Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Robert Gibbs tries to distance the White House from the anonymous official's claim that labor flushed $10 million down the toilet. Sort of.

* Good read: Philip Rucker and Peter Slevin weigh in with a very fair piece laying out why the Bill Halter loss wasn't necessarily just a disaster for organized labor.

* Another reality check: Labor made it a very close race in an anti-union state.

* Something to watch: Now that Blanche Lincoln has won, will her tough-on-derivatives proposal remain in the FinReg bill?

* Don't get too smug, Harry: The Real Clear Politics polling average shows that Sharron Angle is ahead of Harry Reid by a hair, though Rasmussen could be skewing the data.

* You sure about this one? National Republicans say they're not going to be giving Angle any policy advice, just political help.

* History lesson of the day, from CNN:

If you've followed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, you've heard the complaints that Obama isn't showing enough emotion. But scholars say Obama's critics ignore a lesson from American history: Many white Americans don't like angry black men.

* Only in the U.S. Senate: For some reason, Senator Kit Bond is worried that climate change action might kill his trees. At least, I think that's what he's saying.

* Indefatigable scandal hunter Darrell Issa continues spraying letters in all directions calling for probes of the job offer story.

* Which the Wall Street Journal interprets as a sign that Republicans will "use subpoena power" to probe the job offers if they take back the House or Senate.

* So it's probably a good thing for Dems that Obama's political operation is gearing up for the fall.

* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which helped Lincoln get through the Dem primary, will certainly be sticking with her in the general election, right?

* And the White House has no regrets about Obama's use of the term "ass," rather than "butt."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  June 9, 2010; 5:28 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Happy Hour Roundup , Political media , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, labor lost yesterday. And?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Slave Sargent:
"So it's probably a good thing for Dems that Obama's political operation is gearing up for the fall."

I'm sorry, but I must have been at sea and completely missed when it was that Obama's political operation ever geared down FROM campaign mode.

If you would be so kind...which week was that?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Robert Gibbs tries to distance the White House from the anonymous official's claim that labor flushed $10 million down the toilet. Sort of."

Well, Greg, that's one very generous of way of looking at what Gibbs said. What I hear is "F you very much."

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening.

Well, for one thing, you used an open italics tag and forgot to close it.

Does that help?

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 9, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

What policy advice could they give Angle?

"Stop saying crazy stuff about issues you know nothing about"?

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait to see where the SC Dem Senate primary winner (Alvin Greene) got the $10000 filing fee to run.

He's unemployed.

Maybe he saved it up but then forgot to mount a campaign?

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

fixed, Will, thx

And wbgonne, I see what you mean, though my feeling was that of course WH didn't want a primary, they were on record saying as much -- he was distancing WH from the insulting language...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 9, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

From DFA (via email):

"With Bill Halter, we were in it to win last night and we lost. It is always hard to lose, but there is no need for excuses here today.

DFA members nationwide did great work.

The progressive movement and labor came together in a state that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain and ran a campaign that helped give a voice to over 120,000 progressive Arkansans at the polls. That's nothing to scoff at and we did it together.

Thank you. I'm honored to work for you everyday.

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America"


THAT's why I contribute to DFA or candidates directly, and NOT the DNC.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Understatement of the week:

Senator Bond: "Without carbon, my trees would die. Carbon occurs naturally."

Benen: "Willful stupidity like this is not as rare as it should be."

Indeed so.

Posted by: TomBlue | June 9, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"Senator Kit Bond is worried that climate change action might kill his trees"

Maybe he'd like to go back to the carboniferous period when the Earth was hot and vegetation was plentiful.

But just one minor problem for the Kitster: it was about 300 million years before Christ.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent,

I enjoy your pieces -- thanks for providing good insights & use of primary-source material. This statement from Press Secretary Gibbs brings out a huge problem, for which politicians seem to get a near-free pass. It is the widespread and unquestioned mis-use of "working families." Just who doesn't care about "working families?" Seems like a complete strawman. And who are "working families" -- any family with an employed member? Does Mr. Gibbs not also believe that the Democratic candidate will be for non-working families (unemployed or retired), and for children without families? And who qualifies as a worthy "working family?" Certain professions only? Everyone in that profession, and nobody in certain others? Is everyone in a "working family" worthwhile? This is a bit of a rant, but why do influential and otherwise smart people resort to such meaningless phrases? My hope is that citizens and media members ask more of our leaders -- If you are just for working families, who are you not representing? Who counts as in a working family? Do you really believe that your political opponents do not care about working families, or just have a different philosophy on how to best represent their constituents' interests?

On the other side of the aisle, the "don't care about protecting Americans" line of reasoning is equally suspect nonsense in my view.

Posted by: SeekingClarity | June 9, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that everybody that supported one of the Democrats will have an obligation to now, as the President would, and has, in races that the nominee he has supported hasn't won, now support the Democratic nominee.


An obligation? Jeebus. Why do I doubt that the progressives and the unions are going to be open to the WH defining what their "obligations" are?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 9, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

This could make the IL Senate race even more interesting than its been already:


Mark Kirk Cited By Department Of Defense For Campaigning While On Active Duty, Punishable By Jail And Discharge

In the latest twist in the ever-growing Mark Kirk military service fiasco, the Illinois Senate candidate appears to have violated military regulations by campaigning while on active duty.

