RWer spin, Chuck Hagel and the art of the smear
AP Photo
An interesting window opened this week into the character-assassination effort against former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense.
One of the underlying lies in the game is that Hagel may have accepted money for a speech to “Friends of Hamas,” a terrorist-sounding group. Dan Friedman, a reporter for the New York Daily News, first asked the question as a bit of snarky humor during a conversation with a source on Capitol Hill, then raised it again in a snarky email to the same person.
Friedman wasn’t serious. There is no such thing as “Friends of Hamas.” But the next thing he knew, it was plastered all over Breitbart.com, a a RWer-spun “news” site. Here’s part of what they wrote:
Friedman laid this whole saga out in a column Tuesday.
Now Brietbart’s editor, Ben Shapiro, is defending his site’s story under the curious logic that it doesn’t matter if the underlying rumor is true or not. As long as it’s true that the lie was spread to Breitbart, the story is a solid one. And he’s also calling Friedman “a hack.”
“The story as reported is correct,” Shapiro insisted [on Raw Story]. “Whether the information I was given by the source is correct I am not sure.”
Thursday morning, Breitbart’s top three listed stories were devoted to smearing Hagel. And they also had a big and strident defense of their “Friends of Hamas” smear. It blames the “media” of course.
When you analyze what occurred, there are similarities to what happened with the “intelligence” the Bush administration cooked up on Saddam Hussein pursing uranium ore from Niger (ostensibly for nuclear weapons development) as justification for the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Somebody had fed this lie to various intelligence agencies prior to the war. The intelligence services didn’t believe it. Nonetheless, it was true that somebody had dished it. This ultimately turned up in President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech as “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
But the Brits hadn’t “learned” any such thing. “Learning” is not the same as “hearing.” The former requiring analysis and understanding. The latter requires only noise.
You see the process here? You take an absolute falsehood — it doesn’t matter how ridiculous it is — spread it as a rumor, then report the existence of the rumor. Then when you get criticized for that, you furiously cry “It’s true the rumor existed!” and deny any responsibility for the rumor’s underlying truth, while at the same time spreading the lie anew.
That gets the smear out there for people who want to use it as a justification to greater ends. Like a war that cost trillions of borrowed dollars and thousands of American soldiers’ lives and limbs.
Or the character assassination of a former Republican Senator and decorated war hero who’s been nominated to be secretary of defense by a Democratic president.
Note from Dan: This post has been updated to correct the office Chuck Hagel has been nominated for.
February 21, 2013 - 10:36 AM
Hagel said the State Department was under the control of Israel.
http://freebeacon.com/report-hagel-said-state-department-controlled-by-israel/
Rather ironic that Hagel is refusing to release information.
“But the Brits hadn’t “learned” any such thing.”
Proof please.
Hagel is the nomination for secretary of state?
Could have sworn John Kerry has already filled that post…..
Get a grip on reality Dano. Your left wing views are blinding you from the facts….
” An interesting window opened this week into the character-assassination effort against former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of state.”
What shoddy “journalism”…..
It’s amazing just how determined the GOP is on virtually every level to disrupt and retard this country. Absolutely no interest in working in any manner or form towards improving any situation, instead solely focused of worsening them.
Cue the tangents being used for excuses…
Ooops! You’re correct, BobH. It’s secretary of defense, not state. That mistake is corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
What is it they say about stopped clocks?
What they say about stopped clocks is that they are right nore often than left wingers are.
Quit being blinded by the talking points….
It’s reassuring to know that Dan is aware that only libs can be smeared so that he can keep his perfect record for never spotting a smear against a conservative. (think Cuccunelli)
BTW Dan,
Better tell the BBC that the Brits hadn’t learned “any such thing”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2278019.stm
They were the ones reporting it also.
Oops, more media stuff. But we all know the BBC is far right of even Fox news…..
Dan Casey | February 21, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Ooops! You’re correct, BobH. It’s secretary of defense, not state. That mistake is corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
What is it they say about stopped clocks?
Didn’t BobH make a mistake once. Something having to do with Bedford?
