shall awake" he couldn't have been referring to himself -- he's demonstrated repeatedly that falls far short of 'giant' stature. Could he have been referring to Charlie Black?

Charlie Black was the senior advisor for Jesse Helms' 1990 campaign against Harvey Gantt. His campaign produced one of the sleaziest, most racially divisive ads in US history -- the infamous "white hands" ad.

In another ad the Helms campaign accused Gantt of running a "secret campaign" aimed at black radio. The ad asked: "Why doesn't Harvey Gantt run his ad on all radio stations, so everyone can hear it, instead of just on black radio stations? Doesn't Harvey Gantt want everyone to vote?"

When asked if there was anything inappropriate about the ads, Black responded: "Of course not."

Charlie Black is now John McCain's chief political adviser.

Charlie Black has been cleansed by the presence of the maverick and is all better now.

He was baptized by motor oil from the straight talk express and will not lobby for murderous dictators ever again.

Some of you are so cynical.

More Rusty on Race:

The great people of Pennsylvania are primarily from solid, Pennsylvania Dutch, Irish, and other european heritage. The EXACT type of people that built and defended this great nation for over 230 years. I lived in the great cities that Barak so loves, and I hated every minute of the self absorbed, “its all about me” society that you find in cities. [...] Rap artists and black thugs who denigrate women making them “prostitutes” to their sick and perverted life-style.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/obamas_bitterness.html#comment-470887

Posted by Karen Tumulty | July 5, 2008 9:55 AM

From my post on your thread on July 2, 2008:

Should be start a pool to see how long before the McCain campaign somehow manages to take credit for her release without actually, you know, taking credit for her release.

Posted by Casey Morris | July 2, 2008 5:26 PM

There's a fine line between cynicism and prescience. However, with the Republicans, that line seems to be invisible, since they always seem to disappoint in the morals department.

I'm sure it was a complete coincidence that McCain et al. were in Columbia on the exact day of Ingrid Betancourt's release from her years as a POW.

I have to go work on my note to the tooth fairy now...

P.

Posted by GySgt213 | July 5, 2008 12:35 PM

Unspeakably tragic.

Rustydog... may be you did not read the article or you choose to ignore the contents; i will post it below and challenge you to defend such action coming from someone who is now leading McCain campaign to white house...we are really in trouble if guys like him end up fashioning the policy of the free world...

1984: Black Advised Helms on Senate Re-Election Bid and Bragged About Victory. The Washington Post reported, “‘It’s a tremendous victory for conservatives,’ Helms’ strategist Charles Black said. ‘It enhances his clout and influence in the Senate in the eyes of the press and his colleagues. He’ll be even more effective than he has been.’” [Washington Post, 11/8/84, emphasis added]

Black and Helms Used “Racist Appeals” to Win. Politics reporter Bill Peterson wrote in The Washington Post, “Lesson: A vicious new electronic form of negative politics has evolved and matured. And it is frightening. It is a politics of distortion, half truths and character assassination. Ends are used to justify means. Truth often takes a back seat. … Helms and the National Congressional Club, a political action committee run by his allies, had used negative advertising long before the Senate race began. … Racial epithets and standing in school doors is no longer fashionable, but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master. A case in point was the pivotal event of the campaign: Helms’ filibuster against a bill making the birthday of the late Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. … Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. His campaign newspaper featured photographs of Hunt [his opponent] with Jesse L. Jackson and headlines like ‘Black Voter Registration Rises Sharply’ and ‘Hunt Urges More Minority Registration.’ Helms shamelessly mined the race issue.” [Peterson, Washington Post, 11/18/84, emphasis added]

1990: Black Advised Jesse Helms. As He Ran Controversial “Hands” Ad Against Black Candidate. Newsday reported that Helms, “through a series of blistering advertisements unleashed just days before, had beckoned the long-simmering issue of race to the surface of this senatorial contest. In doing so, Helms had hurled the campaign into its most bitter and acrimonious phase to date, namely by labeling his opponent, falsely, an advocate of racial job quotas and accusing him of conducting a ‘secret campaign’ in the black community. … On the television commercial, the camera zones in on a white man’s hands, crumpling what apparently is a job rejection letter. The announcer then intones: ‘You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is,’ the message continues. ‘Gantt supports Ted Kennedy’s racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications.’” Black, an adviser to the campaign and a consultant for the Congressional Club — Helms’s political machine — insisted the race would come down to turnout: “‘What it’s going to come down to is turnout,’ said Charles Black, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Helms adviser. ‘It’s, no question, the biggest challenge at this point.’” [Newsday, 11/4/90]