If Kirk did indeed campaign while serving, as a newly released Department of Defense memo suggests, the offense would be punishable by up to two years of confinement and dishonorable discharge from the military.

The memo was released to the Nitpicker blog, which has played an instrumental role in investigating Mark Kirk's embellished military record. Kirk required the document, an "exception to policy" memo, in order to serve in the military while a member of Congress, which is illegal unless such an exception is issued.

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/mark-kirk-cited-by-depart_n_606661.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 9, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"the offense would be punishable by up to two years of confinement and dishonorable discharge"

Haha, OOPS!!!

Speaking of oops:

Fiorina Open Mic Gaffe On Boxer's Hairstyle: 'So Yesterday!' (VIDEO)

In a several-minute chat with the camera rolling that CNN posted online, Fiorina mocks Boxer's hairdo. Laughing, Fiorina tells her staff that someone had seen Boxer on television and "said what everyone says, 'God what is that hair?' So yesterday!" But she also questioned a decision by fellow Republican Meg Whitman to appear on Hannity so soon after winning the GOP nomination for governor.

"I find it really surprising that on the first day of the general Meg Whitman is going on Sean Hannity," Fiorina said, while reading her BlackBerry. "I think it's bizarre ... I think it's a very bad choice actually. You know how he is."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/fiorina-open-mic-gaffe-on-boxers-hairstyle-so-yesterday.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Well, Greg, that's one very generous of way of looking at what Gibbs said. What I hear is "F you very much.""

That's pretty much what I got out of it, too.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Greg: You're probably correct. I'm a bit sensitive going from an f-ing retard to whatever we are now.

You are a wise man. Hope you get that Plum seat in the WH press room. Who decides that, anyway?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I may have missed this but I haven't seen any pundit weighing in on the Halter loss bringing up the fact that instead of 40 polling places like they had in the initial primary there were only 2 in an area of AR where Halter had previously done well. I'm not saying this was done purposely to hurt him but that combined with the fact that they didn't allow early voting last Saturday as the had previously promised they would smells awful fishy to me. Yet other than seeing the report on it last night before the results were in I haven't heard anybody else bring it up

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | June 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Something to watch: Now that Blanche Lincoln has won, will her tough-on-derivatives proposal remain in the FinReg bill?"

Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one, Greg. That provision is deader than Ronald Reagan and was DOA from the moment it lilted from Blanchie's thin lips.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

SG, I googled it up.

Looks like there are two lawsuits pending on the closing of the polling places...

...but that the number of votes in the county would not prove to be enough to change the outcome.

It's all here:

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jun/09/voting-suit-move-forward/?news

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

stooge-b-gonne:
"You're probably correct. I'm a bit sensitive going from an f-ing retard to whatever we are now."

Y'know, self-realization is halfway to the cure.

Your journey to the Dark Side is nearly complete, young Stoogewalker.

I'm pullin' for ya, buddy!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"I'm pullin' for ya, buddy!"

Thanks, Big Guy.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"That provision is deader than Ronald Reagan and was DOA from the moment it lilted from Blanchie's thin lips."

I'm not so sure about that. This could be used as leverage by Halter supporters to help Blanche in the fall. I'd stay tuned for a while yet.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 9, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

On a non-political note:

Go Blackhawks!

As a Bruins fan, I want nothing more than to see the Flyers go down tonight. Yes, I know the Bruins dropped the ball, but a Flyers' cup would be salt in the wound.

That and I'm crazy for Jonathan Toews's play style.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

SeekingClarity:
"This is a bit of a rant, but why do influential and otherwise smart people resort to such meaningless phrases?"

One is tempted to chalk it up to the convenient platitudes of "Prepackaged Thought", but if you take a darker view of things, it could also mean EXACTLY what it says.

"Everyone of you effin' deadbeats in the house get out and go to work!"

Reason #1, so that me and my cronies can profit from your labor, and

Reason #2, so that you can pay me and my cronies more in taxes.(if this seems suspiciously like Reason #1, there's a good reason for it).

I think, economically speaking, that this attitude pretty much sums up where we are politically in this country, vis-a-vis our relation to our masters.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

@holy: You might be interested - DKos drops Research 2000 coz they aren't very good.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/9/874403/-Polling

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

And as if on cue:

Check out THIS "trial balloon":

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/101883-axe-may-fall-on-tax-break-for-mortgages

More like a "trial Hindenburg", ain't it?

That's a great set-up to use to apply a right royal beat-down of public sector unions, though.

"Would you be willing to forego your Mortgage Interest Deduction for the benefit of the SEIU members down at the DMV/MVA?"

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a political operation? No way! I read on here all the time that he doesn't do politics. Just 24/7 on the job for the shee . . . I mean people.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't get the thinking behind 'Was supporting Halter a complete loss or not'.

I mean, there's nothing guaranteed in politics. One of the most frequent things you run into is losing an election. You use the lessons learned and the relationships made for hopefully better results the next time round.

I mean, when FDR ran for VP in 1920 and got trounced, should he have thrown in the towel? How 'bout Obama in 2000?

In any case, what Dean said.

Posted by: leoklein | June 9, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks sbj- that's no real surprise to me, after the thrashing they got at the hands of Nate Silver's new pollster ratings.

I've always found they're polls to be pretty bad to begin with- just because I agree with their overall agenda, and would like to believe their results (ones that I often like), bad polling is inexcusable.