Having studied your link Henry, it is clear that Mr. Hagel may or may not have said that the U.S. State Department was under the control of the Israel. The statement is based upon the recollection of someone who attended the presentation. Having taught doctoral level seminars to really bright people, I can tell you that I have been misquoted more times than I can count. I can also tell you that I have made at least 20 speeches a year on a variety of topics to a variety of groups. On an annual basis I clean out my files, both paper & electronic, in order to force myself to present fresh material regarding the topics upon which I’ve been invited to speak. Fresh material also permits me to change my mind when I learn and am exposed to new material on the subject. As a result, I don’t have speeches I gave two or more years ago.
Bottom line on Hagel is that the Republicans haven’t forginven him for not towing the party line on Iraq and for making critical statements about Pres. Bush II. The opposition doesn’t have anything to do with Israel or Iran. It’s all a smokescreen because he didn’t get in line and follow the party over the cliff.
#6 RM, you’re exactly correct as to the ‘real’ reason for the GOP anchor thrown at Hagel. Well, that and the fact that they figure every week they keep one of Obama’s appointees from serving is one less week he can change the status quo.
The Iraq snit is heaviest with old man McCain. He’s really twisted over it.
crooked road,
McCain seems, to me, to be troubled by MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder. He doesn’t seem to know, from one day to the next, which John McCain he is.
Terps, smears are lies disguised as facts. Actual facts are not smears. They’re fair game.
I have not smeared Cuccinelli. It’s a fact that solicited a $50,000 campaign donation to his attorney general’s campaign from a grifter with a stolen identity who later conned the entire General Assembly into passing a law to help him continue swindling Virginians. It’s a fact that he defended the propriety of Bobby Thompson’s donations long after most other Virginia politicians (who got, at most, less than 1/10th of Cuccinelli’s total haul from Thompson) were running away from them.
It’s also a fact that he took a $1,000 donation from a gun shop (and online Concealed Carry Institute) owner, then successfully sponsored legislation that would benefit that owner. The law denied Virginia judges the discretion to reject the silly online handgun training as proof of “competence” for a concealed carry certificate.
It’s also a fact that he’s waged fruitless and Quixotic legal battles against the Obama administration, the EPA and the University of Virginia. These have cost taxpayers, particular in the UVa case. That cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There are more facts that reflect negatively on Cuccinelli, too. I’ve just scratched the surface on them.
It
He certainly seems to have gone off the rails in the last year or two. I guess it’s because he realized he’s pretty irrelevant as far as ‘history’ goes, so he’s just determined to rant about anything that gets him attention. I remember the John McCain who was a ‘maverick’, who delighted in staying out of step with the national GOP mantra. That guy wanted to be President. Once he saw the American public wouldn’t elect him, EVER, he turned into Gran Torino McCain, yelling at people as though he’d earned the right.
BobH, did you read your own link? It references a 1986 deal between Iraq and South Africa that America gave a green light to. The story has nothing to do with yellowcake from Niger, which is what the Bush administration’s false allegation was.
This is simply more desperate, after-the-fact backpedaling by the crowd that’s trying to retroactively justify an unjustifiable war.
“The deal had been signed in 1986 and the uranium delivered in 1988. An unnamed South African intelligence official was cited by the programme as saying that the US Government approved the deal.
“The story is true,” he told Correspondent. “About 50 kilograms were sold to the Iraqis. The Americans gave the green light for the deal.”
Whatever the BBC report said, it had little to nothing to do with the known-to-be-false allegations underpinning the Iraq war.
Well Bob H, since you trust the BBC so much:
–
“The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
–
Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.
–
And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 July, 2003, 06:31 GMT 07:31 UK
Oh dear. This in inconvenient
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/07/plames_lame_game.html
“The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq.”
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
Pooor old John McCain, had he been president, Hagel would have been a good man ofr the job, but since Obama appointed him, well, he’s not so sure. Or one minute, the GOP resistance is just payback for Hagel bad mouthing the Iraq war then no, what he meant to say was Hagel has some things that need to be looked at. One the one hand, Hagel is a good friend, on the other, well, we jsut need to look further. Once Hagel was a maverick like John McCain, now Hagel remains the maverick and McCain, well, he just remains.
