We're off on a mission of national import!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2015

Halloween post on the morrow:
We're off on a mission of national import, engineered by Amtrak and the Great Pumpkin.

Our very special, award-winning Halloween post will appear tomorrow.

In the meantime, Wednesday's GOP debate has produced an intriguing moment. The basic question is this:

Which pundits are blind to a basic fact? Which pundits can't see, or can't bring themselves to say, that the CNBC moderators performed rather poorly?

Last night. Rachel Maddow couldn't see this obvious fact, joining many pundits at the new Salon. In certain circles, the thinking may go like this:

If the GOP complained about the moderators, then the moderators must have been good! This is primitive tribal thinking, the kind that leads to defeat.

In the next week, we hope to go into more detail about the way that debate was run. For ourselves, we think Candidate Cruz was basically right in his attack on the first round of questions.

Those silly, childish opening questions produced exactly zero public knowledge and were a gift to the GOP. Of course, people who want the discourse to be silly/childish possibly won't see that.

More on that topic to come. Tomorrow, our award-winning Halloween post! Action at a distance!

Taking a slightly different tack: In this morning's Washington Post, Catherine Rampell takes a slightly different approach to the questions which have arisen from the CNBC debate.

Rather plainly, the fiery pundit needs to wash her mouth out with soap. Regarding her substantive claims, we'd say she's right in her overall claims, wrong in some ways about what occurred in this week's debate.

142 comments:

  1. I expected the media to protect their own and not report just how bad and biased their CNBC colleagues were.

    Another example of the media protecting their own is the fairly favorable treatment of the new movie, "Truth," about Rathergate. An analysis commissioned by CBS showed beyond any reasonable doubt the falsity of the supposed Bush documents from the Texas Air National Guard. Producer Mary Mapes made a dreadful error in judgment when she relied on these documents. She was, appropriately, fired for this mistake. Yet the movie portrays Mapes as a heroine. "Truth" is like a movie about Watergate with Richard Nixon as the hero. Nevertheless, the media reviews have been fairly positive. In particular, the reviews haven't pointed out the unambiguous falsity of the documents.

    BTW if you're in doubt about the falsity of the documents, read the Report of the Independent Review Panel at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The documents were false. W shirking his National Guard duties, and not being in Alabama when he said he was? That's the absolute truth. Garry Trudeau has offered $10,000 to anyone who can definitively prove W was in Alabama when he says he was. No one has tried to collect.
      Must be because Americans don't care about money. LOL.

      Delete
    2. The best offering from Trudeau was that he mercifully ended his "Doonesbury” strip. Does Gary actually have $10K in U.S. currency or even CAD?

      Delete
    3. @ 350pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    4. "Going AWOL: Why did the media wait 7 months to reveal ‘truth’ about Bush’s National Guard service?" http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/going-awol-why-did-the-media-wait-7-months-to-reveal-truth-about-bushs-national-guard-service/

      cicero, it's "Garry," and let's compare your achievements to this:
      1975 Pulitzer Prize
      1977 Nominated for Academy Award for Animated Short Film
      1978 Jury Special Prize
      1994 Newspaper Comic Strip Award
      1995 Reuben Award

      Delete
    5. @Loudmilk

      Because it took CBS Producer Mary Mapes 7 months to find forged documents?

      Gary Larsen (he found one "r" sufficient) won the Reuben in 90 & 94. "The Far Side" was far superior to Trudeau's benighted far left scribbles.

      Delete
    6. @ 12:44pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    7. "The Far Side" was far superior to Trudeau's benighted far left scribbles."

      The 3 Stooges economic ideology was far superior to those of the current GOP candidates.
      That fact, also, doesn't excuse W's shirking his National Guard duties.

      Delete
    8. @2:27

      In a July 7, 1967 segment of "Firing Line," Groucho Marx told William F. Buckley, "The whole political left is the Garden of Eden for incompetence."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV8516duLVM

      Now all you have to do is prove Bush 43 was AWOL from the NG. Perhaps you could employ Mary Mapes as your researcher?

      Delete
  2. As Rampall's article illustrates, the media has the means to fight back when attacked. They need to do that, not because they have been insulted, but because the general public (viewing audience) needs accurate information in order to make an informed decision during elections. The media seems to be forgetting its responsibility to keep candidates honest via follow-up questions that strip away candidate lies, including the whopper about media bias.

    If anything, the media should be biased in the public interest. Accusing them of being biased liberal or conservative is akin to accusing them of holding bias for a particular candidate. The media needs to be neutral, which means holding ALL candidates accountable for their statements.

    It isn't whether the media attacks one or another candidate -- it is whether the media goes easy on any candidate. I agree with Rampall that they are going easy on too many candidates -- treating our election as entertainment instead of carrying out their duty to fully examine everything said.

    Liberals have been accused of chasing the post-modern bunny down the rabbit hole. It is conservatives who have introduced the concept that there is no such thing as truth, that the best lie is the big lie, and that the electorate is too stupid to demand the truth. We need to draw the line against that now, in this campaign. Benghazi was not a lie, but the whoppers being told by Republican candidates are definitely lies, big ones, that should not be tolerated by an active press in a democracy like ours. Lying is the biggest campaign issue in my opinion. I will not vote for a candidate who lies -- and that liar is not Clinton in my view. It is nearly every Republican at that last debate. Kasich, the debate's big loser (based on polls) seems to have told more truth than any of the others. What does that say about those Republican values?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The media is bias not to a candidate but to an ideology.

      "It is liberals who have introduced the concept that there is no such thing as truth, that the best lie is the big lie, and that the electorate is too stupid to demand the truth" *

      * See HRC/Obama White House blame the video for failed Middle East diplomacy.