This may force R2K to rework their methods to be more accurate if they hope to continue to be a prolific pollster in the future (although this robs them of their main contractor and thus the funds to conduct their polls).

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Something to watch: Now that Blanche Lincoln has won, will her tough-on-derivatives proposal remain in the FinReg bill?"

We can only hope that this idiotic proposal was all just a political ploy and that the answer is an emphatic "no".

"Indefatigable scandal hunter..."

So wouldn't that make you an indefatigable scandal denier?

"So it's probably a good thing for Dems that Obama's political operation is gearing up for the fall."

Bilge beat me to this one, but you haven't managed to come up with an answer yet...when did Obama's political operation ever gear down? Seriously?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

HHG: What the Red Sox giveth, the Bruins taketh away.

But you might enjoy reading this explanation of why Chris Pronger is such a jerk: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/403167-2010-stanley-cup-finals-why-is-chris-pronger-such-a-jerk

Posted by: jzap | June 9, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"Obama has a political operation? No way!"

This revelation is sure to place Bernie into a real pickle. Does he accuse Greg of being a propagandist in league with NRO, or does he admit that Obama actual plays politics? It's a real dilemma.

(be back in a couple hours)

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Here's a bit of light-entertainment reading for post-election day. It's the story of a trio of Dem political activists here in SF cruising around on election night, crashing a bunch of GOP victory parties, jut to see how the other half (well, quarter maybe) lives.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/culture/detail?entry_id=65369

Posted by: jzap | June 9, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Lol at Fiorina.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/09/fiorina-diss-hannity/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

jzap,

The big problem for me is that the only Boston/New England team I support stongly (Bruins) is the one that fails on a routine basis.

I'm not a Pats fan (mother was born in New Jersey and I was raised a Giants fan), and I don't really follow baseball or basketball, so I only really pull for the Sox and Celtics by regional default.

meh. C'est la vie.


And I've known Pronger is a wad for years. Haven't forgiven him for his behavior in the 2007 cup final against the Sens and Dean McAmmond.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I implore you to dig into this Greene win in SC.

I think there is a big story there...just a hunch.

An unemployed guy doesn't just cut 10k checks to run for the Senate. This thing down there stinks and with how f'ed up SC politics is, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some foul play going on here.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

ScottC said: "qb:"Obama has a political operation? No way!"

This revelation is sure to place Bernie into a real pickle. Does he accuse Greg of being a propagandist in league with NRO, or does he admit that Obama actual plays politics? It's a real dilemma.'

QB's comment up above is not serious enough to gain a response (see DiIulio, David Kuo, Richard Clarke, Col. Wilkerson, SP Fitzgerald's findings on Bush WH operations then find comparable examples re Obama administration and then consider yourself serious). Your earlier question to me, alluded to above, is better but not much. Sit down and analyze what the similarities and differences are between the two. Be thorough and careful and try to be honest. Let me know what you come up with and if it demonstrates some actual real address to your rhetorical question, I'll take the time to go through it with you.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

I don't believe poor Bernie believes half of the malarkey he spouts about the nobility of Dems and the baseness of the GOP. Or of much else, frankly.

He talks too much about propoganda (and theories of propoganda) for me not to believe that is exactly what he is consciously practicing. No one with half a wit could actually believe much of his nonsense --like the nutty notion that Bush was PR obsessed and Obama ignores PR.

It's much like the left's effort in the past decade to counter the reality that the mainstream media is very liberal and biased. What did they do? They formed their own "watchdog organizations" like FAIR and invented cockamamy arguments that the media is actually conservative. Great propoganda: Why just deny that the media is liberal when you can assert that the media is actually rightwing (from a far-left, socialist perspective).

It was and is ludicrous, and absolutely brazen, but people like Bernie have consciously repeated this propoganda on a daily basis for years, and now whole throngs of leftwing sheep (like many here at Plumline) spout it as well.

I think that is 99% of what Bernie does. Everything he accuses us or Republicans of is exactly what he does, and he knows it.

This is why he won't engage in a reasoned discussion. He is a classic sophist pretending to be Socrates.

Well, sorry for the Bernie rant. I just thought it was funny (as you and Bilgey did, too) that Greg is talking about the Obama political operation so soon after Bernie was effectively denying Obama even does politics. Dissembling and delusion lead to many contradictions.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I see the party is going full out on support for both Angle and Haley. No big surprise in that. But I'll point again to the feminine angle and note the rhetorical advantage that a female can have in a political fight through the pretty standard human response of dislike when a male or males are seen to attack a female. Palin plays this one regularly and we'll see it with the other two as well.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow. KOS dropped R2000.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/06/daily_kos_dismi.php

Probably after that scathing Nate Silver analysis showing them 2nd to last behind Zogby internet polling which highlighted also what we know, that Rasmussen is an average C pollster.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Tied 1-1 at the end of the first. This is gonna be a good game

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

"QB's comment up above is not serious enough to gain a response (see DiIulio, David Kuo, Richard Clarke, Col. Wilkerson, SP Fitzgerald's findings on Bush WH operations then find comparable examples re Obama administration and then consider yourself serious)."

Nor was it intended for response but simply to poke fun at the contradiction between Bernie and Greg.