Black Defended “Hands Ad.” Black defended Helms’s “Hands” television ad, which featured white hands crumpling a job rejection letter and linking Helms’s black opponent to racial job quotas. Asked about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Well there is nothing racial about the campaign.” When asked if there was anything improper about the ad, Black said, “Of course not.” Another guest on the show, DNC Chairman Ron Brown, pressed Black again, saying, “You are a principal adviser of Jesse Helms. Would you advise him to run that kind of ad, Charlie? Do you approve of that ad, Charlie?” Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” [MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, 11/5/90]

— Harry Siegel

Will McCain use this to portray Obama as an out-of-touch film star?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Getting back to the post at hand for a moment does anyone know what this KT post was about? Is a porn video implied or a criminally professional film of Obama's life... er something. I'm trying to decide the facts for myself (because facts must be judged by common slobs for their "factiness") and I guess it's the holiday weekend but the snarkerityarcasmour factor is blurring the dimensions of the universe and approaching singularity.

I really hate to say it but I'm going to have to see the RNC's full statement on this before I know exactly what not to believe.

Centfan wrote: "...I'm going to have to see the RNC's full statement on this before I know exactly what not to believe"

LOL

Karen,

I hope that little debacle by the Los Angeles Times pooler the other day has persuaded these people to be more careful and accurate about their pool reports. That infected pool report that the Los Angeles Times reporter distributed resulted in a number of erroneous stories on CNN, Drudge, Politico, and ABC, most of which remain uncorrected. At least ABC corrected theirs, to their credit.

How much credence to you personally put into pool reports? What happens to a pool reporter who puts out bad information?

I'm glad the "poolers" and the press take their responsibility so seriously. Nothing screams professionalism like heading over to The Page and seeing the byline "Mystery Pool Report"...

So much for transparency and accountability...

http://thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-from-butte-montana/

The pool issue is a serious one. There is a raging issue regarding the restriction of travel pool reports only to journos who are traveling with the relevant officio. One side is in favor of sharing it more widely (not to us riffraff but to journos not on the trip) and the other side complaining about the reduced number of news orgs sharing the expense of traveling. This means that the distribution of pool duty falls to only one or two journos whose orgs pay the expense of travel.

Now, one can make the case, as Mark Silva did eloquently, that pool information should be shared as widely as possibly, and that it is the new orgs, like Time Mag, who won't foot the bill for travel. If they can't get a copy of the pool report, they can't do their job.

All of this sounds reasonable, UNTIL you find out that it is Sheryl Stolberg who is now doing most of the travel pool reports. So what they are actually getting is infected pool reports by a vacuous, careless hack of a journo, and trying to write their stories from that. Methinks we, the news-consuming public, would be better off without stories generated from Stolberg-generated pool reports.

It's an interesting dilemma nevertheless.

Especially considering the fact that DC journos have this big protection racket going, where none of them ever *ever* pay a price for their hackdom.

Or, I take that back. It's well-known in Washington DC circles that Ann Kornblut was "invited to explore her other employment options" (i.e., fired) by the New York Times for her egregious hit job against Clinton. But she was promptly picked up by the Washington Post, so that probably wasn't too, too painful.

Posted by Stan | July 5, 2008 1:52 PM
Rustydog... may be you did not read the article or you choose to ignore the contents;

I read the article Stan. I do not see it any different than what Obama did with his so-called "race speech". It is simply in the case of Charlie Black exploiting the white vote versus Obama exploiting the near 98% black vote he received against Hillary in the Primary.

So what is your point?

The Washington Times has been shunned though James. Nobody will have anything to do with a paper run by a cult leader.

Oh, never mind. Tell Charlie Black I was just funning him.

Posted by Paul-no not that one | July 5, 2008 12:39 PM
Rusty weighing in on race is always illuminating-"The sleeping WHITE giant shall awake"

Absolutely, and further more and you can copy this for posterity sake, I am also PROUD to be white, and have no shame in being so.

Here is another good one too. I am also in agreement with Jesse Helms that no form of quota should be imposed upon anyone just based on skin color, white, black, or any other color of the rainbow.

You may stick that in your crack-pipe and smoke it. Both Paul no not that one and Paul Dirks who are one in the same.

there really are quite a few genuine IDIOT libtard posters here. Thinking the media is for McCain and treating Obama bad and BBQ this or that. I don't know if your trying reverse psychology or something ..but I don't think anyone with half a brain who is not semi-retarded knows the media is BIGTIME in the tank for Obama and come to his defense and provide cover for him every step of the way..They don't even want to report the huge success of the surge..or report on the major major flip flops of Obama..some idiot before actually psted accusing MSNBC of being against Obama. I am hoping there are a few intelligent posters here who at least admit..the media love their "rockstar"

Dirks is smarter than I.
And Rusty I note that you are proud of your bigotry so because you like it so much.
"The sleeping WHITE giant shall awake"
Continue to be afraid Rusty.