      Delete
    2. Anon 11:15 wrote the media has the means to fight back when attacked.

      This has long been the case. E.g., Mark Twain said:

      Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.

      Delete
    3. Always check the source of quotes, especially those attributed to Mark Twain.

      Delete
    4. cicero,
      Of course the corporations who own the media are liberal. They've seen the disaster that is conservative ideology in practice. Why would anyone be biased towards those losers?

      Delete
    5. @ 1124pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    6. just for the record, cicero has yet to show a) that any particular claim made by Clinton about Benghazi is definitively known to be false and b) that she knew it to be false at the time she said it.

      Delete
    7. by the way cicero, Glenn Kessler, no friend to liberals, explains why you'll never establish that Clinton lied. and i assume that for consistency's sake, you'll be just as outraged over Rubio's dishonest attacks against Clinton as you used to be about Clinton's alleged dishonesty (yes, "used to be," since now you know better): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

      Delete
    8. @Loudmilk

      CNN's Smirking Smerconish and MSNBC Joe Scarborough, supposedly no friend to liberals, raved about HRC's performance at Benghazi committee and they didn't even bother to address HRC's conflicting stories to daughter, POTUS of Libya, PM of Egypt and the one that was for Americans and the international community.

      As far as Kessler's credibility, you might want to read this:

      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/who-checks-the-fact-checkers.php

      Delete
    9. @ 12:34pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    10. cicero thinks he can dismiss the facts Kessler lays out about Benghazi by merely linking to (ironically) a powerline blog entry about Kessler's (alleged) credibility issues. but for anyone who's actually interested in the pertinent facts about the question at hand, here they are:

      'The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

      The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

      (Morell’s testimony contradicts Rubio’s claim on CNN on Oct. 29, the morning after the debate, that “there was never a shred of evidence presented to anyone that this was spontaneous. And the CIA understood that.” On CBS, Rubio also claimed that it was “not accurate” that the CIA changed its assessment, which is also wrong.)

      Ironically, the CIA’s initial Sept. 12 executive update stated that “this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest.” But because the report had no intelligence to support it, that language was dropped as analysts developed a theory about a protest, the House panel report said.

      In all, CIA analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, both from the media and inside the intelligence community. The Washington Post even had a front page story on Sept. 12 about a protest preceding the attack, quoting among others, the Libyan deputy interior minister.

      Amazingly, the CIA analysts did not gain access to eyewitness accounts until Sept. 22, when the FBI first published an intelligence report on its interviews.

      The intelligence community “only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012,” the House report said.

      A similar conclusion was reached by the Senate Intelligence Committee (of which Rubio is a member) in its report on Benghazi: “Intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements.”

      In an article published in Politico in 2015, Morell wrote:

      “We believe that in Benghazi—over six hundred miles away—extremists heard about the successful assault on our embassy in Egypt and decided to make some trouble of their own, although we still do not know their motivations with certainty. Most likely they were inspired by the prospect of doing in Benghazi what their ‘brothers’ had done in Cairo…Still others might have been motivated by the video—although I should note that our analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks. Abu Khattala, a terrorist leader and possibly one of the ring leaders of the attacks, said that he was in fact motivated by the video.”' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

      Delete
    11. "Mike Morell admits he ignored guidance from the top CIA officer on the ground in Libya when putting together the flawed talking points, in favor of reporting from analysts thousands of miles away and not there."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrFeO-xI9I

      " Morell told members of Congress that the FBI was to blame for talking points that removed mention of terrorism and pointed the finger at the YouTube video. The FBI denied it and Morell changed his story but did not, at the time, acknowledge his own role in the revisions. When documents surfaced revealing more information, he was called to testify to Congress and admitted that he had, in fact, made significant changes that he had not disclosed when asked."

      "One example is the series of internal “talking points” drafts circulated among administration officials. Documents belatedly produced to Congress revealed that Obama advisor Ben Rhodes advised officials to blame the video, in part, “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

      “I think that is crossing the line between national security and politics,” Morell said to Baier in an interview this week."

      "(It is worth noting that Morell was repeatedly asked by members of Congress to provide details of the talking points and their drafts but, for reasons he may explain in his book, he did not at the time provide a full or accurate accounting and, in some instances, provided incorrect information.)"

      https://sharylattkisson.com/the-evolving-revolving-benghazi-story-from-mike-morell-and-white-house/

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. cicero, just admit it, you'll never show that Clinton lied about Benghazi. you've wasted yours and other people's time over a big fat nothing.

      1. even if the right-wing propagandists you quoted above gave a fair and balanced description of Morell's testimony (which they didn't), it wouldn't prove anything about whether Clinton lied.

      2. "Obama advisor Ben Rhodes advised officials to blame the video, in part, 'to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.'" But this is perfectly accurate! Notice it says "protests." The protests WERE due to the internet video, not policy. So why wouldn't the administration be justified in saying so?

      3. Sharyl Attkisson cannot be trusted to give a fair and balanced account of politically charged topics (especially Benghazi):

      a. http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/05/who-is-sharyl-attkisson-crazy.html

      b. http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/05/who-is-sharyl-attkisson-she-may-want.html

      c. she had to add the following addendum to the very article you quote:

      Bill Harlow, Morell’s co-author on the book, “The Great War of Our Time” replies to the above article with the following:

      “You cite Michael Morell’s previous testimony that mistakes made regarding Benghazi were not due to politics and contrast that with his statement aired by Fox News where he said that a statement in a White House document ‘is crossing the line between national security and politics.’