”
Dan Casey | February 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Terps, smears are lies disguised as facts. Actual facts are not smears. They’re fair game.
I have not smeared Cuccinelli. It’s a fact that solicited a $50,000 campaign donation to his attorney general’s campaign from a grifter with a stolen identity who later conned the entire General Assembly into passing a law to help him continue swindling Virginians. It’s a fact that he defended the propriety of Bobby Thompson’s donations long after most other Virginia politicians (who got, at most, less than 1/10th of Cuccinelli’s total haul from Thompson) were running away from them.
It’s also a fact that he took a $1,000 donation from a gun shop (and online Concealed Carry Institute) owner, then successfully sponsored legislation that would benefit that owner. The law denied Virginia judges the discretion to reject the silly online handgun training as proof of “competence” for a concealed carry certificate.
It’s also a fact that he’s waged fruitless and Quixotic legal battles against the Obama administration, the EPA and the University of Virginia. These have cost taxpayers, particular in the UVa case. That cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There are more facts that reflect negatively on Cuccinelli, too. I’ve just scratched the surface on them”
OK DANO
Glad to see your taking a balanced approach to Cuccinelli. How foolish of me to have thought that you were TOTALLY OBSESSED with Cucc and hell bent on his destruction.
McCain = Dementia?
#17 Deb, not dementia, just bruised ego and the realization that he is irrelevant unless he’s clowning for Fox sound bytes.
Terps,
Perhaps you can understand it this way:
When a pro baseball player is has batted .115 for three season in a row, it’s not a smear for a sportswriter to call him a weak hitter. It’s factual. It’s not “unbalanced” to fail to note that he’s batting .675. It would be a lie to write that.
As an elected politician and public official, Cuccinelli has bounced from eyebrow-raising controversy to scandal to witch hunt to cause so lost it amounts to folly. It’s true that he has a hardcore base of gunner/TPers (they are not necessarily the same crowd, but in some cases they overlap). But his words and deeds are not aligned with the majority of Virginians.
Oh ! When I saw the word “SMEAR” I thought the topic was Robert Bork. Or at least Clarence Thomas. I would have been interested in Sarah Palin. This is just about some Jew-hater of no consequence.
I still do not see why a communist gets a daily column at the Times and never is there a line from a libertarian. At least change the name to the Havana Times.
Henry, what is REALLY “inconvenient” is that if President Obama (or Clinton, or Susan Rice) says something and then later says something different, after “knowing what we now know”, all are still called a liar.
–
I will not grant to Bush, what you all refuse Obama.
–
“Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.
–
Fleischer: Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.
–
Rice: What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech — but that’s knowing what we know now.“
” But his words and deeds are not aligned with the majority of Virginians.”
Tell me again Dan, what percent of the vote did Cuccinelli carry in ’09? You may like to believe the statement above, but the FACT is, he carried 58% of the vote.
“Terps, smears are lies disguised as facts”
Oh, you mean like most of the crap the Obama campaign and the DNC flung at Romney during the most recent presidential campaign? Thanks for clearing that up, Dan. So it would seem that “smearing” is not the exclusive purview of the right, eh?
The Romney campaign would have created an ad about this blasting Obama
because Ford makes the ecoboost engine for Europe in Spain.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/ford-engine-idUSL1N0BL54L20130221?feedType=RSS&feedName=cyclicalConsumerGoodsSector&rpc=43
peppers ferry, great stuff!!! Always clowning around.
I don’t think any sentient being can claim that “smearing” is “the exclusive purview” of any party or organization, with the exception of the partisan “media” outlets and their talking heads. It is not possible for FOX to speak to an issue without denigrating Democrats and Liberals and it is not possible for MSNBC to speak to an issue without denigrating Republicans and Conservatives. It is not possible for Limbaugh to be honest or non-partisan. Then you get into the literal hit websites like weasel zippers, Daily KOS, and breitbart and chat rooms/blogs for the airing of all things ugly and pretty soon no one will speak with integrity or credibility in your opinion.
–
People who want to speak with some level of integrity and credibility, make the effort to find sources and information that is correct, not because it agrees with your POV or party but because it is telling the truth. Sadly, even the truth is not immune to spin. “Where you sit, determines where you stand” and nothing proves that better than a blog.
–
If Romney et al had not also “smeared” Obama et al, you might have a claim against “smearing”. You don’t.
–
If you keep coming here expecting Dan to tell your “truth” instead of his own, you are going to stay disappointed. Thanks be to God!
The lies are atrocious….If the Liberal `way` is such a wonderful thing, why does Obama and crew continue to lie to the American people ? Seems that the people would totally embrace such a wonderful thing ! “My, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve“.
The fact that Hagel doesn’t follow the current “My country right or wrong” view of Israel popular among conservatives (with “My country” being Israel of course) is reason enough for them to DQ him from the position. Add to that his criticism of the neo-con mindset of agressively intervening abroad militarily and the right wing will do almost anything to stop him, but his views are not that far out to most Americans and he will likely be confirmed despite whatever smears the right can dream up.
Don’t look now Awood, but the people don’t seem real keen on any total “embrace” of that “wonderful thing” you are peddling either.
Part of a book I’m reading now recaps how the Israelis allowed Lebanese Christians to slaughter Muslims in refugee camps in the early 1980s. Stood by and watched them kill women and children for two days. Israelis might be our best friends over there but…
Sandi, I won’t even begin to try to argue the integrity or objectivity of Limbaugh or any of the other things you named. I don’t frequent any of those sites or listen to Limbaugh. I’ve said repeatedly he is a blatantly biased blowhard. They also don’t try to hide it and everyone knows what they are. I am more troubled by the biased outlets operating as entertainment venues but portraying themselves as “News” or “journalists”. There was a time when the news was limited to the newspapers and the three major networks. In those days, the news divisions were never expected to be profitable. They were believed to be necessary and to serve a greater good in society. They spent money, they didn’t make it. More importantly they REPORTED the news, they didn’t MAKE it. Today, we should be better informed with 24 hour news channels and the never ending news cycle, but we aren’t. Instead we are spoon fed partisan crap based on the bias of the media.
The only part of your post I really disagree with is your apparent willingness to accept this lack of journalistic integrity as a given. I know Dan’s personal biases guide his life and opinions, as is true for all of us. I also know this is a “column” that should not be mistaken for actual news. However, I am troubled by his constant feigned outrage at all the bad things the evil Republicans do when he knowingly turns a blind eye to the EXACT same behavior from liberals. I also don’t think a modicum of objectivity or integrity is too much to ask from anyone in the media. When “the media” became a money-making entertainment industry, society suffered. And even though Dan’s work is not “news”, there is an implication that the column and subsequent blog conversations are meant to inform people about issues. When the moderator, who is afforded more credibility by virtue of his position (whether or not it is actually deserved) chooses to be so blatantly biased, the people participating don’t come away more informed. In fact, they may be prone to be less informed as they have been encouraged to form an opinion based on only one side of each argument. This is “reality TV” at its worst and real journalists, if they could see what has become of their profession, would roll over in their graves.
Chuck, if you believe my post implied any such thing as a “willingness to accept this lack of journalistic integrity as a given” or that I said it was the normal state of all media then you have a reading comprehension issue.
–
I think it is fair to say that everyone’s “personal biases guide his life and opinions” but bias, in and of itself is not the same thing as not being honest or lacking integrity and credibility. They are not mutually exclusive. Never have been.
–
Sometimes Dan’s columns are news, dispersed with opinion and fact, but still news, but often they are his opinions on an event or issue. But again, having an opinion or specific POV is not what makes anyone “wrong”.
–
There is no “outrage” and nothing is so much “feigned” as it is an effort to match the level of right wing posts he receives.
–
Some of you have no clue when you are being goaded and some of you have no clue when you are being a parrot. That is simply the truth.
–
There is no point in having an opinion or expressing it, if you have to level the playing field with “equal time” and virtually no opinion or column writer on earth does so. Does that seriously not register?
–
The point of a column or blog post is to get people talking, refuting, supporting, enlarging upon, etc. Dan is not here as a weather vane or a reporter of the news. He has not claimed to be.
–
He owes no one any special “objectivity” or mitigation and again, that has NOTHING to do with integrity or credibility unless he is lying. He has not lied.
–
“The media” is a huge umbrella and it is past clear that some people do not understand the many kinds and roles of journalism that encompasses.
–
It is your job to discern what you believe or put stock in, and informing people about issues is not ONLY the purview of an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes.
–
If you don’t like it, leave. Trying to change Dan, or the Newspaper is a fruitless quest that just annoys normal people who understand what this blog is.
Sandi, it appears that Chuck’s outrage is based on the notion that my opinions are not “balanced.” He badly wants me to express some opinions with which he agrees. The fact that I don’t, it seems, gives rise to his angst.
Honestly I don’t know how to fix this, without pretending that I hold opinions that I don’t. That would be lying.
Israel’s not a “friend”. The closest thing we have to a “friend” is probably Britain. Israel sees us as a convenient and useful patron and ally they can use to support their self-proclaimed position as the only “democracy” in the Middle East. If they ever get a better deal from anyone else, they’ll take it. Here’s hoping.
Dan, Personally I could give a flip about your opinion. Given what I know about you, disagreeing with you is a badge of honor to wear proudly. My point was that your obvious partisanship discredits you as a “journalist” as you constantly blather on about right-wing this and right wing that but stay mum about any instances of similar left-wing behavior. That isn’t asking you to change your opinion. It’s asking you to acknowledge reality and stop presenting issues as if Republicans are the only ones who do bad things and that the issues are all one sided. Also, take a breath and come down off the mount just a little. My “outrage” isn’t so much directed at you as it is the media outlets that actually purport to be news but are 1) terribly biased political cheerleaders and 2) more concerned with a story that will sell than a story that is accurate. Sandi I do realize what this blog is and it certainly isn’t news. As for your not so subtle innuendo that I am not “normal” because I don’t follow what you think is right, I have two things to say. First, if you think you or Dan are “normal” a little more introspection is due. Meeting the norm in an admittedly biased forum doesn’t equate to being “normal” in the larger society. Second, if being normal and “understanding what this blog is” means I have to accept yours and Dan’s biases as “normal” and acceptable media conduct, then I’ll continue not understanding. I never was that big on Kool-Aid anyway. But you feel free to continue to drink up.
Excuse me while I go introspect!
Dan Casey | February 22, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Excuse me while I go introspect
Regurgitate would be more appropriate!
Jeez Chuck, check the nasty bitterness. Dan’s a good dad and husband who works hard and supports his family. If that’s a “norm” you want to disassociate from, knock yourself out. Why bother with this blog if you find it so troubling and distasteful? Maybe you should publish a cri de coeur per AnotherChuck proclaiming your dissatisfaction with this free and voluntary service.
Chuck | February 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Dan, Personally I could give a flip about your opinion
Chuck. You come here with that attitude about everyone’s opinion and then
expect yours to be treated with “balance” and respect. That being the case
why should Dan or anyone else give a “flip” about your opinion.
In fact you are given the opportunity to state your own biases, frequently with
no facts to back them up. You can do that using your own name or do it anonymously. Once you have your say, you become fair game for everyone else , those who agree with you and those who don’t. If you can’t take the heat, then nobody forces you to expose yourself to having your comments
refuted and picked apart. Whining doesn’t become you. It’s a free country
and you can always take it somewhere that you feel appreciated. But don’t expect any free rides here.
Poor Chuck, still in denial.
speaking of RWER spin, here’s Fast Eric playing fast ad loose with the facts again:
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/feb/22/eric-cantor/cantor-says-us-paid-seniors-12-million-play-world-/
Why is the anonymity only an issue when it is someone you disagree with?
#43 wayne, just the other day I saw an obviously well-fed woman driving a Maserati who was using a top-of-the-line Obama iPhone and wearing designer clothes buying lobster, filet, and $50-a-bottle wine with food stamps. I swear it’s true.
“#43 wayne, just the other day I saw an obviously well-fed woman driving a Maserati who was using a top-of-the-line Obama iPhone and wearing designer clothes buying lobster, filet, and $50-a-bottle wine with food stamps. I swear it’s true.”
gdad, shame on you. Only the corporate-welfare crowd drives Masteratis. I have a relative whose Maserati was 100 percent paid for by taxpayers. He turned it in though and now his top-of-the-line Range Rover is paid for by taxpayers. (Those guys deserve it, though. Right?)
Hi Chuck,
Ol’ dan is an opinion writer, dontcha know? As such, he is paid to write whatever pops into his head. In his own words, he “is biased as hell!”. Dan can dispense full-facts, half-facts, and omit facts altogether, depending on whatever lib position he has decided for his opinion to take. As a dyed-in- the-wool-lib, he is certain to settle his opinion on things which are swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by other libs. Nevermind facts, and certainly nevermind all the facts.
It’s just like the RTs…. Did you see today’s headline article on page 3, “Administration warns of cut effects”? That whole article, produced by the lib-associated press (and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by the RTs)…was to describe obama’s sequester in such fashion to so as to “raise the public’s awareness while also applying pressure on congressional Republicans who oppose his blend of targeted savings and tax increases to tackle federal deficits.” Not once did the article mention obama’s oft-repeated comment during the 3rd debate that “the sequester will NOT happen”! Nor did the article make any mention of what obama said after he announced the failure of the “super-committee” (see link below) to reach agreement to cut $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, …..Obama told reporters, “HE… WOULD… VETO… ANY… ATTEMPT… to get …rid… of the …automatic cuts… which are set to kick in as part of the sequestration proposition.”
Hey Chuck, that’s what we got here. Ol’ dan preaches to the choir (not unlike jimmy swaggart), and the libs swallow it up, hook-line-and-sinker.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/11/21/obama-i-will-veto-attempts-to-get-rid-of-automatic-spending-cuts/
And believe us, Chuck, ol Frankie knows ALL about swallowing stuff hook, line, and sinker (except how to punctuate it).
Chuck | February 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Why is the anonymity only an issue when it is someone you disagree with?
Chuck. You totally misinterpret my point. I was not making an issue of you posting anonymously. I know there are perfectly acceptable reasons for posting that way. In fact, I did myself for almost two years. My point is that Dan gives everyone, anonymous or not, progressive or reactionary, Democrat
or Repubcon or l Libertarian, pro gun or pro gun control or any of 1200 other ways in which people classify themselves the opportunity to say their piece,
have it examined by others, agreed with or argued and refuted by anyone who wants to participate, with very few restrictions. Along the way, he lets you know where he stands. Again, if you can’t take it, tough.
“Dan, Personally I could give a flip about your opinion. Given what I know about you, disagreeing with you is a badge of honor to wear proudly. My point was that your obvious partisanship discredits you as a “journalist” as you constantly blather on about right-wing this and right wing that but stay mum about any instances of similar left-wing behavior.”
–Chuck
My understanding of what Chuck is saying here is this:
1) He really doesn’t care whether I express an opinion, except for the “badge of honor” it allows him because he disagrees with me.
2) Anonymously, he’s redefining my job and title and holding me to standards in his own mind that allow him to pronounce me “discredited.”
3) He honestly believes there is as much nutty and crazy left-wing behavior as there’s nutty and crazy right-wing behavior.
Chuck, have you been living under a rock? You must be living in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when indeed the crazy train was mostly full of LWers. But this is 2013, man. Do you realize that? Huey Newton has been dead for 24 years. Abby Hoffman is gone, Bobby Seale’s an old man, and so is Bill Ayers. Angela Davis is retired. Even Ron Dellums and Barney Frank are out of Congress. There is exactly one declared “Socialist” in Congress (and he frequently makes a lot more sense than all the Republicans and many of the Democrats combined). Meanwhile, in the holier-then-though party of self-proclaimed morality, you have senators who strike up affairs with their aide’s wives, or who wear diapers when they visit hookers, or who sext teenage boys, or who (my goodness!) impregnate their colleagues’ daughters. Their failings aren’t all moral either. That’s just the juicy stuff. Their intellectual deficiencies are helping to ruin the country, to take it back to the days McCarthyism. They believe corporations need welfare but individuals do not. (Note: I’m being fair and charitable, assuming that all of these things are because they’re dumb and not corrupt).