I'm Canadian, and I used to wonder how America allowed itself to get frog marched by the neocons into the quagmire that is Iraq. I had no idea, but then I started following american media, and I finally realized how it happened. Most American's just were never told the truth by the absolutely wretched excuse for the "free" press that is the DC beltway bubble infested cesspool. KT, AMC, MCSherrer, Joe Klein, JNS, Mark Halperin, and the whole lot of you have the blood of innocents on your hands. I hope you burn in the same hell that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond now burn in.

Rustydog wrote: "I am also PROUD to be white, and have no shame in being so."

You have no need to be ashamed of your color -- nor do you have any reason to be proud of it. Quoting the late George Carlin: "Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own. Not something that happens by accident of birth."

What James, LA said @2:54pm.

Karen, could you inquire as to whether there's a prize or award for the "pooler" who produces the most clever, entertaining and/or snarky report? That appears the primary objective of the output to date. Maybe Maureen Dowd would fittingly allow the award to be named after her...

Thankfully there's nothing important at stake in this election and the restrained, ultra-professional press would never, ever take a "poolers" snippet and bastardize it...

And if they did, why there'd be, there'd be... (much hilarity and continued employment).

Re the Pooler Award -- Fellow Spite Girls Katherine Seelye and Ceci Connolly should rightly be included in the honoring name. They blazed the trail for our Mystery Pool Reporters...

KT:
" .. I'm sure it was a complete coincidence that McCain et al. were in Columbia on the exact day ... "
Sure. Case closed.
Coincidence? Who stood to benefit from it?
"after the men were freed Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield said U.S. and Colombian forces cooperated closely on the rescue mission, .. "
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92174822

It may be pure coincidence that the US State department (that coordinated the US Senator's visit) was unaware of what the US military (that was in on the timing of the operation) was up to or knew - especially since the visit at this time has partisan/campaign overtones.

Had something gone wrong with the operation - say resulting in a loss of all hostages - during the McSame visit -- was it lost on McBush and his Columbia lobbyist Charlie Black how such a debacle would impact on the campaign? We may surmise that the US military, McBush and the RNC had a very high degree of confidence that the mission would succeed.

Why couldn't McSame schedule the visit earlier or later - since we expect that (as a senator and a ranking member, Senate Committee on Armed Services) he had been briefed - daily - on Columbia, the timing and the operation that involved our armed forces? What factors made this the opportune moment?

With the gas/economy/jobs uppermost on voters' minds and McSame trailing in opinion polls, is this how a bellicose McNasty and the belligerent RNC go about seizing moment, steering the agenda and building up some momentum for the general elections less tan 4 months away?

Now, about the Columbia-Black-McSame axis ..

Anyway, KT feels good - a stint of investigative reporting done. Where is the barbecue?
Pay slip? CHECK. Investments? CHECK. Self-censorship? CHECK.

Long after most of us had internalized the fact that we had been duped AGAIN, most viewers of FOX "NEWS" were still sure we had found WMD in Iraq.

[Maybe a visit by McBush can be arranged that will result in the announcement of the capture of bin Laden ...]

George Carlin also said, "Not only do I not know what's going on, I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_carlin.html

KT,

Could you check about McCain's pre-knowledge of the rescue operation? The timing on this could be interesting. When was the rescue plan conceived. When was McCain' trip conceived. Were there discussions about the overlap?

KT. can you answer me why the media is so liberal and votes 89% democrat in the election..I don't think anyone can intelligently deny this..I just want to know why the vast majority are liberals..the regular libtards know this and are too scared too confront it

Well, it looks like the local conservatives didn't get any smarter while I was gone.

They are anything but conservative Cliff but your observation is correct

McCain aide: Reporters ‘have to earn’ special interview area seat on new ’straight talk’ airplane.

The Washington Post reports that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is now traveling in a new “Straight Talk Express” campaign airplane. It “features a special area” with “a couch and two captain’s chairs” where “McCain will conduct group interviews with the press.” But not all reporters covering McCain can enjoy this new lap of luxury. Top McCain aide Mark Salter said “‘only the good reporters’ would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. ‘You’ll have to earn it,’ he said.” So how can these reporters “earn” a seat? Never challenge the Senator, as McCain biographer Matt Welch explained in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times:

"[McCain is] very open to people. You can come on the bus, everything is great but if he knows or if his team knows that you have a hostile line of questioning or you have a long and well documented critique, they’re not going to talk to you. […]

As a human, he’s haunted by the notion of honesty and about honor and truth. He wishes that he could speak the truth all the time. He doesn’t. I don’t think he speaks the truth any more than any other politician really, no more, no less."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-aide-reporters-have-to-earn-special-interview-area-seat-on-new-straight-talk-airplane/

why the media is so liberal and votes 89% democrat in the election..