But let's note that Bernie is a cowardly hit and run artist. I responded to his tortuous argement about Obama versus Bush when he made it. He ignored the response and now pretends I never responded. Quite typical. Last time he asked me a question, I generously gave a detailed response, also ignored.

Bernie likes to spout illogical claims and then run away, attack straw men, ignore contrary evidence, etc. It's so much easier to declare a point "not serious."

Here is a clue for the clueless: We don't need the testimony of an insider from this 18-month-old administration to see its political focus. We see and hear it plain as day and every day.

But, not to worry, I take little if anything Bernie says seriously.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

And re the feminine thing...it will be interesting to see how women respond to Fiorina's woman attacking another woman cattiness.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I thought it was interesting seeing and hearing Fiorina talking about Boxers hair and how its so yesterday.

What an f'in snob. That elitist attitude should go over well with people.

No wonder she failed at HP and drove them into the ground, she's obviously not too bright.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Pronger is a HUGE dbag. Period. I'd hate him even if he played for the Hawks.

Even Bob Probert had more class than Pronger has.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Should be an interesting read on the corrupt Bush family, moreso Dubya than the rest of em.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/05/24/bush%E2%80%99s-new-bankruptcy/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

2-2. Barnburner in action here folks.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey so, how many establishment candidates did the Repubs not get elected in Senate races?

Off the top of my head in this primary season you got FL, NV, KY. All three of those races are now potential pickups for Dems.

The Dems didn't get theirs in PA and it'll probably be a win for the Dems.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

mike, you are giving me some good laughs.

Fiorina not too bright, compared to . . . Boxer?

And that Russ Baker blog link -- what a clown he is. I love the meta-story he is pushing there -- Rangers go bankrupt, Bush's fault.

Hilarious stuff.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Crist is an indy now but it's still a pick up for the Dems compared to if Mr. my vote is for sale Rubio.

Lets see if Boxer is shallow enough to go after Fiorina's hair qb. If she does, then you are correct, they are on equal ground in the brains department. Until she does a colossal faux pas up like Fiorina, she's still more savvy than Fiorina.

Some smarts can put you out of touch with the populace, and Fiorina seems to have reached that level it appears.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Maddow just did a wonderful piece on the "anti-incumbency rage" narrative, listing the incumbents who won in recent primaries and those who did not. Even including corruption cases, the proportion is about 50-1 or 2 incumbents re-elected.

In her piece, she was addressing how a media narrative can be proven counter-factual even multiple times and yet not die as a description of reality. She was taking the media to task for laziness and unthinking repetition of a cliched and simplistic story.

But it is worth making the point that this narrative has been relentlessly pushed from the right, most acutely by FOX. And there's a propaganda reason for this...it is a necessary narrative to have in place as a means to alter the direction of the last two election cycles. It is also the precise narrative used in '94.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

I hate to keep belaboring the ridiculous comment from last night's un-named WH source but, here's Vale's response to Gibbs. And I really don't think Gibbs walked it back at all. Let's see, so far they've pissed off the unions, progressives, anti-war activists, environmentalists, climate scientists, single payer advocates, the LGBT community, financial reform advocates, Nobel winning economists, health care reform advocates, home-owners facing foreclosure, the un-employed, etc. I personally think they need to get their s... together before their base walks.

I'm not saying I'm going to, but I've only been putting my financial contributions and worker bee duties toward progressive candidates. I'll always vote for a Dem over a Republican but I won't necessarily work on their behalf, that's just the way it is. Contrary to Rahm's portrayal I'm actually not retarded or a sucker either.

"So it was that Gibb's last line -- in which he talked about the need to support the party nominee -- touched a particular nerve and prompted AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale to blast out the following email statement: "If the White House thinks everyone has obligation to support someone just because they're a Democrat, they are still really missing the point of last night."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

"If half of this is true"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=5#

Posted by: Bilgerman | June 9, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"It is also the precise narrative used in '94."

It was much more anti-Democrats-run-wild, as it is now.

Surveys seem to show a very high level of anti-incumbent sentiment. It never translates into as many losses as surveys might suggest, but that hardly means it isn't a real public sentiment.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"QB's comment up above is not serious enough to gain a response (see DiIulio, David Kuo, Richard Clarke, Col. Wilkerson, SP Fitzgerald's findings on Bush WH operations then find comparable examples re Obama administration and then consider yourself serious)."

This is a wholly illogical response, Bernie. In the first place, qb's statement pertained to Obama alone, not a comparison between Bush and Obama, so your introduction of Bush critics is a red herring. Secondly, kiss-and-tell criticisms from insiders are not the singular method in which political cynicism can be manifested. Thirdly, even if they were, the absence of kiss-and-tells from Obama insiders does not logically imply that there is in fact nothing to tell. Lastly, even if we were to accept this illogical proposition, it is the case Obama has been in office for less than 18 months, and at the same time during Bush's presidency, not one of the critics that you name had come out with the criticisms that (I assume) you are talking about. So, again Bernie, your position is quite simply illogical. But you knew that already, didn't you?

"Your earlier question to me, alluded to above, is better but not much. Sit down and analyze what the similarities and differences are between the two."

Spare me the condescending professor routine, Bernie. Your not dealing with a clueless freshman awed by the size of your library. You might be able to fool them but your not fooling me. If you can't or don't want to defend your claims about NRO by providing direct answers to direct questions, just say so. At the moment you are simply proving qb's assessment of you. I'll re-post the questions here for you, to spare you the effort of having to go back and look.