The crazy train crossed the tracks into RWerland long ago. And now the train is full of them. Wake up, man!
Dan,
In your biased list, you failed to mention the crazy train’s stops in lib-town….. dan rostenkowski (fraud); jessee jackson, Sr (how many “love” children?), his son, jessee jackson, Jr. (crook), blago (crook), ahhh, let’s see now, let’s go with wade saunders (child porn); mel reynolds (child porn and bank fraud); austin murphy (voter fraud…he actually filled out voter ballots for residents of a nursing home!); and william jefferson of “cold cash” fame (crook); and of course let’s not forget william jefferson “bill” clinton, who, in addition to having sex with a young intern in the oval office, he lied, lied, and lied about it some more, directly to the American people….and got impeached.
For good measure on intellectual “stupids”, let’s not forget the leadership of none other than robert rubin and bill clinton, who put the country on the path to financial collapse by pushing for and passing the law which repealled Glass-Steagall.
Clinton didn’t push the repeal of Glass Steagall, Frank. Rubin did. But neither of them sponsored the bill. The primary “pushers” were Phil Gramm, R-Texas; Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and Tom Bliley, R-Virginia.
You already know this, of course. I have written on this blog before that Clinton should never have signed the bill. You have never written a critical word about those three here. I’m for passing the blame all around on that one. But you only fix it on Dems. That’s because you’re less biased, right?
You also have said you’d like to see Glass Steagall reinstated. But that you opposed Dodd Frank. This only makes sense if you believe Dodd Frank doesn’t go far enough. Is that what you believe, Frank?
hey dan,
i’m just doing what YOU do. you play fast and loose with the facts…you choose some, and discard others…all in the name of “opinion” journalism.
hey dan,
i might have been more favorable to the dodd-frank bill if it were anybody else but dodd, and frank. even sandy weill is now in favor of separating investment banking from main street banking.
Chuck, your reading comprehension seems to be a big part of your problem.
–
No one has advertised this blog as “news”. I offered no “innuendo”, not “subtle” or otherwise. I said, and I repeat, your continued whining, trying to shame Dan or change the blog is a fruitless quest that just annoys normal people who understand what this blog is. Go find a blog that you like with people you like or stop whining. These are your choices.
–
Since Dan and several of us are quite capable of blogging and maintaining composure instead of whining about how awful things here are, yes we are normal. Your bitter insulting posts will not cause any “introspection”.
–
What you have to accept is that this is Dan’s blog. Not yours.
Frank | February 24, 2013 at 11:41 am
hey dan,
i might have been more favorable to the dodd-frank bill if it were anybody else but dodd, and frank. even sandy weill is now in favor of separating investment banking from main street banking
heyfrank finally tells the truth and illustrates perfectly what the problem has been for the past four years in this country. He might have agre3ed with the Dopdd/Frank bill except for the names attached to it. For the Republicons, led by McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Rove, etc. , no matter what the actual provisions were of any bill or any program or proposal made by President Obama ( or Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or Harry Rerd or Nancy Pel;osi)
they were automatically against it. Health care as proposed by their thnk tank at Heritage and enacted at the suggestion of their nominee Romney in Mass.—they were against it because it came from Obama. Funding for infrastructure
development and upgrades, historically a slam dunk with Republicans—nah
Obama proposed it. The jobs act which contained provisions for enhancing
job opportunities for returning veterans and tax breaks for small business owners who created new jobs, things which Republicons have advocated
forever— nope, Obama proposed it. Continuing the war on terror in Afghanistan and developing the intelligence programs and use of drone strikes against Al Quaeda, basically a neocon Republicon position—nope, Obama wants it. The litany is long and never ending. No matter what the ideas or provisions are, n o matter how right they are, no matter how good they would be for the country, no matter of Republicons supported them in the past, if they came from any of the above mentioned people, Republicons were automatically opposed to them. Why? Because their only job was to make Obama a one term President..It has been personal, racist, treasonous,
and a disaster for our country. So heyfrank, if you could be in favor of the bill and what it does, why does it matter to you who proposed it or whose name is on it?