How about a citation for this assertion from other than a right wing web site? I did a Google search and that's all I found -- although the number on the sites varied from 80% to 95%. Guess jimmyjamz decided to split the difference.

Note the comment from sy where he points out that "only the goodreporters" would get to the special seats on McCain's new plane.

Contrary to jj, I know the media repeats Republican talking points without any comment about their truth. That leads me to conclude that 89% of them vote repub. I must be right because I have something to back up my statement.

Karen, do you think it's weird the way the Associated Press has basically endorsed McCain?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202874.php

We now can officially determine why the AP was sending lawyer letters out to people who were C/P snippets from their articles.

So we can't post side-by-side comparisons of the same article under two different by-lines.

More AP nonsense:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202834.php

Over at Kos Sam Loomis has a modified picture of the McCain 737: The Lap Dog Express. Says something. Now, now you have to work out the message/interpretation yourself. That is the new style.

So today's big NYT campaign story, by Mark Leibovich, is not FISA (although Mike Stark gets big shout out for the Obama FISA organizing efforts in the middle of the paper) is McCain's teleprompter troubles.

Leave aside that this yet another trivial process story. For me, the story resolves a paradox. While he does, as is required by the McCain narrative in such a story, say this:

A politician who has thrived in the give-and-take settings of campaign buses, late-night TV couches and town meetings, he now is trying to meet the more formal speaking demands of a general election campaign.

He later on acknowledges that McCain's had some, as he puts it, "small misstatements," in these settings:

Mr. Salter bemoans the current environment, in which, he said, “the press creates the expectation that you better not stumble on a word, or tell a joke that Mr. Rogers wouldn’t tell, or you’re going to be in trouble.”

There are any number of Web videos of Mr. McCain to prove the point. They include the moment he playfully called a young man a “jerk” at a town-hall-style meeting in New Hampshire last year after he asked Mr. McCain if his age made him a candidate for Alzheimer’s disease in the White House (Mr. McCain typically uses jerk as a term of affection), or when he suggested to Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” that he brought him a special gift from Iraq — an improvised explosive device.

Small misstatements become instant YouTube fodder — as when Mr. McCain vowed to “veto every single beer” that included lawmakers’ pet spending projects (he meant “bill”) or when he said the government should have been able to deliver “bottled hot water” to dehydrated babies in New Orleans.

No mention of the impromptu 100 years in Iraq or Sunni-Shiite confabulation, which is interesting.

No, what is interesting for me is this paragraph, which I've seen alluded to, but not expressed so clearly.

He said he was trying to be “extra vigilant” about not giving unnecessary offense, knowing that the wisecracking humor that might charm cynical reporters might not do the same for earnest voters.

I've wondered why this guy who isn't all that good in impromptu settings could come off so well among tough-questioning reporters with open access. The answer is now clear. He derides voters and the election process in these sessions with reporters. This endears him to them, because they also deride the process (see pool reports). The "Straight Talk Express" takes on an interesting, sarcastic double meaning.

This also implies (along with various rude things he HAS said in public) that McCain says a passel of rude things on the bus that would get him in a lot of trouble, and one would think, therefore, would be newsworthy. But they don't get reported. Because there's is no more in in-group than a con artist and his shills, cynically deconstructing the act.

And we think the Republicans aren't organized yet? We think the press isn't helping McCain? (okay, Politico isn't really the press). Headlines this morning over at Politico:

McCain to get air cover from vets

Obama's own voice may haunt him

$3 million ad targets Obama on Energy

Playbook: New GOP ad hits Obama

Jayack - the group process is very powerful, and McCain has made full use of it. Anybody who strays - see Elizabeth Beumiller, gets chastised publically. What reporter wants to risk that? And when you add to that that reporters seldom correct each other's mistakes, it's a wonder we get anything even faintly negative about McCain reported at all.

I especially loved the bit about McCain using the term "jerk" as a term of affection.

Fareed Zakaria is just coming on as I type this, on CNN, with his new program on world affairs. PBS-quality programing on CNN. I hope any of you out there who are Nielsen types will tune in.

jayackroyd, great post.

This seems to be an example of a racial double standard in the media's coverage of the election. Obama is supposed to be elitist because of one admittedly poorly worded comment, and the fact that he's really smart and charismatic. (I think if he were white he would be getting some criticism for being condescending and elitist, like Kerry and Gore, but the attacks are even more absurdly exaggerated this election cycle) McCain regularly cynically denigrates the political process, and in some cases voters, in his sessions with reporters, yet he's not supposed to be elitist. It's true that unlike Obama, McCain was a horrible student. And he's a Republican, and we all know that they neglect the economy and the social safety net because they respect poor people. But is that really enough to make Obama the elitist? I don't think so, especially since so many of the "elitist" criticisms are accompanied by criticisms of Obama's "personal ambition." As a Clinton supporter, these criticisms are very familiar.