Does Greg Sargent do propaganda? Is that his function? How does one tell the difference between an opinion piece which is, well, merely someone's opinion, and the product of a functionary of a propaganda machine?

For what/whom is NRO functioning as a propagandist? Who is directing it? And how do you explain the fact that NRO publishes pieces that that express opposing opinions about the very thing you claim they are propagandizing about?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Sorry...that should be addressed to Bernie, not qb. Obviously.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey, your link raises a lot of questions, most of which are troubling. Just for clarification, this is from Rockman, one of the best AFAIC over at theoildrum. Also, apparently Thad Allen has give BP 72 hours to come up with the resources necessary to capture or contain the remaining oil gushing into the Gulf.

I genuinely don't understand though how you seem to be able to underestimate the effects of the gusher while at the same time fault the government for not responding quickly enough to the gusher.

"Some clarifications. First, the MMS didn’t green light any of BP’s drilling decisions. Nor do they cast judgment on any other operator’s decisions while drilling. The MMS does have standards and regs operators are required to follow. The MMS does do well site inspections on an irregular basis to check compliance. Once again the BIG IF: if the well blew out because the cmt job failed due to the decrease in back pressure due to displacing the heavier drilling mud with sea water. It was BP’s sole responsibility to make sure this was a safe. No one at BP called the MMS and asked them to pass judgment on this decision.

There was some discussion about the MMS approval of BP’s final csg program. The MMS did approve BP running a csg string that some felt would have been more difficult to get a good cmt job. Even if that point is valid it did not relieve BP from the responsibility of making sure they had a good cmt job before displacement. In fact, it should have made them even more cautious.

The chain of command is very clear: BP, as operator, is responsible for all aspects of the blow out including the spill clean up from day 1, The Coast Guard has the responsibility for ascertain that BP is conducting these ops properly. At anytime that the Coast Guard feels that BP is not conducting the effort properly the gov’t has authority to immediately take over all aspects of the incident. But if that were to happen it would not relieve BP of any financial responsibilities: they will still pay all the bills including any that the gov’t runs up. That’s a very big motivation for operators to take care of business properly."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

BTW, since you keep holding out DiLiulio as a reliable authority on Bush, I assume you too think that:

"President Bush is a highly admirable person of enormous personal decency. He is a godly man and a moral leader. He is much, much smarter than some people — including some of his own supporters and advisers — seem to suppose. He inspires personal trust, loyalty, and confidence in those around him. In many ways, he is all heart. Clinton talked "I feel your pain." But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion."

You agree, don't you?

It is also interesting that you cite David Kuo, since one of his notable criticisms of the Bush White House was the disdain expressed by staffers for certain religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Apparently the words "insane" and "ridiculous" were used to describe them.

One might have thought that such revelations would have resulted in you having more, not less, respect for the Bush White House. I guess sometimes there's just no pleasing you, Bernie.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Blackhawks win the Cup!

Whoo!

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Man. I just read that Rolling Stone article.

That stinks. If all that is accurate, Salizar has to go and MMS needs to be gutted. I'm not sure if Salizar should stick around long enough to gut MMS or not.

Salizar seems to have failed the President on this.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett do not exist. These are not the droids you are looking for.

When Obama does political theater, it isn't political theater.

btw, who is "Bilgerman"?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

bilgeman would be the brainiac that said oil will flow out of the marshes with the tide.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh Oh, do we have two bilgeys now. I didn't recognize the difference, my bad.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

The new bilgerman can disregard my confusion regarding his conflicting views as I have absolutely no idea of what his views would be.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

From JP Green at The Democratic Strategist. He wasn't referring to the WH statement last night but rather Lincoln's campaign of bashing the unions. I think it works for both. Now I'll get out of the way so you guys can have your esoteric discussions. LOL

Have a good night all!!!!

"Whether or not the union-bashing helped Lincoln, there is some potential for long-term damage here, especially if other Democratic candidates embrace it. In the long run, the Democratic Party needs a strong union movement to build a real progressive majority. Victories won with union-bashing are ultimately divisive and may well end up serving GOP candidates, even in a state with relatively low union power, like Arkansas. Alternatively, if we can only win by disparaging an institution that is the first line of defense for working people in their quest for decent living standards, who the hell are we?"

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I forgot one other flimsy aspect of Bernie's swipe: his list of purported sources for claiming that Bush was focused solely on PR and politics.

What an absurd list. I won't even bother going through them, since the holes in the logic are so apparent. Bernie uses good rhetoric about careful and honest analysis, but these are wholly absent from his . . . propoganda.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

@"Scott qb's statement pertained to Obama alone, not a comparison between Bush and Obama, so your introduction of Bush critics is a red herring."

QB was implying equivalence between O and B administrations (or why would he have bothered?). Obviously, all politicians and WH administrations have PR functions on-going. The only interesting questions deal with degrees, priorities, etc

"Secondly, kiss-and-tell criticisms from insiders are not the singular method in which political cynicism can be manifested."

"kiss and tell" is a classic ad hominem fallacy. What insiders provide is authoritative (that is, "authority" where it is not a logical fallacy) witnessing of real events. But of course such accounts are not the only means of indicating cynicism of the sort we are talking about.

"Thirdly, even if they were, the absence of kiss-and-tells from Obama insiders does not logically imply that there is in fact nothing to tell."

Of course not. But its deeply silly to even bring it up. Two men are standing on the road and there's a body bleeding in the gutter and witnesses point to the guy on the left with the gun as the murderer BUT that doesn't prove the other man didn't at some point murder somebody else somewhere else. Your next point is equally silly for the precisely the same reason (but for your info, your bad argument fails if an instance equivalent to Dilulio's letter doesn't appear by this August).

As I implied in my last post (which you find condescending and I don't care if you do) I'm simply not going to waste my time drawing out the argument and evidence/reasoning for it because I don't think you are prepared to draw any other conclusion than what you presently have quite regardless of what I might provide for you.

I think there are things you and I can talk about profitably, but this wouldn't be one of them.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't know whether Bilgerman is Bilgeman but assume not. Very sneaky.

I can't read the linked article on my lame computer but just noticed the name discrepancy.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 9, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"President Bush is a highly admirable person of enormous personal decency. He is a godly man and a moral leader. He is much, much smarter than some people — including some of his own supporters and advisers — seem to suppose. He inspires personal trust, loyalty, and confidence in those around him. In many ways, he is all heart. Clinton talked "I feel your pain." But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion."

You agree, don't you?"

Come on Scott. How difficult would it be for me to find a sentence from Marx you'd agree with? Would you then have to agree to everything he said?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

ps...but nice to see you took it upon yourself to read Dilulio's letter.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

pps...Clinton also said, quite sincerely I think, that he "likes" George Bush. In my personal dealings with individuals, there are few that I find I don't have or gain an affinity for. There was a kid I knew in school who scared me a bit but whom I liked in a bunch of ways. He went on to murder several people quite cruelly.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Now THIS is very interesting indeed. From Yglesias...

"The Corporate Court

One thing that’s been frustrating progressive lawyers for a few years now, but increasingly so over time, is the belief of the public and the press that the federal judiciary is primarily a venue for tackling “hot button” issues like abortion and the death penalty. In reality, the bulk of federal litigation has to do with businesses suing each other, workers or consumers suing businesses, or businesses trying to fight off regulators.

The Constitutional Accountability Center has a new study out (PDF) that takes a look at this issue through the lens of the US Chamber of Commerce, the premiere group that can be found arguing that corporate executives should be able to get away with doing whatever they want. Here’s how often different justices sided with the Chamber’s position on cases the Chamber weighed in on..." (see graph at link - pretty amazing)
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/06/the-corporate-court.php

I'll refer again to Lewis Lapham's extraordinarily illuminating essay "The Tentacles of Rage" (google it) and the primary role of the C of C in the conservative movement from the early seventies and up.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Dilulio was an Ivy League professor disillusioned by the realities of actually working in a White House rather than the Ivory Tower (how shocking), where funding and staffing expectations are easier to set than meet, and particularly after 911 moved the administration's focus almost entirely to national security.

The less charitable but more realistic view of someone who, as he did, quits the job after early disappointment and struggle is that he is a quitter and shares blame for the problem, particularly when he then criticizes the vacuum he helped create.

I have not read (nor will I) David Kuo's book. His public comments show him to be a self-promoting opportunist insofar as he decided to settle scores, etc., and contradicted -- when book money was at stake -- his earlier comments about his WH experience.

Wilkerson, Fitzgerald, and Clarke? You've got to be kidding me. Put together a serious argument yourself, Bernie. Then we'll consider you serious.

"QB was implying equivalence between O and B administrations (or why would he have bothered?)."

Wrong. (Obviously, since I find your characterization of Bush ridiculous, this does not even make sense.)

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

And another very bright piece by Matt...

"...But I think Chait’s enthusiasm for the analysis reflects the main pathology of mainstream American Jewish thinking on the subject—a bizarre willingness to believe that Israeli politicians are bafflingly stupid. I mean, yes of course nobody will believe that Netanyahu seeks peace as long as his top priority is to expand settlements. Yes of course if Israel wants the world to believe that Israel holds the moral high ground it should unambiguously offer to renounce occupation. Yes of course if it’s really true that the Palestinians are hell-bent on refusing reasonable peace offers Israel should expose this fact. But that’s just to say that the current Israeli government isn’t seeking peace—it’s seeking settlements.

These aren’t tactical blunders, they’re substantive commitments. And they’re appalling ones. We just had a nice nationwide Two Minute Hate over Helen Thomas’ desire to purge Israel/Palestine of its Jewish population, but her vision and Netanyahu’s are nearly mirror images." http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/06/maybe-israel-doesnt-offer-to-the-leave-the-west-bank-because-it-doesnt-want-to-leave-the-west-bank.php

Israel wants the land it has occupied or at least we can say that Netanyahu and many others do. And indeed they want the Palestinians to "go back to from where they came" (that's the whole point of the "this has always been Jewish land" claim).

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck's fears realized. Tent "cities" around the state planned to house the many who will be arrested for improper Americanness"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38271.html#ixzz0qMIXl5CU

Oh, relax. They aren't white people.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

"BP, Halliburton, And Transocean Skip Mississippi Hearings On The Oil Disaster"

Taking the lead of Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Nikki Hayley and Sharron Angle in the "no thanks, we won't bother to be answering questions by anyone not FOX, thankyou"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/09/bp-skip-hearing/

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Final thought. Bernie is quite zealously overselling Dilulio's crticisms.

http://www.esquire.com/features/dilulio

Hardly sounds like the monomanical focus on "cynicism" and PR that Bernie claims.

Big surprise. Bernie is a propogandist.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

@Ims - thanks for the Green piece (haven't had time today to read much). Spot on, in my consideration.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Tomasky on why the Angle campaign is going to provide a real study in diversion and deception.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/09/congress-us-midterm-elections-2010-sharron-angle-oath-keepers

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Round 2 of "The Disasta from Alaska": Murkowski.

Posted by: hoser3 | June 10, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Weigel gives his "headline of the day" award to Newt for the following...

"The Democrats’ Job Killing Policies Kill Jobs"

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

As a number of people have voiced the matter, the oil and dispersant chemicals pouring or being pumped into the Gulf (for proprietary reasons, I learned from Maddow tonight, the chemical constituents of these dispersant products is unpublished and unknown except to their producers) is effectively creating an enormous experiment for the ecosystems of the region.

I'd argue it is creating another enormous experiment as well - whether we, as a society, are going to be able to curtail the overwhelming power of corporate entities over the rest of us. It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut "experiment" than what we have at present given not merely the spill itself but the global warming problem that looms.

Goodnight.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Good morning with greatest world cup goals...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/jun/10/classic-youtube-sports-clips-world-cup

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

How frigging nuts is the US electoral system, you ask?

"Having already spent close to the entire cost of the British general election, [Whitman] has warned that she is prepared to spend as much again against Brown." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/us-primary-elections-women

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

And that looks absolutely certain to get very much worse thanks to 5 SC jurists who apparently are quite fond of the corporatocracy model of social organization... http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/06/the-corporate-court.php

(I linked this earlier but wanted to underline it...a must read)

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Damn the United Nations and its messing about with a nation's sovereignty!

"Russia scraps missile sale to Iran in wake of UN nuclear sanctions"
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/russia-scraps-missile-sale-to-iran-in-wake-of-un-nuclear-sanctions-1.295321

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Canadian Man-bag:
"How frigging nuts is the US electoral system, you ask?"

No one asked, and no-one asked YOU, mate.

"And that looks absolutely certain to get very much worse thanks to 5 SC jurists who apparently are quite fond of the corporatocracy model of social organization."

You're perfectly welcome to resettle yourself back home in your native Canada, you know.

You might just free up a slot for a deserving Mexican trying to immigrate here legally.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"QB was implying equivalence:"

As qb already pointed out, no he wasn't. Obama engages in cynical politics regardless of what Bush did.

"Of course such accounts are not the only means of indicating cynicism."

Good. Then you agree that your argument fails.

"I'm simply not going to waste my time drawing out..."

That's fine. If you want to assert as an indisputable fact a highly contentious claim without entertaining challenges to the claim or bothering to respond to questions that might illuminate your thinking, so be it. That you feel comfortable doing so is in itself illuminating. I guess that, despite your claim upon my return the other day, there at least some progressive orthodoxies that you really can't tolerate being challenged.

qb...you were right.

"I don't think you are prepared to draw any conclusion other than what you already have..."

I think the same of you, but that doesn't cause me to make wild assertions and then refuse to answer questions about them.

"Come on Scott. How difficult would it be for me to find a sentence from Marx you'd agree with? Would you then have to agree to everything he said?"

Not very and no, but that is hardly relevant to our current discussion. You are not simply "agreeing" with DiLuilio. You are holding out his judgment as evidence that your judgement is correct. If I presented Marx's judgment about a particular aspect of given matter as supporting evidence that my own judgment was correct on the matter, then I can hardly go on to dismiss Marx's judgements about other aspects of the very same matter. His judgment on the matter is either authoritative or it is not.

"...but nice to see you took it upon yourself to read Dilulio's letter."

Of course I did. I no more trust trust your portrayal or characterizations of things than you trust NRO's. If they are propagandists, so are you. (In fact, per qb, you may be one reagardless of what NRO is. As he points out, the letter is hardly the smoking gun on Bush's unprecendet "cynicism" that you present it to be.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Bilge:

"No one asked, and no-one asked YOU, mate."

Hear, hear!

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"...a must read"

...for those who want to be propagandized, you mean?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

ScottC; "As qb already pointed out, no he wasn't. Obama engages in cynical politics regardless of what Bush did."

Really? Are all politicians equally guilty of this? Perhaps all humans?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Scott:
"I guess that, despite your claim upon my return the other day, there at least some progressive orthodoxies that you really can't tolerate being challenged."

Uhhh, I think that would be ALL of them, wouldn't it?

The Moonbat Hive-Mind is remarkably rigid and inflexible, and errant moonbats who engage in "wrongthinking" are harshly sanctioned.

I s'pose that that's a pitfall of using politics to be popular with the "in crowd".

Back in the day, the Commies called this "Parteibefehl". There was nothing so miserably lonely as an apostate Communist.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

From Josh Marshall and Foreign Policy...

"SENTENCES FOR THE AGES
From Foreign Policy ...

Western journalists who couldn't reach -- or didn't bother reaching? -- people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets posted with tag #iranelection. Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi."

This is a telling example of how the reduction in depth reporting by almost all major news organizations inevitably brings about a shift towards the glib and repetitive - precisely the means whereby propaganda is so easily disseminated with little little countervailing information available to citizens. However much one might dislike prior news operations, this is a dangerous trend.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Canadian Man-bag:
"This is a telling example of how the reduction in depth reporting by almost all major news organizations inevitably brings about a shift towards the glib and repetitive - precisely the means whereby propaganda is so easily disseminated with little little countervailing information available to citizens. However much one might dislike prior news operations, this is a dangerous trend."

You don't say.

Seen this?

http://www.globalnational.com/world/Stalin+mass+grave+yields+skeletons/3132092/story.html

Money quote:

"She said far more bodies were likely to be found as adjacent sites are studied.

"This happens all over the country, it's impossible to say how often," Felige said. "All we can to is put up monuments to remember the dead.""

Well, at least SOMEONE is remembering the anonymous dead.
It sure wasn't THESE people:

http://www.pulitzer.org/durantypressrelease

Their excuse:

"In recent months, much attention has been paid to Mr. Duranty's dispatches regarding the famine in the Soviet Union in 1932-1933, which have been criticized as gravely defective. However, a Pulitzer Prize for reporting is awarded not for the author's body of work or for the author's character but for the specific pieces entered in the competition."

Ah-yup...

Couple of Duranty's award winning articles:

"Duranty 8 6/24/1931 - "Stalinism Smashes Foes in Marx's Name""

"Duranty 11 6/27/1931 - "Stalinism's Mark is Party Discipline"

and even more nauseatingly:

"Duranty 10 6/26/1931 - "Stalinism Solving Minorities Problem" "

Doesn't this beggar the question of what exactly is propaganda, and why anyone would think that it's a recent development?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

As a sidebar:
"Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.""

Y'know, I wondered much the same thing back in 1991.

Why would an Iraqi "Baby Milk Factory" that we had bombed be called and labelled:

"Baby Milk Factory"

in English?

That's as absurd as a Safeway in Omaha having the "Safeway" sign labelled in Cyrillic.

I didn't buy that scam at all, but many of the anti-war "Peace" activists bought it hook line and sinker.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

We'll see how much discussion arises from this...

"JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory..."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html#ixzz0qS4Xg8Cn

McClatchy remains one of the standout investigative journalism operations.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 10, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

As usual, the superb Wretchard nails it:

"http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/06/09/theyre-here/#more-9324"

Money quote:

"If you want to be admitted into the inner sanctum of the cultural elite, if you wish to be considered ‘cool’; if you aspire to be like a very powerful segment of the movers and shakers, then you had better stop clinging to your Bibles and guns and get with the program."

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/the_morning_plum_28.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 10, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"Really? Are all politicians equally guilty of this? Perhaps all humans?"


Wait a minute. After all the fussing over how Bush engaged in cynical politics but Obama doesn't, you're now flippantly admitting that both (and all) are equally guilty because equally human???

I guess I'll mark down the day as when someone here admitted that Bush is human, but now I see this, again, wasn't even a serious argument at all. Or was this just another goal post move?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Bilge,

Ah, the Baby Milk Factory.

I will always remember it. I can remember yelling at my TV, incredulous that the network boobs were reporting the story with a straight face and showing that camera shot without it occurring to them to ask the obvious question you raise.

Perhaps some of them raised some questions about the legitimacy of the story, but if so I don't remember it. At the time, I thought, this really can't be just plain old liberal bias or post-Vietnam anti-US bias; these guys are just plain gullible simpletons as well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"This is a telling example of how the reduction in depth reporting by almost all major news organizations inevitably brings about a shift towards the glib and repetitive - precisely the means whereby propaganda is so easily disseminated with little countervailing information available to citizens. "

Bilge has already pointed out the absurdity of thinking that susceptability to propaganda is somehow higher today than back in the day when news organizations were supposedly doing "in-depth" reporting and giving out pulitzers to communist propagadists. But even more crazy is your assertion that there is less information available to citizens today than previously. In fact, propaganda is certainly far less effective today than ever before precisely because there is so much more information available from so many more sources than ever before.

Who besides Bernie imagines that "Loose Lips Sinks Ships" or encouraging people to grow "victory gardens" would be more effective today than in 1942?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"This is a telling example of how the reduction in depth reporting by almost all major news organizations inevitably brings about a shift towards the glib and repetitive - precisely the means whereby propaganda is so easily disseminated with little countervailing information available to citizens. "

Bilge has already pointed out the absurdity of thinking that susceptability to propaganda is somehow higher today than back in the day when news organizations were supposedly doing "in-depth" reporting and giving out pulitzers to communist propagadists. But even more crazy is your assertion that there is less information available to citizens today than previously. In fact, propaganda is certainly far less effective today than ever before precisely because there is so much more information available from so many more sources than ever before.

Who besides Bernie imagines that "Loose Lips Sinks Ships" or encouraging people to grow "victory gardens" would be more effective today than in 1942?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 10, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, imagine Loose Lips Sink Ships in the age of wikileaks and the contemporary NYT.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 10, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

QB1:
"Yeah, imagine Loose Lips Sink Ships in the age of wikileaks and the contemporary NYT. "

I've sailed military cargo ships into war zones.

I don't need to imagine. It's an Operational Security NIGHTMARE.

Every booger-eater with a camera cell phone and/or an internet connection...we need a ship-sized "Cone of Silence" from the old "Get Smart" series.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 10, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company