      “But the first statement, made in testimony before Congress, on April 2, 2014, referred to talking points drafted by the CIA at the request of Congress. The second statement is about internal White House talking points which were released under FOIA on April 18, 2014 and which had never been shared with the CIA or Morell until they were publicly released. Morell makes clear in his book that he believes THOSE talking points did cross the line.

      “As far as who changed what in the CIA-drafted talking points and why – Morell goes into that in great detail in his book. I would urge you and others to make your judgment from that rather than from snippets of edited interviews.”

      Delete
    14. @ Loudmilk

      "Sharyl Attkisson cannot be trusted to give a fair and balanced account of politically charged topics (especially Benghazi):" LM

      Emmy nominated Atkinson's liberal media creds:
      Capitol Hill correspondent for CBS
      News anchor for CNN

      Now all you have to do is dispute her reporting on Benghazi with actual facts. Relying on B.S. Howler blogging for anything other than his opinion is folly at best. You might as well link to your own posts on the YouTube video. How much time will you require to now check with HRC propaganda machine Media Matters to get your talking points? B.S. already used them as his source in the second blog post. Pathetic.


      Delete
    15. @Loudmilk

      Is that the best David Brock has to offer you? Next time get some facts to back up your left wing agenda before attempting to marginalize Sharyl Attkisson's reporting.

      Delete
  3. HRC's answer to GOP debate was to post video from her Benghazi testimony of her wiping dandruff off her shoulder.

    https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/659555444202070016

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as we all wipe the dandruff that is cicero off our shoulders here.

      Delete
    2. HRC 's own edited Benghazi tweet will make a beautiful GOP campaign ad.

      Just ask this question:

      Secretary Clinton, how did the death of your good friend Ambassador Steven's impact your agenda for Libya?

      Then play:

      https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/659555444202070016

      Delete
    3. You do not favor to your party when you display this kind of dishonesty.

      Delete
    4. Why would you do that cicero? Are you trying to deceive people into thinking she was reacting to the question you posed? Are you auditioning the Donald Segretti Ratfucker of the Year Republican Operative Award?

      Delete
    5. @mm

      No doubt you have the same objection to HRC deceiving people into thinking that her own edited video from Benghazi hearing is actually her reacting to the GOP debate. Perhaps HRC shouldn't play cute with her Benghazi testimony for the sake of a tweet.







      Delete
    6. This is how republicans respond to a tragic attack resulting in the deaths of four brave Americans. Politicize it.

      Use the bodies as props in their political games. Run political ads paid for by the StopHillary pac with the dead heroes speaking from the grave without the family's permission.

      Cicero fits right in. This is all a big game to him. How can he use it to leverage some form of political advantage.

      Horrid, revolting, shameless troll.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps your repugnant disgusting political party should not play games with a national tragedy, trying to ride the corpses of 4 American heroes to the White House.


      ****************************************************
      The committee’s leader, Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, has said that the committee’s report won’t be completed until (surprise, surprise) 2016, in the middle of the presidential race. In the rich history of Washington scandal mongering, we have seen few investigations more cynical and nihilistic than this one.
      ******************************http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2015/tilting_at_windmills/the_scandalization_of_braveryk057192.php?page=all#scandalization-of-bravery

      Delete
    8. @mm

      https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/659555444202070016

      Delete
    9. Cat got your tongue, asshole? How many dead Americans can you put in your next political ad, you foul ghoul?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. @mm

      See video:

      https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/659555444202070016

      "foul ghoul"...Good to see you are in the Halloween spirt

      Delete
    12. The big lie told over and over again, illustrated by your reprehensible lying over and over again on this issue, is a proven political technique. Your utter mendacity is mind boggling. Unfortunately, the GOP is all in on this. We'll see if it works.

      Delete
    13. @AC/MA

      Not just the GOP. PBS Judy Woodruff seems to be saying it doesn't matter HRC lied about the YouTube video while Yochi Dreazen says HRC's excuse for the two different stories was lame.

      JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Yochi Dreazen, did we learn anything more about how she made — how those decisions were made and her role in what finally happened?

      YOCHI DREAZEN: I think the most interesting moment by far was when Congressman Jim Jordan was saying to her, in some detail, that you, Secretary Clinton, told your family in one e-mail that this was an attack linked by al-Qaida, that you said in a phone call with an Egyptian leader that this was not something tied to an anti-Muslim video, and then saying, but the talking points coming out of the White House at the time were, this wasn’t al-Qaida and this was linked to this video. I thought that was the most effective and sort of new moment in the entire line of questioning. And her answer back wasn’t terribly strong. Her answer back was, they were still sifting intelligence. We were trying to sort our way through it. But she couldn’t quite give the direct answer why she was saying in an e-mail something very different than what was being said publicly.

      WOODRUFF: But, for the audience, why does it matter? Why did that — why does it matter whether she was saying one thing? Because she tried to say, well, I was trying to warn other countries. We didn’t want to see this thing happening anyplace else. -

      Delete
    14. OK I give up. Your recent revelation that Hilliary claimed her 4 grandparents were born overseas, when in fact only 3 of them had is the straw that broke the camel's back. I do have to wonder, though, why you hold back on that colossal whopper of hers that she was there when Auschwitz got liberated by the allies. What are you saving that one for?

      Delete
    15. @ 729pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. @AC/MA

      I made an error in reversing the numbers.. Only 1 of HRC's grandparents was an immigrant to the USA, not 3. Does that change your opinion on HRC's habitual lying?

      If you are going to ridcule Reagan at least use the correct concentration camp.

      Reagan's story about being at the liberation of Buchenwald is of course fantasy and the media delighted in reveling in lambasting Reagan for not knowing the difference between the real and the imagined. Reagan critics say such stories are indicative of Reagan's Alzheimer's Disease. Here is Edmond Morris' account of this story.

      "In the spring of 1945, Capt. Reagan, as the FMPU's intelligence officer, spent weeks processing raw color footage from the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. The images so burned into his brain that later in life - quite understandably - he imagined he had been there at Ohrdruf and Buchenwald. "

      Delete
    18. @ 12:21pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      The clue is that Cicero cannot seem to spell names and words properly and thinks that Americans call their past president "Willie". Only a Russian operatchik would make such mistakes.

      Delete
    19. Reagan critics said such memory lapses were symptomatic of his stupidity. Psychologists say that such lapses are more frequently in those with memory problems like those that occur in early stage Alzheimer's but are also found in people with normal memory, including Hillary Clinton, when she confused landing at Sarajevo with similar experiences elsewhere and seen in video (called a source monitoring error by memory researchers). Anyone can make such a mistake, but when Clinton does it, it is called lying. When Reagan does it, it is called beating up on a poor old man with incipient Alzheimer's without acknowledging the heroism involved in sitting out the war in Hollywood.

      Delete
    20. @1:12

      What were these occasions where HRC ever came under sniper fire that she confused with landing at Bosnia airport? For that matter, where has HRC ever even heard a shot fired in anger?

      HRC has a history of pathological lying.

      Reagan was a Captain in the U.S. Army., not a civilian. Many Americans who enlisted or were drafted never served overseas during WWII.

      Delete
    21. Cicero, you are outdoing yourself, that Reagan, bravely serving during WWII in Hollywood, saw some films about the concentration camps, and understandably concluded that he was an eye witness. Do you realize how idiotic you sound?And she has a "history of pathological lying???" I don't like the look of your Orwellian world

      Delete
    22. AC/MA

      Where did I characterize Reagan's service as "bravely'? Do you know how idiotic it is for Howler libs to deny HRC concocted a story about Benghazi for a political agenda.

      If you would take the time to notice the quotations, It is from Edmund Morris' article "Five myths about Ronald Reagan" printed in WaPo. You must have a problem with WaPo's Orwellian World.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403106.html

      Delete
  4. In accordance with the Clinton rules, the news story today is not that DiBlasio endorsed her, but how long it took him to do it. Any positive will be spun as negative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @11:49

      What are the positives of being endorsed by a mayor with a 44% approval rating?

      Delete
    2. His approval rating is higher with Democrats (53%) and African American voters. I doubt Clinton cares about the approval rating with Republicans, at least for the primaries.

      Delete
    3. No one of any party who is sane will be more likely, rather than less likely, to vote for Clinton after a DiBlasio endorsement.

      Delete
    4. And that can be said for just about any endorsement.

      The only thing that they are good for is when the "big names" start lining up behind one candidate, it's a pretty good indication that the race is over, or at least nearing its end.

      DiBlasio's endorsement, on its own, means nothing. But if other "big name" Democrats follow suit, then Sanders and OMalley are going to have a tough time finding the resources to conduct a national campaign.

      And that's not just advertising, folks. That's also paying staffers in every state for that all-important "ground game."

      Delete
    5. Clinton is from New York. Voters will be for her because of her activities as Senator there. She took NYC and NY State massively against Obama. DiBlasio's endorsement is symbolic. It is important because he is further to the left and cutting into Sanders territory, ideologically speaking. He is signaling that it is OK for the more liberal Democrats to get behind her.

      Delete
    6. I'm trying to figure out how many "further to the left" voters were waiting for the signal from the mayor of New York City.

      Delete
    7. OK, anon @3:27, you win.

      This is horrible news for Hillary Clinton. Now go away.

      Delete
    8. @mm

      Do Clintonistas consider the following "good" news for HRC?

      "FBI Director: ‘I’m Following Very Closely’ Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server" October 22, 2015

      FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill Thursday in front of the House Oversight Committee, where he told members he was following the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server “very closely.”

      “The FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server,” Comey said. “As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we are doing them. This is one I am following very closely and get briefed on regularly. I’m confident we have the people and resources to do it in the way I believe we do all our work, which is promptly, professionally, and independently.”

      Delete
    9. Hey cicero, does she look worried?

      Bwahahahaha!!!!

      Delete
    10. And cicero, when are you going to grow up? "clintonistas"??? WFT Is hillbilly heroin addict Rush Limbaugh your hero?

      Delete
    11. mm, where did I say it was horrible news for Hillary? If it means that other "big names" start lining up behind her, the race is pretty much over. But as far as convincing voters, it doesn't mean doo-doo to a tree.

      In and of itself, doesn't mean all that much. Go ask President Dean, who got Al Gore's early endorsement in '04.

      Delete
    12. @4:15, fair enough. I remember well when DiBlasio pointedly withheld his endorsement. It was big news and the usual suspects were tripping over themselves trying to get him on their programs just to hear him repeat that he was not yet endorsing her. I think even Scarborough had him on, just to drive home the point that DiBlasio would not give her his endorsement. It was exciting. The Village People couldn't get enough of him.

      As a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I can honestly say I am delighted. Maybe it's not going to change anybody's mind, but it tells me there is a momentum building for her.
      That's all.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. @mm

      @mm

      You mean these guys can't get enough of DiBlaso?

      http://www.thewhig.com/2013/12/19/village-people-star-doesnt-want-ymca-as-gay-olympic-anthem

      Delete
    15. @ 714pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  5. Fear not, Bob. The entire "media world" is all over CNBC's case for an astonishily bad debate. Of course, not that you won't pick through a handfull that feebly attempts to defend CNBC, and tell your poor rubes that's the way the entire "liberal world" is behaving.

    As for Rachel, in answer to the right-wing accusation that only their guys get "gotcha" questions, while the "liberal media" only asked fawning questions of the Democrats, she ran a whole series of "gotcha" questions that Anderson Cooper asked every member of the Democratic field.

    She also pointed out that Ted Cruz's rant about "why aren't you asking questions about the issues?" came in direct response to a question about the federal debt.

    But it's always good business for Republicans to rant about "liberal media bias", and once upon a time there was a guy named Bob Somerby who would take that notion entirely apart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This accusation of media bias is clearly a smokescreen to distract from the astonishingly bad performance of the candidates during the debate. For example, only 1 of 10 candidates actually answered the first question -- the rest gave opening statements or were otherwise unresponsive.

      Somerby doesn't have to point out that this is a ridiculous claim by Cruz and others. But the media itself did little to push back against the candidate misbehavior. For example, all were rude about not adhering to their time limits. Not simply by continuing to speak over the moderators, but by asserting their right to consume more time. They nearly told the moderators to shut up and let them talk. Cruz was most unpleasant about it. I find myself wondering how Republicans can confuse rudeness with leadership.

      I hate to say this, but when Maddow goes to the trouble of refuting the candidate criticisms, as you describe, she is buying into their complaint, legitimizing it. For example, no school teacher would engage in a discussion with a student about whether the exam questions were fair or not. He or she would simply point out that the student should have studied more. These Republicans didn't want to deal with issues. An issue-based question is not a "gotcha" unless you are unprepared to discuss issues. It is that simple and it doesn't take Somerby to say so. Maddow should have laughed at the silliness of the candidate behavior, not dignified it with a refutation.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but I don't remember this blog ever devoting itself to "taking apart" Republican lies.

      Delete
    3. OK, so let's go back into the time machine to the very early days of this blog. You know, back when Bob blamed "the media" and specifically "liberal pundits" for remaining silent and not running to the defense of Al.

      Using your logic, wouldn't that have "buying into their complaint" and "legitimizing" their cries of "liberal bias"?

      Here, you have Rachel Maddow of all people, doing exactly what Bob said the "liberal media" was cowardly for NOT doing a long time ago -- confronting a blatant lie with videotaped evidence.

      And somehow, it was wrong for her to do that?

      Delete
    4. Liberal pundits didn't fail to support Gore because of "liberal bias". They conducted a vendetta against Gore, aiding and abetting conservatives.

      The difference is that there was actually bias on the part of the media against Gore whereas there was no bias in the Democratic debate -- claiming there was is another conservative ploy. It was that ploy that was legitimized. Legitimizing the reality of the attacks against Gore would have been appropriate because they were real, not an empty claim of liberals against a media just doing its job.

      Maddow assists Republicans when she legitimizes their complaints, while pretending to defend Liberal interests.

      At heart is the fact that the same behavior in two different contexts can mean different things, have different effects. Life is complex that way. You need to think this through instead of noticing only the superficial similarities between two very different situations occurring in entirely different political contexts.

      Delete
    5. "They conducted a vendetta against Gore, aiding and abetting conservatives."

      That sure is Bob's line, and you sure repeated it well, conveniently forgetting the part that it was up to "liberals" in the media to defend the helpless Gore.

      So let's see, they stand accused of "aiding and abetting conservatives" when they don't speak out.

      And Maddow now stands accused of "legitimiz(ing) their complaints" when she does speak out.

      How interesting things are in Bob's World for his loyal fans.

      By the way, how does Maddow showing a string of Anderson Cooper "gotcha" questions to Democrats in any way, shape or form "legitimizes" the "complaint" that Democrats were asked only fawning questions?

      Cruz's diatribe sure played well to the studio audience, and to the party base who can't hear enough about "liberal bias."

      But if you follow your own advice and think this through, what exactly was he doing there? Trying to convice the rest of America of this "liberal bias"?

      Delete
    6. "Sorry, but I don't remember this blog ever devoting itself to "taking apart" Republican lies."

      Then take a trip to the archives and look up the names Bernie Goldberg and Ann Coulter.

      They cashed in on this longstanding Republican nonsense that dates back at least to Spiro Agnew.

      And the old Bob Somerby had a field day. Actually, several field days.


      Delete
  6. "They talk about the media to avoid issues." That's how the simpering media crowd tried to dismiss the criticism. Except we watched as Cruz was forbidden to answer the question he BEGGED to answer, once he finished telling the truth about that god-awful panel of idiot moderators.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He begged for twice the time allotted to him. He used his time to complain about the media then expected to be given more time to address the question. Great example of contempt for both the debate itself and the rules.

      Delete
  7. If the candidates were indignant over CNBC's poor performance Wednesday, think how enraged they would have been over an excellent one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jeeves

      Do you have any examples of Carl Quintanilla, John Harwood, and Becky Quick demonstrating they would ever be competent to serve as GOP debate moderators?

      Delete
    2. Well, they seem to understand economics better than the average bear, and this was supposed to be a debate on economic policy issues, for starters.

      Delete
    3. @ 143PM - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  8. Last night's debate, explained.

    The Moderators: Attempting to show how tough the were, they couched their questions (many of which indeed had important substance to them) in a layer of snark and hauteur.

    The Candidates: Reacting to the moderator's snark and hauteur, they ignored the questions' substance and attacked the moderators, to the great approval of the audience.

    The Winner: Anyone who avoided the entire thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. two nights ago.

      otherwise, pretty much spot on

      Delete
    2. I think the Republicans aren't used to seeing themselves the way anyone who is not a tea party enthusiast sees them. They interpreted that as "snark" instead of light-heartedness intended to take the sting out of some deservedly tough questions. How does anyone ask Trump whether he is serious or not, without offending his pseudo-sensibilities? But that is exactly what non-Trump supporters wonder about him (regardless of party affiliation).

      Republicans behave in a non-serious manner then get offended when people don't take them seriously. Really?

      Delete
    3. Too bad the moderators didn't take their job seriously.

      RUBIO: …you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.

      HARWOOD: No, I did not.

      John Harwood
      ✔ ‎@JohnJHarwood
      CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.
      6:08 AM - 14 Oct 2015

      The DNC has six debates. None hosted by FNC. What is DWS and HRC afraid of? "light-heartedness intended to take the sting out of some deservedly tough questions."?

      Delete
    4. @ 849pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    5. cicero's butt hurt about Harwood's (supposed) lie, but Rubio's lie doesn't seem to faze him. And Rubio is the one running for president:

      "Rubio claimed CNBC’s John Harwood was wrong that a Tax Foundation analysis of his tax plan found those in the top 1 percent of earners would get nearly twice the gain as those in the middle. Harwood was right, and that’s on a percentage basis." http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/factchecking-the-cnbc-debates/

      Delete
    6. Mike, your source, Faccheck.com provides arguments, not necessarily facts. As you accurately quoted, Rubio was citing a Tax Foundation analysis. The head of the Tax Foundation confirmed that Rubio was right.

      Factcheck.org did make a valid point that Harwood's comment was vague enough that it might also be correct or incorrect, depending on how it was interpreted. I don't think it helps the public understand the issue for the moderator to introduce that sort of ambiguous "correction".

      Delete
    7. Factcheck.com's discussion of Social Security was was particularly annoying to me as an actuary.

      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.

      First of all, "insolvent" means "unable to pay debts owed." When SS cannot pay 100% of benefits, they're insolvent.

      Second, the actuarial calulations showing that they could even pay 73% for several decades are overly optimistic. That's why the date at which the Trust Fund will be exhausted has been moving closer at each annual re-calculation.

      A worse comment by Factcheck.org was Social Security benefits are not in any imminent danger.

      Social Security is supposed to provide security. One shouldn't wave away the fact that benefits might not be fully paid with the phrase "not in any imminent danger".

      Analogy: A man fell off the top of the Empire State Building. As he passed the 50th floor a window was open.Someone inside yelled, "How are you doing?" The falling man replied, "So far, so good."

      Delete
    8. Faccheck.com provides arguments, not necessarily facts.

      Bwahahahaha!!!!

      Delete
    9. Worrying about the "insolvency" of the social security system is like complaining because your bank takes your cash deposits and loans them out to other people at interest. Will your money be there when you need it if the bank has given it to someone else? It seems like common sense to worry about that (and about social security) but is your money really in any danger?

      If David, as an actuary, worries about this, I seriously worry about his competence as an actuary.

      Delete
    10. Shorter David in Cal: Christie is allowed to lie because:

      David, Christie LIED. Just admit it.

      First of all, "insolvent" means "unable to pay debts owed." When SS cannot pay 100% of benefits, they're insolvent.

      Did Factcheck.com deny that is the definition? Where?


      ******************
      Those trust funds have enough to keep paying full benefits until 2034, according to the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds’ most recent report.

      “Interest income and redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury, will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual aggregate cash-flow deficits until 2034,” the trustees report says.

      Delete
    11. Anon 10:11. Not an apt analogy. SS is pretty much pay as you go. They take workers' (and employers') money and give it to retirees. (The Trust Fund is relatively insignificant.) When someone like Bernie Madoff operates a private fund on a pay-as-you-go basis, the fund is called a "Ponzi Scheme" and Madoff is put in prison.

      If you're a working person, the money you contributed to SS is gone. You hope that after you retire, SS will take money from working people and give it to you. Problem is, there won't be enough working people. People are living longer and longer. The ratio of working people to retirees is going down. With fewer people paying in for every person receiving benfits, SS won't be able to afford to pay you the level of benefits that you're paying me and my wife.

      "Stein's Law" applies - If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

      Delete
    12. (The Trust Fund is relatively insignificant.)

      The trust funds at the end of 2014 held nearly $2.8 trillion in Treasury bonds.

      Delete
    13. mm Did Factcheck.com deny that is the definition? Where?

      It's somewhat ambiguous, but I think most people would read Factcheck's word "but" to mean that Christie was wrong about SS becoming insolvent. After all, they're supposedly checking facts, rather than arguing about the magnitude of the pending insolvency.

      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent...But even after the trust funds are exhausted...the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits.

      (Factcheck was correct about how long the Trust Fund will last according to current SS Trustees' Report. However, as I said, SS has been overoptimistic in their calculations. It won't be surprising if the 7-10 year estimate turns out to be closer to what actually happens.)

      Delete
    14. You'll have to excuse DinC right now. His party is in the midst of having a nervous breakdown and Reince Priebus is looking for his balls.

      Delete
    15. So you're so full of shit David.

      The answer is no, they never challenged that definition of insolvency. The issue was the date. And Christie fucking LIED. Deal with it.

      Delete
    16. David, according to your explanation, social security is insolvent now (more retirees, less workers today than when I paid in), and yet I still keep receiving my full check. Why is that? Why would it not be true for others?

      Delete
    17. Davy is so full of shit, when he pees turds come out. Regarding the Harwood/Rubio exchange, he engages in misdirection. Read carefully, Davy: "Rubio claimed CNBC’s John Harwood was wrong..." Got it? And here is more analysis of Rubio's dishonesty: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/30/9642850/marco-rubio-john-harwood

      It would take a small book to fully sort through your bullshit about S.S. But just to hit a couple of highlights . . . regarding "insolvent" -- this is semantics and sophistry. "Insolvent" means different things to different people. Ask a hundred people at random what they think "S.S. will be insolvent in 7 or 8 years" means, and I promise you most people won't know that the meaning of it is compatible with the fact that "the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades." How can you read Somerby's blog consistently and still take the side of people who use misleading scare words like "insolvent," "bankrupt," "flat broke," etc. to advance an agenda? You said of someone's analogy above, "Not an apt analogy." If that ain't the master of bad analogies calling someone else's analogy bad . . . . You think someone seconds away from death is an apt analogy for the following: "S.S. will be able to pay full benefits for 14 to 19 years, and after that 73% of full benefits." That's so dumb it hurts. But it's nowhere near as excruciatingly dumb as your analogy about Bernie Madoff. If fact, that's so dumb, I think I'm done giving you the satisfaction of a reply.

      To anyone else who might happen upon this discussion, please know that no matter what scare words and line of "reasoning" people like David utter, when all is said and done, the following remains true: as long as Republicans don't fuck with it, with no changes to it Social Security will be able to pay the vast majority of its scheduled benefits indefinitely into the future. And Social Security can never go "broke" in the sense of being unable to pay benefits, because the money for Social Security comes from a dedicated tax on everyone who earns a paycheck. So as long as there is an American workforce, there will be Social Security (unless, once again, the Republicans scare everyone into destroying it with bullshit arguments).

      Delete
    18. mm The trust funds at the end of 2014 held nearly $2.8 trillion in Treasury bonds.

      Yes, $2.8 trillion is a lot of money, but it's small compared with the unfunded liability.The unfunded liability of SS, Medicare and Medicaid is well over $100 trillion. This is the amount a private insurance company would have to hold in reserves if it had sold policies providing the same coverage as these three programs.

      Looked at another way, in 2015, SS will pay total benefits of $870 billion. Only a small portion of that money will have come from the Trust Fund. The great bulk of it is money paid into SS by workers and their employers during 2015.

      Delete
    19. Unlike SS, the Department of Defense is insolvent today.
      Oops. Can't defend the nation without some more tax revenue coming in.
      So, DinC, what'll it be?
      Are you willing to chip-in more of your hard-earned dollars to protect the nation, or should we just kill the DoD altogether?

      Delete
    20. Anon 4:33, my forecast is that costs of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and interest on the National Debt will continue to rise sharply. They will crowd out other government programs, including defense and social programs. The political battles will be brutal, with victory going to the groups most politically powerful, not the most deserving or needy.

      E.g., retirees like me have gotten more generous SS benefits than today's workers will receive when they retire (I predict). It's unfair to cut benefits for current workers, but not for retirees. If anything, it should be the reverse, since we retirees got several years worth of benefits at levels that today's workers won't get. But, the various proposals to cut SS do just that. The reason is that we seniors have AARP as an enromously powerful lobby, so we will come out on top. The workers paying our SS benefits aren't are rich as we retirees are, and their benefits won't be as generous as ours, but they'll continue to pay assessments to keep our benefits without reduction.

      Delete
    21. 11:58,
      Today's workers will see those benefits if we can figure out a way to stop business from stiffing them for their labor.
      Any ideas on how to do it? Or will they get away with it because victory goes to " the groups most politically powerful, not the most deserving or needy"?

      Delete
  9. You can't afford to take time off! We need to hear how Hillary's lying about DOMA is just more irrational Clinton-hatred!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First explain why changing your mind about something constitutes lying. Then explain why being a political pragmatist instead of an idealist is necessarily a bad thing. People may decide to vote for her or not, on that basis, but hatred seems a bit extreme.

      Delete
    2. She didn't change her mind! She and Bill had doubts about DOMA back in the 90s! That's the story now! She lies even when the truth would be easier!
      That's why Bob can't afford a day off.

      Delete
    3. So tell me something that you may have changed your mind on over 20 years. Or did you also know everything then, as well?

      Delete
    4. Hillary Clinton was not President in the 90's. How do you know what her opinion was or what she would have done.

      President Clinton was on record criticizing DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary."

      The bill was passed in a republican controlled congress with a veto proof majority of the votes including many dems.

      Precisely what was Hillary Clinton's role in all of this?


      ********************************
      The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress. On July 12, 1996, with only 65 Democrats and then Rep. Bernie Sanders (Independent - Vermont) and Rep. Steve Gunderson (Republican - Wisconsin), in opposition, 342 members of the U.S. House of Representatives -- 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats -- voted to pass DOMA.[21][22] Then, on September 10, 1996, 84 Senators -- a majority of the Democratic Senators and all of the Republicans -- voted in favor of DOMA.[23][24] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican Congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.[25][26]
      *************************************https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

      Delete
    5. @mm

      "Hillary Clinton was not President in the 90's." mm

      Willie and HRC shared executive power. “Buy one, get one free,” Bill famously bragged during the 1992 presidential campaign.

      Delete
    6. Anon 1:48/2:16 suddenly shut up. Game, set and match in record time.

      Delete
    7. cicero is like some street thug with a can of spray paint, wandering around fouling up the place wherever he can. Never a positive word. A perfect representative of the modern republican party - totally anti-social and diseased.

      Delete
    8. "Willie and HRC shared executive power."

      Ummmm, no they didn't. Hillary was unquestionably one of his closest advisors, but only in Wingnutistan does that mean she "shared executive power."

      Delete
    9. She's trying to pretend that she and Bill were opposed to DOMA back in the 90s, when the evidence is contrary. Her lack of an official role in the legislation is irrelevant. She's an habitual liar.

      Delete
    10. @ 4:18

      "Closest advisors"? First Lady HRC headed up the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. HRC's leading role in this project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse.[

      Willie must be a taxpaying citizen in "Wingnutistan" as he believed FLOTUS was sharing executive branch power.

      Delete
    11. So don't vote for her, 4:30.

      Delete
    12. Again, heading up a task force is only "sharing executive branch power" way out there in Wingnutistan.

      Delete
    13. I am @2:16 but not 1:48. I had to go do something else for a while.

      Delete
    14. @4:36

      Ok. FLOTUS HRC never ordered a cruise missile strike on Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory.

      Delete
    15. @ 835pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  10. If there's one thing republicans are good at, it's having a drama queen hissy fit childish tantrum.

    ************************
    The Republican National Committee has pulled out of a planned Feb. 26 debate with NBC News after widespread criticism of this week's CNBC debate from both the party and campaigns. "CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack.
    ******************************

    Good lord, what a bunch of whining babies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Priebus is covering his butt because he's got a full-blown revolution on his hands from the candidates themselves.

      I'm kind of glad to see this whole "early debate" format starting to collapse under its own weight, if that is indeed what has happening.

      And this year's huge GOP field has a lot to do with it, not the questions asked. You got no one polling really well, and a bunch of candidates relagated to the "kids' table" debate, and a bunch more not polling 5 percent invited to the main stage.

      So you got 11 people out there over two hours with commercial breaks. That gives every candidate, if time were divided equally, less than 10 minutes to express their thoughts on every issue under the sun.

      And it's not divided equally, so many of those candidates are shut out completely -- even worse than if they were at the "kids' table" debate.

      Delete
    2. True, mm, the Republicans don't want to have a debate conducted by flaming liberals. Similarly, the Democrats don't want their debate to be conducted by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

      Delete
    3. Flaming liberals! All three moderators host programming on a Business Chanel, plus you had Senior Personal Finance Correspondent Sharon Epperson, on-air editor Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, host of “Mad Money.”

      In wingnut land these are "flaming liberals".

      They are in their own bubble world. This is why it is impossible to communicate with them anymore.

      Your leading candidate got into a fight with FOX NOOZ!! after the first debate for the love of god.

      Delete
    4. So what are Republicans afraid of, David? Hillary certainly wasn't afraid of sitting front of a panel of 'flaming conservatives" for 11 hours and answer the same questions over and over and over again.

      In fact, she came out of that looking pretty good. Especially by comparison.

      Delete
    5. "Similarly, the Democrats don't want their debate to be conducted by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity."

      I wouldn't be so sure about that, David. I think all three Democratic candidates would agree to that debate in a heartbeat.

      Three against two, and there isn't a single brain between the two.

      Delete
    6. They want to be leader of the free world, yet go crying to their mommy after a friggin' 2 hour debate hosted by John Harwood. You can't make this shit up.

      Delete
    7. @mm

      HRC wants to be leader of the free world, yet she is whining to her supporters about being the victim of Bernie Sanders' sexism. HRC is rather adept at making this shit up.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRhz45B5omk

      Delete
    8. can't you think of anything original you ditto head?

      Delete
    9. Yup. Lookout ISIS, the Republicans who are butt-hurt by questions from TV personalities will fight them for the sake of civilization. LOL.

      Delete
    10. @4:10

      I'm sure ISIS is recoiling in fear at POTUS Obama's ban on the use of the word "combat" to refer to U.S. military forces presence back in Iraq.

      Delete
    11. I'm sure ISIS is recoiling. Period.

      Delete
    12. @4:32

      Your assurance does not jibe with the theater map. What is recoiling are the 52 U.S. military 155mm M198 howitzers ISIS captured.

      http://www.understandingwar.org/project/isis-sanctuary-map

      Delete
    13. Hmmmm, let's look at that very complicated "theater map."

      I see ISIS on one side, and the U.S., Russia, Iraq, Iran, the Kurds and two sets of Syrians on the other.

      And yes, ISIS did capture 53 U.S.-made howitzers from the Iraqis way back in July. What's your point? That the U.S. shouldn't be arming the Iraqis?


      Delete
    14. @irishguy

      POTUS Obama spent half a billion training 5 anti-ISIS fighters. During his 60 Minutes interview he boasted that he knew training Syrians was doomed to fail.

      The U.S. shouldn't be arming ISIS. Did you miss this story?

      "The Islamic State has released a new video in which it brags that it recovered weapons and supplies that the U.S. military intended to deliver to Kurdish fighters, who are locked in a fight with the militants over control of the Syrian border town of Kobane."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/21/u-s-accidentally-delivered-weapons-to-the-islamic-state-by-airdrop-militants-allege/

      Delete
    15. @ 709pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  11. Republican National Committee accusses CNBC of conducting the debate in bad faith. In addition to repeating the points made by Cruz, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said that CNBC failed to fulfill several promises:

    “CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on ‘the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.’ That was not the case.”

    “Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cicero's blowup dollOctober 30, 2015 at 10:45 PM

      Whiny, pathetic troll! Next time, wipe your shoes before entering the living room where the adult congregate,.

      Delete
  12. David, I am sure they monitored time carefully. Now you tell me what happened with CNBC moderators tried to enforce the time limits.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This column shows how Bob's irrational hatred of Rachel Maddow has now turned him into a soulless hack.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regardless of whether Rampell is right or wrong, she is very young and Ivy educated. It is a shame Somerby neglected to point this out to his readers, who have every reason to expect to be better infomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Russians are pretending to be liberals or conservatives in blog comments, might they not also pretend to be idiots and obsessive trolls like 1:01? I think it is possible because the intent to disrupt is the same regardless of the excuse for doing so.

      Delete
    2. Say, @ 1:18 exactly how does a comment made after most others, and which actually addresses one of the media figures who is the subject of the blogger's discourse, disrupt anything?.

      Delete