The unspoken message is that it's so odd to see an African-American or woman running for the Presidency, that it must be the result of a truly exceptional level of ambition. And although of course no one would ever consider being racist or sexist, it's acceptable to criticize their personal ambition. Everyone is happy to vote for an African-American or a woman; They just don't want to vote for an overly ambitious elitist.

jayackroyd, great post.

I really think this is an example of a racial double standard in the media's coverage of the election. Obama is supposed to be elitist because of one admittedly poorly worded comment, and the fact that he's really smart and charismatic. McCain regularly cynically denigrates the political process, and in some cases voters, in his sessions with reporters, yet he's not supposed to be elitist. It's true that unlike Obama, McCain was a horrible student. And he's a Republican, and we all know that they neglect the economy and the social safety net because they respect poor people. But is that really enough to make Obama the elitist? I don't think so, especially since so many of the "elitist" criticisms are accompanied by criticisms of Obama's "personal ambition." As a Clinton supporter, these criticisms are very familiar.

The unspoken message is that it's so odd to see an African-American or woman running for the Presidency, that it must be the result of a truly exceptional level of ambition. And although of course no one would ever consider being racist or sexist, it's acceptable to criticize their personal ambition. Everyone is happy to vote for an African-American or a woman; They just don't want to vote for an overly ambitious elitist.

McCain to get air cover from vets

And from the MSM, of course. I watched the beginning of This Week and George S. began the interview with Lieberman by running the ad from Vets for Freedom (funded in large part by Freedom's Watch) and mentioned that Lieberman had been on the board. He didn't mention that Lieberman and Graham had to resign because of the group's 527 status. Then Lieberman went on to lie about Obama's position on withdrawing troops. The senator who supporter Obams stated facts, but wasn't so faux sincere as Joe and I decided I couldn't stand any more.

The press is right on target. I'm even more depressed because I've been catching up with the Daily Howler. Better go do the laundry.

Will try to remember to catch Zakaria next time -- or look for a re-run later.

As the news biz has grown to be more about circulation and ratings than about reporting, media become more and more sensitive to "image." The Repubs know this, and have been playing their "biased media" victim card for so long it's starting to have an effect – not with the public, whose views are subject to pre-existing substantive prejudices, but with the media themselves. The increasing fear of being more broadly SEEN as biased has caused many of them to become mere parrots, unwilling to take a chance on afflicting the comfortable even when the facts and professional responsibility call for a story unburdened by artificial "balance" added for the sake of appearance.

Shorter FlownOver: No guts, no story.

McCain aide: Reporters ‘have to earn’ special interview area seat on new ’straight talk’ airplane ... Top McCain aide Mark Salter said “‘only the good reporters’ would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. ‘You’ll have to earn it,’ he said.”

Karen, based on these ground rules would you accept a seat in this section?

McCain aide: Reporters ‘have to earn’ special interview area seat on new ’straight talk’ airplane ... Top McCain aide Mark Salter said “‘only the good reporters’ would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. ‘You’ll have to earn it,’ he said.”

Karen, based on these ground rules would you accept a seat in this section?

McCain aide: Reporters ‘have to earn’ special interview area seat on new ’straight talk’ airplane ... Top McCain aide Mark Salter said “‘only the good reporters’ would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. ‘You’ll have to earn it,’ he said.”

Karen, based on these ground rules would you accept a seat in this section?

Three times is the charm -- Karen, you only have to answer once. ;-)

The site is having posting delay problems...

"The press is right on target. I'm even more depressed because I've been catching up with the Daily Howler." - ivb, I've also been catching up with the Daily Howler, with the same result. It's discouraging to see the archives and realize that this has been going on for so long.

And did anyone see this particular line from the AP attack/story?: "The GOP increasingly has sought to take advantage of any opportunity to permanently pin the flip-flopper label on Obama, with all its unappealing associations, and strip him of the shiny-new-penny one he's cultivated up to now."

Shiny-new-penny?! That is so unfair on so many levels...

Kathy, thanks for the CNN recommendation. They've been the best network the past couple of Sundays.

It's hard to read that NYT story that jay highlighted:

"He said he was trying to be “extra vigilant” about not giving unnecessary offense, knowing that the wisecracking humor that might charm cynical reporters might not do the same for earnest voters".

and not think of the Shakespeare line"Sarcasm is the wit of the witless"

Rose, ivb et al. Zakaria's new program (called GPS, for Global Public Square) is on every Sunday at 1:00. I don't think it reairs. He does not have a partisan ax to grind, and he knows the world and the issues that are going to affect us. It's really excellent.

http://us.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

Rose, ivb et al. Zakaria's new program (called GPS, for Global Public Square) is on every Sunday at 1:00. I don't think it reairs. He does not have a partisan ax to grind, and he knows the world and the issues that are going to affect us. It's really excellent.

http://us.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

Here they post the first chapter of Zakaria's new book:

Re: the reasons there are more stories about Obama. It's explained easily enough just by the bottom line. We know that Barack's supporters are more enthusiastic than McCain's, and even McCain's supporters are probably more interested in hearing about Obama than McCain. News organizations (particularly the teevee) don't put out stories that people don't buy/watch). There does seem to be some covering for McCain, and there seems to be an assumption that things aren't stories because Washington has known these things about McCain all along, but the electorate does not know McCain.

(and yeah, the site is very, very, slow for some reason. My last post hasn't gone up yet. So apologies in advance if it posts twice. On the other hand, I'm probably typing into the wind, as it were, and maybe this one won't go up either.)

If you need a laugh today, for whatever reason please check out the latest from Dana Milbank. Some of you with weak stomachs might find what Milbank does here just down right cruel.

Think you're worried about the economy? Phillip Swagel is a wreck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/07/03/VI2008070302627.html

There does seem to be some covering for McCain,

Kathy, Check out Jamison Foser's column on the Clark kerfuffle.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030012?f=h_column

But incidents like that were apparently just trial runs for what has happened this week, as much of the media has abandoned any pretense of neutrality. In the most vivid example to date of media describing any criticism of McCain as criticism of his military service, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell described a television ad that made not a single mention of McCain's service as being a part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service."
[...]
A few journalists felt compelled to acknowledge the obvious: that what Clark said was actually right -- that McCain's military service, like John Kerry's, is not sufficient qualification for the presidency no matter how honorable and heroic it was. But they still insisted Clark shouldn't have said it.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins, for example, wrote: "When Schieffer pointed out that Obama had neither run a squadron nor 'ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down,' the correct response was: 'No, and he honors Senator McCain's service.' ... Nevertheless, what Clark said was obviously true." Collins' Times colleague John Harwood agreed during an appearance on MSNBC: "[I]t was a misstep by Clark ... It was not a well-advised thing for Clark to do ... It actually was true."

When did journalists decide that the "obviously true" answer to a question is not the "correct" answer? When did they decide that it was appropriate to spend days excoriating someone for saying something that is "true" but isn't "well-advised?"

It is worth reading the whole column. It is really appalling to see it all laid out in one place.

Obama may be doing well in the polls now, but he is being typecast by the media and that is going to cause problems in the future. They may have loved him in comparison to Hillary, but McCain is THE one.

The site just ate my comment recommending Jamison Foser's column on the Clark kerfuffle. Won't try to reconstruct the excerpts, but it outlines the way the McCain Stream Media are in the tank for their guy. It is worth reading.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030012?f=h_column

Twice I tried to post a comment recommending Jamison Foser's column on the Clark kerfuffle and got an error message. Recommend reading the column.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030012?f=h_column

GySgt213 - does it make me a bad person if I laughed all the way through that? I know they're forcing Swagel to take a bullet for the team, but seeing any member of the Administration sweating like that is.... delightful.

GySgt213 - does it make me a bad person if I laughed all the way through that? I know they're forcing Swagel to take a bullet for the team, but seeing any member of the Administration sweating like that is.... delightful.

(And if this posts twice I apologize, the website is behaving oddly for me, too).

GySgt213 - does it make me a bad person if I laughed all the way through that? I know they're forcing Swagel to take a bullet for the team, but seeing any member of the Administration sweating like that is.... delightful.

(and I apologize if I post this more than once, the website is acting odd for me, too).

Sacto:
"Karen, based on these ground rules would you accept a seat in this section?"

If she is assigned to cover McFilpFlop, she would accept it: Her love for the payslip would tramp her judgment. And principles and judgment strike out in the face of joblessness and starvation. [Heard of "Maslow's hierarchy of needs"?]

Many reporters assigned to cover the White House have found themselves in a similar dilemma: Be nice to the POTUS or else no pass into the briefings [and if you always have no scoop or breaking news when others have it, then a question arises regarding your performance and usefulness to your employer. CHOOSE.]

But then, are reporters constrained to pass on the propaganda verbatim from the RNC and the McCain Camp? Again - it is the reporter's bitter choice: Pass it on with mucho embellishment or else ..

After a while, this instinct for self-preservation may evolve into a genuine crusade or a legitimate case of infatuation.
Here is the take from one incisive, independent-minded, investigative reporter:
"..McCain) is funny and charming, but reporters fall for him for reasons more prosaic than charisma. The flattery of his attention is enough. .." - Ana Maria Cox, TIME
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/more_on_campaign_finance_1.html

Maybe like the wild fires in California and the floods in Iowa, the forces are trying to tell you liberals to REPENT! LOL

Cliff,

Don't worry. I'm still laughing. But some how it just feels wrong to laugh at a man that doesn't stand a chance.

Cliff,

You have to admit that didn't you want to jump in there and say stop. You three reporters take it easy.

"They [McCain campaign] know how to play the refs [the press] just the way the refs love to be played ---flat on their backs, in total submission begging for a tummy rub."

--Digby

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/dissing-man-by-digby-jamison-foser-does.html

Posted by ivb | July 6, 2008 3:16 PM:

"When did journalists decide that the "obviously true" answer to a question is not the "correct" answer? When did they decide that it was appropriate to spend days excoriating someone for saying something that is "true" but isn't "well-advised?""

Incredibly well said, ivb.

Let's ask Joe Klein...

I heard Mark Halperin of TIME opine on the ABC's "This Week" show that Obama's use of the word "refinement" was a big deal and heavily insinuated that the RNC's attack on Obama for flip-flopping was valid and that voters would be "uncomfortable" with Obama's alleged shift in position. And this was AFTER George Stephonopolous ran a video clip from April saying during the primaries exactly what he says today, and yet Halperin persists in pushing the RNC's bogus "Obama is a flip-flopper" narrative.

Mr. Halperin's parroting of RNC talking points is a disgrace to journalism.

John McCain has made 180-degree shifts on numerous issue, among the most egregious of which are: from agreeing to public funding to secure a lone to reneging (which not only broke his promise but may have broken the law), from a position opposing tax cuts for the rich to one favoring them, from opposing Bush's torture policy to voting for continuing them, from opposing off-shore drilling in May to supporting it in June.

The last flip-flop on off-shore drilling was reported on the Daily Show, which presented two video clips talking out of both sides of his mouth about off-shore drilling. You'll never find out facts like this from corporate media pundits like Halperin.

Obama's opponent is not John McCain, who is a weak and unappealing candidate. Obama's real opponent is the corporate media, which distorts everything he says and covers up every lie, gaffe, and flip-flop performed by McCain. That is the big story of this election, but of course, it's a story you're not going to learn about in the corporate media.

I heard Mark Halperin of TIME opine on the ABC's "This Week" show that Obama's use of the word "refinement" was a big deal and heavily insinuated that the RNC's attack on Obama for flip-flopping was valid and that voters would be "uncomfortable" with Obama's alleged shift in position. And this was AFTER George Stephonopolous ran a video clip from April saying during the primaries exactly what he says today, and yet Halperin persists in pushing the RNC's bogus "Obama is a flip-flopper" narrative.

Mr. Halperin's parroting of RNC talking points is a disgrace to journalism.

John McCain has made 180-degree shifts on numerous issue, among the most egregious of which are: from agreeing to public funding to secure a lone to reneging (which not only broke his promise but may have broken the law), from a position opposing tax cuts for the rich to one favoring them, from opposing Bush's torture policy to voting for continuing them, from opposing off-shore drilling in May to supporting it in June.

The last flip-flop on off-shore drilling was reported on the Daily Show, which presented two video clips talking out of both sides of his mouth about off-shore drilling. You'll never find out facts like this from corporate media pundits like Halperin.

Obama's opponent is not John McCain, who is a weak and unappealing candidate. Obama's real opponent is the corporate media, which distorts everything he says and covers up every lie, gaffe, and flip-flop performed by McCain. That is the big story of this election, but of course, it's a story you're not going to learn about in the corporate media.

I heard Mark Halperin of TIME opine on the ABC's "This Week" show that Obama's use of the word "refinement" was a big deal and heavily insinuated that the RNC's attack on Obama for flip-flopping was valid and that voters would be "uncomfortable" with Obama's alleged shift in position. And this was AFTER George Stephonopolous ran a video clip from April saying during the primaries exactly what he says today, and yet Halperin persists in pushing the RNC's bogus "Obama is a flip-flopper" narrative.

Mr. Halperin's parroting of RNC talking points is a disgrace to journalism.

John McCain has made 180-degree shifts on numerous issue, among the most egregious of which are: from agreeing to public funding to secure a lone to reneging (which not only broke his promise but may have broken the law), from a position opposing tax cuts for the rich to one favoring them, from opposing Bush's torture policy to voting for continuing them, from opposing off-shore drilling in May to supporting it in June.

The last flip-flop on off-shore drilling was reported on the Daily Show, which presented two video clips talking out of both sides of his mouth about off-shore drilling. You'll never find out facts like this from corporate media pundits like Halperin.

Obama's opponent is not John McCain, who is a weak and unappealing candidate. Obama's real opponent is the corporate media, which distorts everything he says and covers up every lie, gaffe, and flip-flop performed by McCain. That is the big story of this election, but of course, it's a story you're not going to learn about in the corporate media.

If the AP, no doubt courtesy of Liz "Sprinkles" Sidoti and her ilk, has decided to spend the rest of this campaign running hit pieces on Obama to try to boost their boss's (and I assume that anybody who gets coffee and donuts for somebody else on a regular basis is effectively working for that person) chances in November, what hope is there that the level of media hackery in this election isn't going to be like 2000 plus 2004 multiplied by about 100? Does the AP have something akin to an ombudsman or public editor who can be contacted about what is now a pattern of effectively writing on McCain's behalf?

If the AP, no doubt courtesy of Liz "Sprinkles" Sidoti and her ilk, has decided to spend the rest of this campaign running hit pieces on Obama to try to boost their boss's (and I assume that anybody who gets coffee and donuts for somebody else on a regular basis is effectively working for that person) chances in November, what hope is there that the level of media hackery in this election isn't going to be like 2000 plus 2004 multiplied by about 100? Does the AP have something akin to an ombudsman or public editor who can be contacted about what is now a pattern of effectively writing on McCain's behalf?

"..After a while, this instinct for self-preservation may evolve into a genuine crusade or a legitimate case of infatuation."

Call it a case of the "Stockholm syndrome"

What happened? We used to hold media people in awe?

That was before the Iraq war.

And how else can one hold in awe a media woman who assails Sen Obama for cordially addressing a lady as "sweetie" and yet the same wise media woman is gaga over McNasty when he calls a woman "a trollop" and the C-word?

Currently, the media is wondering if there was "sexism" in the media coverage of the primaries. Come next year, the media will bemoan "racism" in the GE coverage. But, they would not assess the state of "racism in the media coverage" now for fear of taking corrective action while it matters. Hades forbid.

And after the elections, we will back to the business of "an imperfect union" as usual.
--
"..(McCain is) haunted by the notion of honesty and about honor and truth. He wishes that he could speak the truth all the time. He doesn’t. .."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-aide-reporters-have-to-earn-special-interview-area-seat-on-new-straight-talk-airplane/
[And that is the kind of character the media would impose on our republic. Say, when did you hear an unkind word from them regarding Bush-Cheney-Rice axis?]

On the McCain's Neanderthalian candidacy:
-----
McCain is a man who aspires to lead the largest economy in the world and yet recently admitted that he doesn't know how to use a computer, the one modern tool shared by everyone from the post-industrial American work force to Middle Eastern terrorists to Pixar animators (of the Wall-E movie). Getting shot down over Vietnam may not be a qualification for president in 2008, but surely a rudimentary facility with a laptop is. What Mr. McCain has going for him is a press corps that often ignores or covers up such embarrassments.
The Republican’s digital ignorance is not a function of his age but of his intellectual inflexibility and his isolation from his country’s reality. - Frank Rich, NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06rich.html
-------
[Is gramps McNasty aware that our fighting forces have gone high tech - with aircraft whose functions are largely controlled by computer and remotely-controlled drones that drop bombs?]

Shorter Rusty: White Power!

Rusty, you're a sick bass-turd that laughs at the people suffering from the fires and the floods.

And I presume this is your benevolent god allowing the flooding - of those good, conservative, heart-land people in Iowa - and the fires in CA. How's that "free will" work, again? "You're free not to love me, but I'll punish you if you dont." Is that about right? Yep, I just want to jump on that bandwagon.

Rusty... When not posting drivel on Swampland, he's off polishing those jackboots, or bleaching his hood for the upcoming rally.

Stenographer Mike Allen reprints the McCain press release on his fantasy plan to balance the budget in four years. My favorite bamboozlement is this:

"The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

All of the Iraq spending and debt is off budget, so reducing Iraq spending/borrowing will not change the "official" budget deficit at all. Left unmentioned, of course, is the spending/borrowing plan for the 100 years stay...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html

Only in Republican fantasy land can you earn money to pay down a deficit by no longer borrowing money. Or is McCain planning to keep borrowing money to pay off the money we borrowed earlier?

I guess it's a curse of being in the reality-based community that I can't figure out how you pay down a debt with money you didn't have in the first place.

FastEddie:
"I guess it's a curse of being in the reality-based community that I can't figure out how you pay down a debt with money you didn't have in the first place."

And our MSM is a curse too: They won't help us figure it out - unless you drop a false hint that the crap emanated from the Obama camp.

THEN they will try to out do one another: The good reporters and networks' talking heads will pounce on it with all the urgency, fury and the hypocrisy that puts a Judas to shame.

[Can it be that the will of the MSM owners and/or the ruling elite shall prevail - here and in the banana republics?]

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار