Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Alaska station says Breitbart Web site audio attack is bogus

Is another Andrew Breitbart Web site production about to be unmasked as bogus?

Breitbart's Big Journalism site is making an incendiary accusation: That reporters at the Anchorage CBS affiliate KTVA were caught conspiring to damage Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller. Big Journalism posted a snippet of audio allegedly showing this: It features KTVA reporters talking among themselves while -- unbeknownst to them -- they were accidentally being recorded on the voicemail of Miller's campaign manager.

But it's unclear from the recording precisely what, if anything, was being plotted. And now the station is adamantly denying the charges, claiming the audio was clipped and taken out of the fuller context. KTVA general manager Jerry Bever sends over a statement claiming the "complete recording was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign."

If this is true, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened, as you may recall.

Big Journalism's audio was picked up on by Sarah Palin on Fox News this morning, and by the NRSC, which issued a statement claiming: "It should trouble all Americans that any member of the media would attempt to purposefully smear a nominee for the U.S. Senate."

But here's the response from Bever, the general manager of KTVA:

"It's unfortunate that this recording has happened. It's unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation.

"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue. The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller's appearance on that evening's newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening's Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news.

"The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."

The full audio is only on the cell phone of Miller's campaign manager. Will the campaign release it? Also: Who edited the audio that Big Journalism posted?


UPDATE, 2:06 p.m.: It's possible that the audio Big Journalism posted is all that was recorded on the cell phone. But even if this were the case, running with this audio alone, if that was all that existed, seems pretty questionable.

UPDATE, 2:54 p.m.: This post has been edited from the original for the sake of accuracy.

By Greg Sargent  | October 31, 2010; 1:40 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How grim is the House map for Dems? Very.
Next: Voters aren't buying Dem message, ctd

Comments

I am shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

To find that Andy Breitbart has taken remarks out of context and posted something deliberately misleading.

/ABC

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/rxwddzqydh--Here-Are-Your-WinningsCasablanca-Claude-Rains-Captain-Renault-Leo-White-
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 31, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"...making an incendiary accusation..."

Actually, it could not possibly be more commonplace.

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg is now thread-bombing his own blog. I guessed he's going scorched earth. Tuesday night is going to be fun!

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 31, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Bogus? I'll tell you what is bogus.

Obama's 2008 campaign themes. Completely Bogus.

Bipartisanship? at the health care meetings? Bogus.

Post-Racial end to Affirmative Action? Bogus.


Transparency? Not with that file in Hawaii Bogus


Obama's commitments to fight the war in Afghanistan? Bogus.


Obam's abilities to handle the office? Bogus.


Bogus on all accounts.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Poor Breitbart. If only he were a liberal, he'd have his own primetime show on MSNBC by now.

Tell us more, thunder, about all the wonderful things Barry is doing to get the deficit under control and the national debt paid off. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 31, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It was a stray answering message, so it was clipped to the length of an answering message, which if you born in the last 100 years you should know is limited.

Of course you would leave that out because it would be unfair to burden your liberal readers with to much cerebral activity. It would cause a self esteem crisis as they realize that the media has been nakedly lying to their faces this entire time and they were to stupid to join the Tea Party.

Posted by: gorak | October 31, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence

Maybe it is actually thread-thread bombing - thread-bombing with threads.


I still think that trolls live in trees, right above the cookie ovens.


But that is just me.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

gorak, do you know that to be the case?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 31, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Tell us more, thunder, about all the wonderful things Barry is doing to get the deficit under control and the national debt paid off. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 31, 2010 1:55 PM
=========================

Frankly, the best way to get the Republican debt we have under control is to get people working again. Cutting spending now will just hurt the economy more, and result in even more debt.

The time to cut spending is when the economy is doing well. Republicans (at least in recent decades) have never figured that out.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 31, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

This story is actually hilarious.

The reporters are complaining that THEY have been taken out of context???

And yet, they actually recorded themselves on someone else's voicemail - so the amount of the conversation is the amount of the conversation.


Sounds like another Journolist scandal.

Oh well, the media is only trying to twist things that people say out of context - so they are experts at it. The individuals here should actually be arrested for conspiracy to liable someone - I guess Greg is now in the role of defense attorney.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Gorak

you might not know that to be the case, but the reporters in question sound like they are entering into a conspiracy.

Do we know that to be the case???


but do we know it is actually the case that the reporters are taken out of context???


Reporters really are the types to give people the benefit of the doubt

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

However this latest incident turns out for Breitbart's credibility, the tragectory of the Alaska Senate race has been set for weeks now.

The polls show write-in Murkowski the winner. The only question is who will be second, Miller or McAdams.

See this scatterchart for all the polls on this race and you will see the trendlines that have been in place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/AK/senate/?chart=10AKSenGEMvM

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

If this were a Liberal or Left Wing site, Breitbart would have been fired and trashed the first time he pulled this crap, like Dan Rather. Instead, because he's a prodigy of RW "journalism", he'll surely get a raise and/or promotion of some kind from the Conservative establishment, like Glenn Beck.

Posted by: Barry_H_Entai | October 31, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

GREG

There really is nothing questionable about it - these reporters should be fired.

In addition, they probably should be arrested and thrown in jail.


Greg Is your moral character so low that you would condone this activity? The tape is clear.

.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's see. There is a precedent. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post was running a Journolista listserve that conspired to promote Democrats and put down Republicans in this same manner. I see most of those unethical political operatives posing as journalists are still on the Post's payroll and your lack of integrity is still showing. CBS forged documents to undermine George W. Bush. At least CBS fired the bums responsible for that. Has the Post ever dug into the story of Breitbart and Mrs. Sherrod and the push to pay off 89,000 of the nation's 40,000 black farmers with big bucks? I guess not. The bill was sponsored by your boy Obama and your marching orders are not to look into his fraud. Who should be believe? The Washington Post or our own lying ears? I tend to believe Breitbart is more credible than the Washington Post.

Posted by: hrumphgrumble | October 31, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The recording is rough but what is CLEAR AS A BELL IS KTVA's response, saying:

...The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news...

Reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, in this manner, is a function of a campaign NOT a function of a news reporting organization.

Clearly, the KTVA's response is more damming and revealing of their character than the garbled tape itself!

Posted by: BarryJL | October 31, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

hrumphgrumble

The disturbing part of this is Greg Sargent appears to be condoning and making excuses for this kind of behavior.

Reporters are supposed to report - not make the news.

This is a conspiracy to fabricate stories - it is an attempt at a smear campaign.


So, Greg is such lacking in morality and character that he would not recognize this isn't what it is ???


What if Joe Miller was caught on voicemail saying something - would Greg be calling for such restraint and understanding that the words are out of context??? Absolutely not.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

@all,

Interesting new info from pollster.com, showing that the Nevada early voting stats show that far more Democrats are early voting than Republicans. The author has the breakdowns for the two largest counties and totals for the state, day by day.

Assuming Democrats are voting democratic, this is encouraging for Harry Reid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-late-democratic-early-v_b_775951.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans (at least in recent decades) have never figured that out."

To be fair, no one's ever figured it out completely, because it's a theory.

Whether we need more practice is another question entirely.

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of amusing that I'm getting criticized for one sided reporting because I reported on the Alaska TV station's response, and didn't rely only on Breitbart's audio.

These people have absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. Beyond parody.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 31, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

According to assertions by some voters, all you have to do is show up and Harry Reid automatically gets a vote or two.

Posted by: Brigade | October 31, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

hrumphgrumble,

If you believe any of those fabricated stories you posted, you are certainly gullible enough to believe breitbart over anybody.

Please dude, wtf up!

The reason those stories you alluded to sound so fantastic, is because they are no less fairy tale than Disney Land.

Posted by: Barry_H_Entai | October 31, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"But even if this were the case, running with this audio alone, if that was all that existed, seems pretty questionable."

But I'm pretty sure, had the reverse been the case--say, someone from the Fox campaign had called Reid and then continued after they thought they hung up, and it sounded like they were plotting how Reid might be sabotaged, there'd be a lot of noise from Democrats. There wouldn't be a lot of talk about how it might have been taken out of context.

Indeed, it might have been reported as breaking news on this very blog. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 31, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

12 bar blues, also see the Ralston column I posted earlier today. He makes that same point

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 31, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

When the entire video of Shirley Sherrod's speech was released, everyone saw what a tool Breitbart was. When the entire recording of this call is released, he will look like the lying, smear artist he is. And ABC will will kick themselves for being stupid enough to have as part of their election coverage.

Posted by: LilyNW | October 31, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Typical for journalism today. You just have to remember that our media has an agenda and always has.

90% of mainstream media are Democrats that contribute to Democrat causes.

Mainstream media hates the new media because it's unable to control the direction and content of the flow of news.

Posted by: opfor6 | October 31, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, if Huffpo or some other Left-leaning organization had done the same thing as breitbart, repeatedly obfuscating the truth for political agenda purposes, the RW MSM would be having a major conniption about it for the next 48 hours to a month.

Posted by: Barry_H_Entai | October 31, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

@Greg,

Ralston wrote: One more thing: Republicans do not have the huge turnout advantage in early voting they should in a wave election -- under 4 points.

McDonald's article seems to be saying that through last Friday, the early voting pattern shows the Democrats ahead of the Republicans.

Friday's early voting turns out to be disproportionately large.

So, Ralston's prediction is being confirmed and strengthened, if I'm reading McDonald's article correctly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-late-democratic-early-v_b_775951.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Greg. The internet sure gets abused by an extra-ordinarily awful segment of society. This 20% crowd goes hysterical with the push of their button and their noise is always the same worthless, contrived nonsense. They talk about deregulation and bailouts in the same breath. Vote for the same political party that owns expansionary fiscal policy and blab about government as they get their government health care and checks and income multipliers.

I am hardly surprised to find Breitbart here. He and his generation are the naturally unemployed, muckrakers of the world, a bunch of liars enabled by a desperate political party.

Posted by: mikeVA1 | October 31, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Somebody's ODS is escalating again....

Posted by: Barry_H_Entai | October 31, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

They talk about deregulation and bailouts in the same breath.
--------------------------------
@Mike,

I can go you one better. I was involved in a short discussion with a person who advocated nationizing an industry, but God forbid, it can't be regulated.

You can imagine why the discussion was short. What is the point?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the laughter and talk about tweeting an assault were all faked, too, right? Spin, Spin. Spin. And people wonder why Fox News is so popular and mainstream media newspaper circulation and ratings are falling? Pretty obvious, I think.

Posted by: Question_Assumptions | October 31, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Greg

The one-sidedness is not a result of posting the response of the tv station - without the details that the reporters were looking for a random child molester to smear Joe Miller with...


It's not that the station's response gets detailed coverage, but not the transcript.


The one-sidedness comes from your use of the word "bogus" in the first sentence.


And your use of the word "questionable" in the last sentence.


Aside from that, the reporters deserve Pulitizers, right?

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting new info from pollster.com, showing that the Nevada early voting stats show that far more Democrats are early voting than Republicans. The author has the breakdowns for the two largest counties and totals for the state, day by day.

Assuming Democrats are voting democratic, this is encouraging for Harry Reid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-late-democratic-early-v_b_775951.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues "

It kind of makes you wonder how accurate the pollster models are. If there is an enthusiasm gap, it really seems to be working in the Dems' favor, at least up to this point. Yeah, it's early voting, but is there any reason to think that early voting would work in the Dems favor more than the Rs? Maybe Rs are just going to hope the corporate money will make up for their lack of GOTV.

Some of these close races are going to be very interesting. If all these pollsters are so underweighting the Dems' demographics, you could have some surprises.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, it might have been reported as breaking news on this very blog. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 31, 2010 2:33 PM
============

The best way to respond to Republican lying and cheating is to post a hypothetical "What if the Democrats did it"?

If your only tool is a projector...
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 31, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

At least Brietbart has the integrity to put his updates at the top of his articles.

I heard them laughing about finding, and exploiting the presence of, a child molester in the crowd. Mulling the possibilities of instigating a Twitter attack.

It sounds like this author is spinning...

You people really live in an ivory tower, don't you?

Posted by: AngelaThorn | October 31, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

is there any reason to think that early voting would work in the Dems favor more than the Rs?
--------------------------------
@ddawd,

It seems to me that early voting might be equivalent to enthusiasm. Otherwise, why vote early? It can't be because all the Democrats are going on vacation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Greg, congrats on the linkage, the Trollbaggers have come running over to scream.

Shop talk, war games, what ifs, chuckles, big deal. How hard do you think they laughed when they heard about Miller's armies piling up the write-ins to weaken Murkowski?

Brietbart has zero integrity. Please, Angela, they're desperate for your attention at RedState. Hurry along.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 31, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"@ddawd,

It seems to me that early voting might be equivalent to enthusiasm. Otherwise, why vote early? It can't be because all the Democrats are going on vacation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

It's been impressive. On all the GOTV outings I've been on, I've been having a hard time finding people who haven't voted yet. When I went to vote, it was pretty busy. Of course, I don't know what party everyone is, but this district is heavily Dem, so I'd have to think it's mostly Dem voters. It will still take a miracle for Melancon to beat Vitter, but if Richmond can win LA-2, it would be a small consolation.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

shrink, another back there.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The fact that this incident is far from being resolved hasn't stopped Palin from running with it, of course.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 31, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I don't understand what you found "unclear."
The reporters said the were going to screen Miller's supporters were child molesters, and use social networks to publicize Rand Paul-like incidents.

(1) KTVA claims the reporters were concerned that "others" would be looking for the molesters. Greg, is this a plausible explanation -- that they were trying to protect Miller from some highly hypothetical smear? And what was that business about waiting until the rally actually occurred, so that it would look like they just "found" the pervert at the rally rather than identified him from a list in advance?

(2) KTVA's reporters put their stories on a television station. Are you suggesting that it is plausible that the station was switching over to a Facebook/Twitter mode for the sole purpose of reporting hypothetical rally violence?

(3) Why are the reporters fixated on these particular hypotheticals? Don't they just go to the rally and cover what happens?

Posted by: northeastelizabeth | October 31, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

At least Brietbart has the integrity
...
Posted by: AngelaThorn | October 31, 2010 3:03 PM
=================================

Thanks for the laugh, Angela.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 31, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

One more Nevada data point:

NV3 (Suburban Vegas) Congressional race, GOP challenger w/ 10 point lead:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/poll--heck-takes-lead-over-titus-106399053.html

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I listened to the clip, I read the transcript--there isn't enough there to know what the heck was going on. If one knew the people, or had some kind of backstory, there might be enough to come up with some THEORY as to what they were talking about, but absent that, I can't determine it one way or the other.

I would NOT assume this is some kind of conspiracy to do anything.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Heh Greg Sargent (former journalister) tells his incoherent audience to not believe their ears.

The left is out in full panic mode today.

Posted by: robtr | October 31, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

northeastelizabeth, you are correct. The attempt by KTVA to explain their conversation is the most damning evidence of all.

Posted by: BarryJL | October 31, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

As tao points out, the Republican in NV3 has suddenly opened up a statistically significant +10 lead. Last month, the Republican was trailing.

And the reason is:

"David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, attributed the shift to a boatload of outside money pouring into the district to influence voters' opinions.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics updated Wednesday showed $6.8 million has been spent by outside groups, more than any other Congressional District in the nation except for the 7th District in Michigan where $6.9 million was spent."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/poll--heck-takes-lead-over-titus-106399053.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Well just darned ~ Greg (is that his name) CHANGED his article once he realized that the station said "Yup, they got us".

So, hey Greg, all those comments are equally spurious and without meaning once we know the story.

I heard the tape.

Sounds quite normal.

Bunch of your buddies conspiring to trash another Republican candidate with fake BS.

Won't be the first time. Undoubtedly won't be the last. But, remember this, what happened to Dan Rather when he got caught peddling counterfeited BS.

HE GOT FIRED.

Good.

Glad you remembered that.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 31, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Of course every hypothetical must be tamed out before a local news station covers an event. You never know when, say, Godzilla may show up at a local elementary school during the lunchtime live weather remote. Jeebus, I mean you have to have a plan don't you? You Palinistas sure a a cynical bunch.

Shorter tv station response: Baby, who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Is STRF trying to get Greg Sargent fired for banning STRF et al from the blog?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

It's a classic nondenial denial by the station. They admit the recording is of their personnel. They don't claim the transcript is inaccurate. They only claim there was more context that wasn't recorded.

But it's hard to conceive of an innocent explanation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 ~ so, let's see if the station can come up with the rest of the context.

You know that's what nailed Dan Rather ~ lack of context ~ lack of coherency ~ and it was all fake stuff. You know who figured out that it was done in a Microsoft font (making it rather recent). I figured out that it was done with kerning "on" (you can do that in the setups)

Nebraska and Tennessee Democrat party operatives were involved in creating the fakes and getting the composition done.

I think the tall tale here is that these people were not involved in a conspiracy to come up with some sort of salicious nonsense concerning one or more folks that Mr. Miller might come into contact with at a public event. I haven't seen that they had a direct, corporate contact with the DNC though ~ but that's coming ~ Fur Shur ~ that's coming!

CBS will probably cut their relationship with their network!

Posted by: muawiyah | October 31, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

But it's hard to conceive of an innocent explanation.
---------------------------------
Isn't it interesting the differences between listeners. Without the entire context, I don't know how you can conclude much. Context is important, don't you think?

Now, if I wanted to theorize, not conclude, I could theorize all sorts of innocent explanations, including the TV station's explanation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

But it's hard to conceive of an innocent explanation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 4:00 PM |
=====================

Ask Shirley Sherrod.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 31, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg, don't you and Ezra game out scenarios? It'd be awfully negligent of you guys if you didnt have a plan for, I don't know, instead of publishing a post on the blog, the signal gets messed up and instead you initiate a virus leak at USAMERID and start a Zombie Apocalypse. Come on, commen sense right? Of course Republicans associate with child molesters. Of course we search for Move On Activists to head stomp.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg, why no mention of the "child molestors" or "registered sex offenders" on the tape? Why no link to, or embedding of, the audio in your post? Why no transcript?

Were these items to hard for you to obtain with the WaPo's limited (and declining) resources? Would basic fact-checking and inclusion of material details in your "reportage" have caused you to over-exert your delicate, not-made-for-a-real-job fingertips? Or, perhaps you are trying to obscure the truth from your loyal Kool Aid-drinking readers (which are numerous, I am sure) lest their brains fall out of their open minds?

Here's a "what-if" scenario for you: What if the WaPo were a demonstrably biased burp rag covered in stinky, regurgitated liberal pablum? What if...

Posted by: bonjournolist | October 31, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

To blithely discount context as something important is a strange concept for someone interested in the truth.

Here's a real life example from my own life: I'm waiting for a van to pull out of a parallel parking spot in a park. When the van pulls out, I pull into the spot. Then the van decides to make a U turn, and not realizing I was in the spot, backed right into me.

A passerby, who had only seen the van backing into me, "concluded" that the van had been waiting for the parking spot and that I had "stolen" the spot, and was willing to testify against me.

That's what lack of context leads you to perceive.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Why is anyone, and I mean *anyone*, stupid enough to believe even a single lie that comes out of Breitbart? When has that self-absorbed hack ever not lied? When it comes to anything that malicious hack has to say, the only response needed is, "Breitbart is a known liar and no accusation he ever makes has a single shred of credibility."

Posted by: jiji1 | October 31, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

You would think that Breitbart would have the common sense to start investigatively reporting for a change, you know, journalism. How hard is it to check to see what the people involved say or have to explain - you know report both sides of the story. Apparently this is waaaaay beyond Breitbart's cognitive abilities and professional capabilities. Rather got fired for doing much less than this, and Breitbart has done this repeatedly.

Just goes to show ya the integrity difference between the RW media and the LW media.

Posted by: Barry_H_Entai | October 31, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Yeah but 12bar, what the tv station is saying is they were merely planning for various scenarios. You'd have been negligent if you hadn't previously planned for that van to u-turn by not installing rocket pods on your car to blast you out of the way, right?

Planning people, that's all they were doing. Innocent as lambs!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The Economy is still bad

We can talk about smear campaigns day in and day out.

However, the bottom line is that Obama and the democrats still have no viable economic plan.

More stimulus is not going to work.

Obama's stimulus failed. Obama's economic advisors are either not being listened to, or are completely out of ideas - they are leaving the administration and few solid economic advisors want to join Obama's team.

Obams stil just does not get it - the health care plan is dragging down hiring and dragging down the economy.

This leaves the American People but no other choice than to vote all the democrats OUT.

.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The Economy is still bad

We can talk about smear campaigns day in and day out.

However, the bottom line is that Obama and the democrats still have no viable economic plan.

More stimulus is not going to work.

Obama's stimulus failed. Obama's economic advisors are either not being listened to, or are completely out of ideas - they are leaving the administration and few solid economic advisors want to join Obama's team.

Obams stil just does not get it - the health care plan is dragging down hiring and dragging down the economy.

This leaves the American People but no other choice than to vote all the democrats OUT.

.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

@troll,

I just don't hear the smoking gun. It is true that in a fairly small group of people, one will be a registered sex offender. If you don't believe that, check your own neighborhood on the registered lists. I lived in a town of 200 in Utah (yes, Utah), and when I checked 5 were living there, including the one who lived NEXT DOOR.

I just don't get this is some kind of conspiracy to "get" Joe Miller. First, Miller is lagging so badly in the polls, that why would people be out to "get" him. Are we saying these TV guys are Murkowski supporters, because the polls show her pulling away in the final stretch.

If there is partisanship, it must be Republican partisans. I don't even believe that. I just don't read this as partisanship.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

Contributions:
Dina Titus (D)* $2,280,427
Joe Heck (R) $1,260,348

Outside $$$:
DEM $3,586,236
GOP $2,140,120

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=NV03&cycle=2010

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Instead of dismissing "Breitbart's" "audio attack" out of hand, why don't you all do some investigating and fact-checking of your own? Then, if your faculties of perception and reason were functioning properly, you would realize that the audio went up on Joe Miller's YouTube page before any of Breitbart's websites even touched the story. To characterize this as something Andrew Breitbart initiated is totally dishonest (but I'm sure you already knew that, Greg Sargent).

Posted by: bonjournolist | October 31, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse


12 bar blues, also see the Ralston column I posted earlier today. He makes that same point

Posted by: Greg Sargent


Greg,

Have you hijacked your thread?

Posted by: elleng3 | October 31, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

To those who think there is some kind of Democratic partisanship going on, you need to review the polls on the Alaska race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/AK/senate/?chart=10AKSenGEMvM
-----------------------------
Murkowski is way ahead +7.5 over Miller.

Second is Miller +3.5 over McAdams. Third is McAdams.

If it is partisans pulling pranks through the TV station, it is Murkowski's supporters.

There is no glory in coming in second rather than third.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

So you are refuting the quote from the Sun? You're sure that your numbers include all dollars coming into the race? If you're sure, then you must be right.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues says:
"I just don't hear the smoking gun. It is true that in a fairly small group of people, one will be a registered sex offender."

Please tell me, why would the topic of registered sex offenders have any place in a discussion about the coverage of a political rally unless the candidate were a sex offender himself or had in some way associated himself with a sex offender? It makes zero sense. Zero.

Posted by: bonjournolist | October 31, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

bonjournolist at 4:17 PM


Greg embedded the Moveon.org video - the woman rushing at Rand Paul and no one knew if she had a weapon or not.

Yea - the reporters were trying to smear Joe Miller - and fabricate a story.


It is a question of morality -

Is the conduct of the reporters being defended by the Washington Post - as if their own reporters did the same, it would be OK?

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's take on the KTVA dustup:
They're "contemptible b@stards." LOL. That's calling in like it is.

Posted by: Brigade | October 31, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Now, if I wanted to theorize, not conclude, I could theorize all sorts of innocent explanations, including the TV station's explanation."

Actually, the TV station's explanation doesn't make a lot of sense given what we can hear. They say that the "complete recording was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign."

And yet, the first thing we hear is a woman reporter saying "That's up to you because you have the experience, but that's what I would do."

So clearly they are not talking about what "others" might be able to do. They are talking about what someone sitting right there involved in the conversation should do.

It is not clear to me exactly what they are planning, but it is clear that whatever it is, the "doers" are involved in the conversation. At least with regard to the discussion we can hear, the claim that it was just speculation about what "others" might do seems pretty implausible to me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Please tell me, why would the topic of registered sex offenders have any place in a discussion about the coverage of a political rally unless the candidate were a sex offender himself or had in some way associated himself with a sex offender? It makes zero sense. Zero.
-------------------------------
It makes sense to me in the context of a what-if scenario. To me this is all theorizing. I'd be more persuaded if there was more "there" there.

Perhaps, if we knew more about the context or the backstory, we'd know why sex offenders came up in the conversation. Just possibly, if we knew more, we'd have more to go on.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

12bar, I'm agreeing with you. I'm sure that, let's think of a journalist, ok, Greg. I'm sure that Greg, before he went to Sanity/Fear rally, gamed out what he would write when he inevitably ran across a registered sex offender. Who hasn't done that, really. You're right, Context. It's all context.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Greg, if most people had self-awareness, I wouldn't get paid.

12B later I'll get after the next installment, which might be called, whether or not government has the incentive to do the right thing. In the Republican world view, it does not and it can not be made to. If they are right, there never can be health care reform. I'm making no claims as to the capacity or the intentions of our government, I'm just pointing out the fundamental difference between say, the relationship of the people of Denmark to their government and some of us to ours.

The Republican platform since Reagan has been simple, if you elect me to government why I'll dismantle it, I'll crush it, I'll teach it a lesson it'll never forget. But of course, they never do, they grow it just the same.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

This is actually a new one - it used to be that if one didn't agree with Obama, you were called a RACIST.

Now, they try to smear you as friends of a child molester.


Unbelievable how far the democrats will go to sidestep how bad Obama's economic policies are.

Obama's stimulus didn't work.

Obama is begging for two more years - which his term has. But he is begging for two more years to have a majority in Congress. However, Obama is not giving the country an Economic Plan.

Yes, that is the issue.


The country needs to hear from Obama what he is going to do on the economy - in this Free Trade environment in which stimulus dollars tend to stimulate other countries, like China.

And clearly Obama has not given the nation an economic plan.


This is incompetence at its worst - and one must wonder if Obama is completely unable to handle the job.

Obama can still call all the voters RACIST - that might be his last chance.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

Maybe you can take up Breitbart's case to litigate this snippet of a meeting as a full blown conspiracy, but the whole thing falls apart on motivation.

Murkowski is +7.5 points over Miller. Miller is +3.5 points over McAdams.

So whose supporters are conspiring against Miller? Murkowski's supporters to make sure she wins? McAdams supporters so their guy can come in second?

This whole story dies within this day is my prediction.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

@shrink,

I hear you and will see you later on the dead thread.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

The $#'s are taken direct from Open Secrets, but there's a lag back to 10/13, so perhaps there's been a big Heck ad buy in last two weeks that turned everything around!

Then again Prof Damore may be: 1) a Dem; or 2) as straight down the line as Alaska reporters; or 3) FOS.

{{{giggletrending}}}

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

WOW I think Greg Sargent has just made a major LIFE CHANGING BREAKTHROUGH.


Greg edited "for the sake of accuracy."


Wow - Greg is now taking Accuracy seriously.


Perhaps soon we will hear about whether Obama really did take $500 Billion out of Medicare - just so his health care plan could appear "paid for."

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

What, Greg?!? Still no audio?!? Still no transcript?!? You must be otherwise occupied at the moment; very busy, no doubt, excusing journalistic malfeasance and touting the plausibility of the implausible in other quarters.

Posted by: bonjournolist | October 31, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

IF you go over to Breitbart's website, you'll find he refers to what happened with Jerry Brown. JERRY BROWN, THE DEMOCRAT!!!

In other words, they are making a big hullabahoo about Republicans being targeted when not long ago, Republicans did the targeting! So how can it be that the "lamestream media" is so biased that it disseminates the same dirty trick (of listening in on private conversations and then publicizing what is heard without putting it in context) against BOTH PARTIES?

Bald-faced hypocrisy. Only Palinites, who are willing to believe anything the Word-Salad Queen says, will be effected by this news. Everyone else will just go about their ways, shaking their heads in saddness over how corrupt the corruption-callers have themselves become.

Posted by: pasc1 | October 31, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Maybe you can take up Breitbart's case to litigate this snippet of a meeting as a full blown conspiracy..."

Maybe. But all I was initially trying to do was point out that the TV station's explanation doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Which makes one wonder why the station would put up a bogus explanation if it was as innocent as they say.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

I don't know who the prof is, nor Benjamin Spillman, the reporter for the Sun, nor the

"An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics updated Wednesday showed $6.8 million has been spent by outside groups, more than any other Congressional District in the nation except for the 7th District in Michigan where $6.9 million was spent."

------------------------------------
I don't have any pride of ownership in what the article says. In fact, I didn't even seek out conflicting information. I simply followed your link and read the entire article.

If you have other data, and you are sure about it, you might be right and they are wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The American People are offended by the Obama tactics of False Charges of Racism.

This came up with the NAACP resolution over the summer - and then some report was released a few weeks ago - in a horrible attempt to claim racism against Obama.

Only LOGIC is the problem. A certain amount of people voted for Obama the first time, and the loss of some of that support is really Obama's problem - those people can not be considered racists because they voted for Obama the first time.


False Charges of Racism are offensive to the American Political system - and it would have been right for Obama to resign after not denouncing these tactics of his own people.


At Stewart rally, Stewart made a similar point - he found it amazing that some people are "unable to distinquish between real racists and the Tea Partiers."

Stewart went on to say that was "offensive to the real racists who put a great deal of effort into their hate."


Just about says it. The False Charges of Racism - those tactics of the Obama people - are nothing but pathetic smear campaigns which should be denounced - and penalties should go to those who try these horrendous Obama tactics.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

pasc1: "IF you go over to Breitbart's website, you'll find he refers to what happened with Jerry Brown. JERRY BROWN, THE DEMOCRAT!!!"

Nowhere in the post (by P.J. Salvatore, not Andrew Breitbart himself) on Breitbart's website is the word "Democrat" or any variation even used. No accusation is made against any political party or campaign. The only charges leveled are at those whose voices are recorded.

Posted by: bonjournolist | October 31, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Greg -

The only thing that's bogus around here is you. In a profession known for corruption and dishonesty, you stand out as one of the most dishonest and corrupt.

Posted by: brianc2221 | October 31, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Shrnk said:

"The Republican platform since Reagan has been simple, if you elect me to government why I'll dismantle it, I'll crush it, I'll teach it a lesson it'll never forget."

I don't suppose you could trouble yourself to provide some examples of this stated platform.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

Sorry.

I didn't mean it to browbeat ya. Just following the sources thru, which, as is quite evident today, is a good thing to do.

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I didn't mean it to browbeat ya. Just following the sources thru, which, as is quite evident today, is a good thing to do.
-------------------------------
@tao,

Don't worry, I don't feel a bit browbeaten. It is interesting just to follow the links all the way thru. It provides context (something being maligned today), and context always makes us smarter. My old partner used to always say "knowledge is not dangerous".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

brianc2221,

Nope.

Greg, like Miracle Max, is mostly honest.

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Frankly, the best way to get the Republican debt we have under control is to get people working again. Cutting spending now will just hurt the economy more, and result in even more debt."

And you people have trouble with the Laffer Curve. We're spending more than ever, doing nothing but piling up more debt, but you still think we can spend our way out of debt.

"The time to cut spending is when the economy is doing well. Republicans (at least in recent decades) have never figured that out."

Actually, the GOP Congress cut spending a bit when Clinton was doing his thing in the Oval Office.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The American People are offended by the Obama tactics of False Charges of Racism.

This came up with the NAACP resolution over the summer - and then some report was released a few weeks ago - in a horrible attempt to claim racism against Obama.

Only LOGIC is the problem. A certain amount of people voted for Obama the first time, and the loss of some of that support is really Obama's problem - those people can not be considered racists because they voted for Obama the first time.


False Charges of Racism are offensive to the American Political system - and it would have been right for Obama to resign after not denouncing these tactics of his own people.


At Stewart rally, Stewart made a similar point - he found it amazing that some people are "unable to distinquish between real racists and the Tea Partiers."

Stewart went on to say that was "offensive to the real racists who put a great deal of effort into their hate."


Just about says it. The False Charges of Racism - those tactics of the Obama people - are nothing but pathetic smear campaigns which should be denounced - and penalties should go to those who try these horrendous Obama tactics.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Ask Shirley Sherrod."

No need. The station gave as much explanation is it has. It's "context" explanation doesn't wash.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, the GOP Congress cut spending a bit when Clinton was doing his thing in the Oval Office."

Of course, they were pretty much forced into it after their government shutdown failed miserably.

But I'll give them credit for doing the right thing eventually.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Well the American People are offended by the Obama tactics of False Charges of Racism


Ddawd - I hope you listened to Stewart's comments - they apply to many of the things you have said over the past few years.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I will repeat this important reasoning - if you are serious about being an American, you will consider this:


I dare anyone to add up all the taxes you pay - start with your paycheck. Then add in all the sales taxes you pay. Then any Federal income taxes you pay in addition to your paycheck.

Then add in your property taxes. Don't forget the taxes you paid when you bought your car - if you have your car for 5 years, add in one-fifth of that amount for the year.


What is that number???


________________________________


NOW I dare you to call your town and find out how big their yearly budget is.

Call the County - ask them how much the County and the county agencies are spending in their yearly budgets.


Then look on up on the internet what your State is spending every year.


Then you can add in the Federal spending of 1.3 Trillion.


________________________________


Do you think the government could run on HALF that amount?

It could, and few people would even notice.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, they were pretty much forced into it after their government shutdown failed miserably.

But I'll give them credit for doing the right thing eventually."

That's probably the most illogical, not to mention ahistorical, thing ever said on PL. Really.

But you were saying the time to cut spending is when the economy is growing. Why haven't Democrats ever done that?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

funny how the headline claims the radio station said its bogus but the body of his article the radio station seems to admit the recording is real. Maybe Greg Sargent is bogus,

Posted by: dencal26 | October 31, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"It provides context (something being maligned today)..."

Where has context been maligned?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

QB1,

Don't you remember? The Clenis veto'd three different versions of welfare reform because the Republican controlled Congress didn't want a welfare reform bill.

Wheels within wheels. Dude plays 11 dimensional chess.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"But you were saying the time to cut spending is when the economy is growing. Why haven't Democrats ever done that?

Posted by: quarterback1"

I said the time to cut deficits was when the economy is growing.

But history lesson.

After the country seemed to finally be out of the Bush recession, Clinton wanted to balance the budget. He wanted to do so primarily by increasing taxes on the highest earning bracket. Republicans wanted Clinton to cut social security and Medicare (and if the recent health care debates are any indication, the Republicans presumably intended to hammer Clinton for his cuts to SocSec and Medicare.)

Gingrich shut down the government over this, but popular opinion forced him to concede to the Clinton plan.

And this turned out to be very successful in terms of economic growth with the middle class incomes having their biggest boom in the post-Nixon era. (They had stayed stagnant during Reagan and Bush I and of course, took a huge hit during Bush II.)

Sorry, qb1. I know you want Gingrich to be the hero and hey, he eventually acquiesced. That's not nothing. I don't know for certain that Boehner wouldn't just let the nation fester.

I guess we'll see.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Where has context been maligned?
--------------------------
Scott, I don't engage in semantics arguments. In fact, I try not to argue at all. It robs me of peace of mind.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You are trying to start fights everyday - what is this story you are trying to push on us now? We see you try to start the fights and argue


______________________________


The tv station admitted that the tape was their people - and the tape is clear.


I hope the tv station will fire the people concerned. A criminal investigation should be undertaken.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican platform since Reagan has been simple, if you elect me to government why I'll dismantle it, I'll crush it, I'll teach it a lesson it'll never forget."

I don't suppose you could trouble yourself to provide some examples of this stated platform. Posted by: quarterback1"

Oh don't be naughty Republican. On your own I am sure you can find and endless list of your party's candidates demagoguing the 'government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem' meme.

Give it a shot. How many agencies and programs will your candidates slash, rollback, stop, eliminate, fight against and so on...and on? You know darn well our government is wrecking America, you are just trying to mess with me. Ha, ha, have a nice night, trick or treat.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"But history lesson."

Given what follows that, I don't think anyone will be looking to you for history lessons.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Scott, I don't engage in semantics arguments."

Well, we know that is not true. We saw you do it the other day with our whole tuition bubble discussion.

In any event, it is difficult to understand how asking you substantiate a claim you made is an invitation to a semantic argument.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

God hates Andrew Breitbart.

Posted by: bs2004 | October 31, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Quarterback

Please don't ask ddawd if his "doing the right thing" included smearing Monica Lewinsky in the national press - a young woman who didn't deserve the nightmare -

But that is how the democrats operate.

If only somebody in the press acted with honor and refused the smears.


____________________________

That is the problem with the national press now

With this Alaska case too - the media apparently believe its job is to SMEAR - it is not, its jobs is to report the news

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar writes at 6:09

In fact, I try not to argue at all. It robs me of peace of mind.

________________________________


Then why have you been stalking me for months?

Why are you following me around the internet?

Why are you trying to start conflicts with other people on this blog?

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"How many agencies and programs will your candidates slash, rollback, stop, eliminate, fight against and so on...and on?"

Not enough, regrettably.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

No, I wasn't trying to mess with you. You said Republicans have a platform of dismantling and crushing government.

It isn't true. You're the "shrink" and apparently think yourself positioned to evaluate the rest of us. Perhaps you could enlighten us about why people take such liberties with the truth.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Liberal Reporters scheming about ways to connect a Republican Senate nominee to "child molesters."

Na, could never happen.

Posted by: geo82170 | October 31, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The left is embarrassed and desperate.

"Pay no attention to those reporters behind the curtain making up stories about Joe Miller. It's all a fake, made up by those extreme right wingers."

Dream on Democrats, and don't let the door hit you on the rear end on the way out.

Posted by: getjiggly1 | October 31, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse


One thing we know is that Scott and quarterback are not the same person.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Given what follows that, I don't think anyone will be looking to you for history lessons.

Posted by: quarterback1"

They don't need to. Presumably anyone who visits this site will have access to the entire internet. They can all do their own research. They'll all come up with what I did.

I guess this is your cue for your "THE INTERNET HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!!!" rant.

Have at it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

One thing is certain, on Tuesday the American People get to respond to Obama's arrogance.

Respond to the False Charges of Racism

Respond to Obama's jamming of health care which few people wanted

Respond to Obama dragging down hiring with his health care plan

Respond to Obama ignoring the Economy in a crisis atmosphere


Tuesday - the American People finally get to respond to all the deceptions and lies of Obama and the democrats.


The Response is coming. Tuesday This week.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

We know the recording is true, so was the one in which the NJT union was unmasked, the same thing that happened with the young woman that said all she was trying to do was talk to Rand Paul, and liberal news media such as the WaPo believed her then the whole video showing her hitting Rand Paul with a sign came out. YOU FEIGN BELIEF OF THE LIBERAL even though you and they are liars, just like that Judge in Illinois trying to get reelected by sending out political propaganda that he is a Republican when in fact he is a democrat. You can't win on the issues, you can't win by telling the truth, so you push a lie or you cheat at the polls. BTW, those who hear the word NAZI used against Republicans, here is what it really means:
Next time a socialist (democrat) calls a free market capitalist a NAZI, remind them that the Nazi party's real name is:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known in English as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945.

What party does that fit here in the US? Which party do the Union Thugs support? Which party was openly supported by socialist democrats a month ago in a rally in Washington?

www.livingfortruth.wordpress.com

Posted by: 7steppeaceplan | October 31, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Shrink - is there a clinical explanation for people who routinely break into hysterical laughter for no apparent reason?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Love the journalistic standards. Headline: "audio attack is bogus."
Article:
"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue."

I heard the audio tapes. At very least, it betrays the degree of desperation of the mainstream media which is exactly what Breitbart intended to expose.

Sorry, you can't only pull BS like this for so long before people begin to notice. They've noticed long ago.

Posted by: CorpusCogitosum | October 31, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"One thing we know is that Scott and quarterback are not the same person."

Plenty of people have known that for a long time. But if you think that what each of us said conflicts, you ought to think more clearly. I happen to agree that the GOP likely won't ever cut enough agencies, programs, etc., to satisfy me. They've also never run on a platform of dismantling and crushing the government.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

12bar said: "
One thing we know is that Scott and quarterback are not the same person.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not being snarky here, what does this mean? Did you think one was sockpuppetting the other a la Glenn Greenwald?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"They don't need to. Presumably anyone who visits this site will have access to the entire internet. They can all do their own research. They'll all come up with what I did."

Words fail. It's amazing what passes for thought among liberals.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"Did you think one was sockpuppetting the other a la Glenn Greenwald?"

I guess I need to set you straight about Glenn Greenwald.

;-)

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

No, Troll, never for 1 second did I think they were the same person. You might want to review the bidding between 6:17 and 6:27.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

@qb,

Uh, oh I see, you are emphasizing the word "platform". The R's never ran on a PLATFORM of dismantling and crushing government. However, R's want to dismantle and crush government.

Now, if that's what you mean, that is the perfect example of a semantics argument.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"But if you think that what each of us said conflicts, you ought to think more clearly."

I'm beginning to think that when 12Bar says she doesn't do semantics, what she really means is that she understands words to mean whatever she finds convenient at the time, and don't bother her with their actual meanings, dammit.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Breitbart thing has run it's course in the thread. Just as well. Murkowski is not Charlie Crist. Either she or Miller will caucus with Republicans. The Democrat has a close to zero chance of winning this race.

Posted by: Brigade | October 31, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"You're the "shrink" and apparently think yourself positioned to evaluate the rest of us." Positioned for that? Not hardly, I don't even have your insurance information.
This is just fun, repartee, no one cares about what we type here.

But could you check in with this guy...

"How many agencies and programs will your candidates slash, rollback, stop, eliminate, fight against and so on...and on?

Not enough, regrettably. Posted by C3"

You wingers should huddle and decide whether our government is your enemy...or not, get back to us.

Meanwhile, people laughing a lot is good. In general whether or not there is a reason, funny is everywhere. And if you want a cite for that, I feel sorry for you, I am positioned to feel that.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm dense, as is obvious to all :-). But all I saw was that both referred, in one way or another to Republicans and spending cuts. As did Shrink, I guess. So just not connecting the dots on teh funny.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Tuesday is almost here.

We will all see the results then.


Too bad we don't have a Parliamentary democracy, because that would mean that Obama would be out of office Wednesday morning.


I used to think that system wasn't any good.


Sure seems great now.


.

Posted by: SummerBreeeze | October 31, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Now, if that's what you mean, that is the perfect example of a semantics argument."

Of course, that is not what he meant. And, almost certainly, you know that.

A desire to shrink the scope and reach of government is, in no way whatsoever, a desire to "dismantle and crush government". To pretend that it is, as you are doing, is plainly a semantic deception.

But you don't do that, do you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"dismantle and crush government" does not equal "shrink the scope and reach of government".

Yup, that is another perfect example of a semantics argument. It's just word parsing. Distinctions without a difference.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

12bb said:

"Uh, oh I see, you are emphasizing the word "platform". The R's never ran on a PLATFORM of dismantling and crushing government. However, R's want to dismantle and crush government.

Now, if that's what you mean, that is the perfect example of a semantics argument."

My point does not depend on the word platform, although that was the word used by shrink. Your claim is just as ridiculous as shrink's.

I don't think you know any more about what Republicans "want" than you know about semantics.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

People *diagnose* each other with psychiatric terminology all day on the internet's tubes. Not me. Je refuse! But it doesn't bother me. It is fun. It is as if I were a Urologist and people were accusing each other of cystitis, a sickening case of pyuria, hydronephrosis or even balathoposthitis.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

"dismantle and crush government" does not equal "shrink the scope and reach of government".

Yup, that is another perfect example of a semantics argument. It's just word parsing. Distinctions without a difference.

12bar, now I'm really confused. Are you saying that those two sentences have literally the same meaning?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, you guys go on and explain at length why "shrink the scope and reach of government" is WAY different that "dismantle and crush government".

I'll check in later and see how you'll are doing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 31, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

12bar said: "Well, you guys go on and explain at length why "shrink the scope and reach of government" is WAY different that "dismantle and crush government"."

I guess you did. Is it ok then to say that Progressive Ideals equals Socialist Ideals?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

Why am I not surprised that both 12bb and shrink think there is no difference between reducing government and abolishing it?

I agree with your observation about 12bb. Reading her comments over the past couple of weeks, I had already concluded that she plays an odd game of "dumb" either to just be annoying or when she's trapped.

It's why I don't respond to her much anymore. Shrink is not exactly a distinguished thinker either, it would appear. I pity shrink's patients.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"Progressive Ideals equals Socialist Ideals?"

Well, don't they?

Going trick or treating, what a weekend. s'later.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

Why am I not surprised that both 12bb and shrink think there is no difference between reducing government and abolishing it?

I agree with your observation about 12bb. Reading her comments over the past couple of weeks, I had already concluded that she plays an odd game of "dumb" either to just be annoying or when she's trapped.

It's why I don't respond to her much anymore. Shrink is not exactly a distinguished thinker either, it would appear. I pity shrink's patients.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Well, you guys go on and explain at length why "shrink the scope and reach of government" is WAY different that "dismantle and crush government".

I'll check in later and see how you'll are doing."

Sane people don't need that explained. You need an appointment with shrink.

And don't bother checking back. I won't be wasting more time on your idiotic comments. And I'm not engaging in "semantics" when I say, "idiotic."

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 31, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Well, in all fairness, when Norquist talked of drowning government in the bathtub he used neither the word "crush" nor "dismantle".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 31, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"You wingers should huddle and decide whether our government is your enemy...or not, get back to us."

OK, I'm getting back to, as requested.

I'm guessing you already know what follows, and if so we could get into the psychological reasons for your pretense not to know it. But we'll leave that for later.

Government is not, conceptually, our "enemy" (not a word I would use, but its yours so I will go with it to make it easier for you). Indeed, government is a necessary institution in civil society. The problem is that, in order for government to perform its necessary functions properly, it needs to be granted power which can be used for a whole lot more than simply its necessary functions. When it does so, it does become our "enemy" (again, your word). There isn't too much disagreement about this between "wingers" and "moonbats" (to return the favor).

Where the disagreement arises is in what functions are the proper, necessary functions. Some people think it is necessary and proper for government to act as a wide and expansive problem solver, involving itself in all manner of issues faced by individuals in society. Other people think that it is necessary and proper to focus on a few, basic and fundamental things, such as defense. Again, this is the disagreement that exists - in the scope of government activities, not the very existence of the government.

One of the problems is that, in discussing this disagreements, oftentimes those who think the government ought to be involved in a lot of problem solving find it convenient to demonize those who oppose them by pretending they are beyond-the-pale anarchists who "hate" government and who want to "dismantle and crush" it. Naturally, those of us who do want a smaller, more focused government will object to this plainly dishonest semantic tact. But doing so does not, obviously, put us into conflict with our actual beliefs, ie a wish for smaller, more focused government.

Having said all that, if you were, yet again, just trying to make a funny joke, you unfortunately (and yet again) failed.

"funny is everywhere."

Except where, presumably, you want it - in your posts.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"One of the problems is that, in discussing this disagreements, oftentimes those who think the government ought to be involved in a lot of problem solving find it convenient to demonize those who oppose them by pretending they are beyond-the-pale anarchists who "hate" government and who want to "dismantle and crush" it."

Additionally, oftentimes those who think the government can play a positive role in society are often demonized by those who oppose them by pretending they are beyond-the pale elitist, radical leftist/socialists who feel "entitled" and are only out to "punish the successful".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 31, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Yup, that is another perfect example of a semantics argument. It's just word parsing."

Like I said, you obviously have little regard for the actual meanings of words, and want to pretend that they mean anything you want them to mean. Very bizarre, although certainly a trait that seems to me to be correlated with liberal political leanings, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"Why am I not surprised that both 12bb and shrink think there is no difference between reducing government and abolishing it?"

I doubt either of them actually thinks that. It's just easier for them to argue against a straw man than the actual position we take. I suspect they know exactly what they are doing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

s'cat:

"Additionally, oftentimes those who think the government can play a positive role in society are often demonized by those who oppose them by pretending they are beyond-the pale elitist, radical leftist/socialists who feel "entitled" and are only out to "punish the successful"."

That does indeed happen, and is quite similar to the deception engaged in by 12Bar/shrink. But...it hasn't happened with me, so not really relevant to the discussion here.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"Words fail. It's amazing what passes for thought among liberals.

Posted by: quarterback1"

So liberal thought is to say people should look up facts on the internet rather than just blindly accept what you say?

Well, I guess I'm guilty of liberal thought, then.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I missed all the Breitbart and media controversy today, too bad, NOT. This just seems like another "taken out of context" non-story to me. At least it's not particularly a left/right who's the most evil story. I did see Sarah jumped in though criticizing the media bastards as if she has a handle on the media.

Anyway, I thought this Broder piece was even more interesting. He seems to think no one politician, such as Obama, can really do much about the economy. It appears it's really up to the MOTU's, but Obama could definitely improve both his electoral prospects and put people back to work by ramping up for war with Iran. All I can say is Wow, I'm glad this guy's not in charge. I'm not prone to call people idiots, but in this case he's not just and idiot, he's a dangerous idiot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907404.html

Posted by: lmsinca | October 31, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"So liberal thought is to say people should look up facts on the internet rather than just blindly accept what you say?

Well, I guess I'm guilty of liberal thought, then."

Wait, I thought the shrink2 rule was in effect?

"They don't need to. Presumably anyone who visits this site will have access to the entire internet. They can all do their own research. They'll all come up with what I did." Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 31, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"is there any reason to think that early voting would work in the Dems favor more than the Rs? @ddawd, It seems to me that early voting might be equivalent to enthusiasm. Otherwise, why vote early? It can't be because all the Democrats are going on vacation. Posted by: 12BarBlues"

There is very good reason to believe that early voting favors the Dems. The Dems have GOTV people out all over the country, knocking on Dem doors, convincing Dems that they need to vote, and then going the extra step and getting them to go vote now. If the prospect hesitates, they offer to drive him to the polls. The objective is to get the permanent procrastinator wing of the democratic Party off the couch and to the polls. Early voting doesn't necessarily reflect enthusiasm, as much as it may reflect determination to hold on to what we have.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 31, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"But...it hasn't happened with me, so not really relevant to the discussion here."

I didn't see you just accuse 12Bar or Shrink - you called out "those who think the government ought to be involved in a lot of problem solving" - aimed at the left in general. I'm simply pointing out that, generally speaking, the right side of the aisle can be just as guilty. I see it here everyday.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 31, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

s'cat:

"you called out "those who think the government ought to be involved in a lot of problem solving" "

I wasn't "calling out" such people, nor did aim anything at the left in general. I was simply differentiating between people who think the government should do more, and those who think it should do less.

To the extent that I was critical of anyone, I was critical specifically of 12Bar/shrink (not the left in general) and I was critical not of a political position, but rather their dishonest characterization of qb's/my opinion on government.

"I see it here everyday."

Perhaps you do, but you do not see it from me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 31, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

As I continue to read Greg Sargant's pitiful attempts to minimize major gaffes, it is apparent he needs to get bigger buckets to hold all the water he is attempting to carry. Sargent must be missing journolist where he could more easily get help with all the water he feels he has to carry.

Posted by: RickCaird | October 31, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Republicans aren't involved in dismantling of the government should live in New Orleans for a few years. The breach of the levees during Katrina, the terrible federal response to Katrina, and the lack of oversight that led to the oil spill are all evidence.

These things didn't occur because government is incapable of dealing with problems. They occurred because people who were running government made a conscious effort to handcuff these government institutions so that they could not properly respond to the difficulties they faced.

No one has ever said that the government is idiot proof or sabotage proof. However, it requires those who are running government to do the basic upkeep.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

""So liberal thought is to say people should look up facts on the internet rather than just blindly accept what you say?

Well, I guess I'm guilty of liberal thought, then."

Wait, I thought the shrink2 rule was in effect?

"They don't need to. Presumably anyone who visits this site will have access to the entire internet. They can all do their own research. They'll all come up with what I did." Posted by: shrink2 | October 31, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut"

What's the Shrink2 rule? To attribute things I say to him?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 31, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Ted Sorensen
RIP & Godspeed.

The "Inner Circle" had men that make the ad/execs/advisors of the last several iterations of the American Presidency look like pants-on-the-ground munchkins.

We get what we deserve, I suppose.

Posted by: tao9 | October 31, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

KTVA : "The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."
That is demonstrably false, based on the
transcript, which had the reporters talking about themselves, not "others".
Why didnt the "Plum Line" quote the transcript, rather than just defend the reporters?

Posted by: bobdame | October 31, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

IMO this is pathetically accurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZpWej8pF4

Posted by: actuator | October 31, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

When are people going to learn to stop making these calls on speaker phone. They think they've hung up but they are really still connected and then background conversations are recorded. The same thing happened a few weeks ago with Jerry Brown's campaign.

Posted by: buffysummers | October 31, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

It is, in general, illegal to record a telephone conversation without the knowledge of the other person. At least that should be enough to subpoena the full recording.

If it doesn't include the warning that the conversation is being recorded, then someone is in trouble.

If it does, then it better be when it isn't obvious that no one is conversing on the other end.

Posted by: rjw88 | October 31, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Imsinca, the Breitbart thing seems like a non-story.

Did anyone read Frank Rich today? I'm not a big fan of his, but I think he makes some interesting points about the Tea Partiers and the Republican elites, who, he believes, will have no use for the foot soldiers when and if the elites take power:

"For sure, the Republican elites found the Tea Party invaluable on the way to this Election Day. And not merely, as Huckabee has it, because they wanted its foot soldiers. What made the Tea Party most useful was that its loud populist message gave the G.O.P. just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised G.O.P. that gave us George W. Bush and record deficits only yesterday."

He gets into the corporate patrons and their "country club" that the foot soldiers will never gain entry to. Not sure I agree with his conclusion (Palin, aided by Murdoch and Beck, waiting in the wings to take back America from the GOP as well as from Obama), but it's still a pretty good piece.

Barry Blitt's illustration captures the idea beautifully. Blitt illustrates all of Rich's op-eds, I think, and he's just terrific.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31rich.html?_r=1&ref=columnists

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 31, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Georgetown,a good school
Tag implies you're an alum
But they turned you down

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 31, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

“But it's unclear from the recording precisely what, if anything, was being plotted.”

It may be unclear to the likes of Greg Sargent but to sentient individuals it is perfectly clear what was being plotted. Sargent is hopeless……

Posted by: gun313 | October 31, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

No way. Breitbart?
Its almost as though a pattern were emerging.

Posted by: gordmetcalfe | October 31, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent, JOURNOLIST!

Again, JOURNOLIST!

Pretty pathetic of the Post to allow this crap on its website. Though at this point, why would we expect anything less?

We wouldn't.

JournoList.

Posted by: asdf2 | October 31, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure whatever you Journolistas are calling your new group are very proud of you, Sargent. Have a cookie.

Of course, given the fact that you're a liberal publishing on a left-wing site, the presumption is you're a liar. I jsut wish that somewhere, anywhere, there was a liberal with integrity.

Posted by: malclave | October 31, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

KTVA's explanation is absurd. What possible context can they put around the suggestion that they start looking for child molesters at a political rally in order to exploit that for their television coverage? That's a "potential what-if scenario"?

Posted by: soma_king | November 1, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

You didn't contact Breitbart to find out if he had more audio? Or if he knew if there was more audio?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/31/breitbart-sounds-off-on-miller-tape-critics/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 1, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

What the people of KVTA really WANTED to say is that they don't HAVE to SAY or DO ANYTHING to make Miller look bad. He does such a great job of that himself.

Posted by: JimZ1 | November 1, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Why are you defending journalists that are obviously not being ethical?

Do you think the conversation was taken out of context?

Posted by: SoDakMan | November 1, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

In following someone's link I found this interesting tidbit of information about Murkowski's write in campaign. Someone had previously written, on this blog, that Murkowski's name would have to be spelled correctly to be counted.

DCCaller reports that an election official says her name will not have to be spelled 100% correctly. Here's the quote:

Elections division spokeswoman Gail Fenumiai said in an e-mail to TheDC that Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, who administers elections, has told the Associated Press that “if there’s a minor misspelling of, say, Murkowski, that those ballots will be counted for her.”

“But he says the farther a ballot gets from including either her last name or Lisa Murkowski, the more difficult it will be for ballot counters to determine voter intent — and the more likely it will be for those ballots to be challenged, particularly if the race is tight,” Fenumiai’s e-mail said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/29/as-miller-takes-on-water-florida-style-legal-fight-looms-in-alaska/#ixzz140L5oA5A

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Looks like PPP's calling it for Miller.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/10/miller-leads-in-alaska.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 1, 2010 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Tempest in a teacup. When it comes to discussing political candidates, this sort of irreverent and mocking banter occurs in practically every newsroom in the country, whether it be Fox News, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, or (insert favorite media whipping post here).

However, the idea that privately ridiculing a candidate behind the scenes within the confines of one's workplace leads to unprofessional and biased coverage is silly. After all, we all know that the Dem-hating archconservatives who populate Fox News' ranks never show any on-air bias against, say, Nancy Pelosi, right?

Posted by: whatmeregister | November 1, 2010 1:33 AM | Report abuse

"Tempest in a teacup. When it comes to discussing political candidates, this sort of irreverent and mocking banter occurs in practically every newsroom in the country..."

I'm just wondering. How many of the fine journalists at the Washington Post are discussing their plans to find child molesters and registered sex offenders at the next Obama rally? All, most, many, a few or none at all? What do YOU think?

Posted by: TobyTucker | November 1, 2010 5:08 AM | Report abuse

This situation demonstrates that most of the major media, talking heads are liberally biased. Even if those telecasters were fantisizing, it exposed their true colors.

Their true colors tint the "news" they feed their watchers and listeners every day. It is liberal bias at work.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 1, 2010 6:07 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe the Washington Post would let you post this article after the JournOlist scandal which your very own Ezra Klein organized. By the way, if there was a single WP article about journOlist, I missed it. Sweep the dirty linen under the rug.

Posted by: cornax | November 1, 2010 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Boy, that Breitbart character is truly slimy scum! Coming up with this BS attack on the integrity of a major media outlet over a completely garbled phone transmission. I jumped over to their Big Journalism site where they have a purported "transcript" featured prominently.Over half of which is marked as unintelligible. What is really sad is the immediate posts his loony followers commenting about how this just shows why the media can't be trusted, blah, blah BS blah. America is being over run by loons who would be in mental institutions if Ronald Reagan hadn't closed them all and released these dimwits parents onto the streets of this country. I sure hope the station and ABC sue Breitbart back into the slimy hole in the ground he slithered out of!

Posted by: trbajaz | November 1, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Seriously WAPO, give it up.

Whenever Democrats are caught on tape saying something awful, it is ALWAYS "taken out of context".

When Republicans say something completely innocent, it is spun to be something awful (the "racist meme" of the Tea Party).

Now, in your latest election poll, you give Democrats a 10 point advantage in the sampling even though both Gallup and Rasmussen tell us the gap now is ZERO.

You have lost. Your liberal agenda is DOA. You are going broke because people are sick of your liberal spin.

It's over.

Posted by: mitchellvii | November 1, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Nov 2nd will be only the beginning. Watch for the entire Old Guard Far Left Dem Leadership to retire after this.

It's no fun being reduced to court jester after sitting on the throne.

Unlike Clinton, Obama will NOT triangulate. He CANNOT because his only source of campaign funds comes from the Far Left. Also, after the last 2 years, NO ONE will believe that Obama is a moderate.

Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me...

Posted by: mitchellvii | November 1, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Interesting. A lot of the tape is garbled, so it's hard to say this is evidence conclusively of some sort of media conspiracy (not that such things haven't happened, but in this case, how much sense does it really make?). People who are certain this is evidence of a liberal media conspiracy to abuse their journalistic power are jumping to conclusion based on insufficient evidence, in my opinion.

That being said, the folks acting like there's nothing there at all, and that the conclusion of Brietbart, Big Government, and other righties is irrational and has zero basis boggles my mind. It's pretty easy for me to see how they might have thought there was something not entirely kosher about the proceedings. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's not like it isn't kind of suspect.

It's like the kid in Sunday school who raises his hand as asks why, if God is good, he let's bad things happen. It's a perfectly reasonable question for a kid to have. If he's told that's a stupid question, now shut up, you evil child--that tends to just confirm his doubts and suspicions.

Hate to say it, but it does sort of remind me of Journolist. Not that there was any there "there" (and not like it didn't result in a flurry of a few right-leaning lists being misinterpreted and re-framed as dangerous conspiracies, which totally missed the point)--nothing really wrong with Journolist, per se (imo), but to act like even the dubious arched eyebrow was crazy right wing nuttery seemed to be stretching it, a little bit. There was enough going on that a reasonable person could say, "Yeah, well, I see what you mean. But, no, seriously, it wasn't really like that."

But to act like the people who felt it was evidence of journalists colluding on behalf of Democrats and against Republicans were just crazy and making it all up . . . well, they weren't. They were exaggerating and extrapolating, maybe. But they aren't making it up out of whole cloth. As would seem to be the case here.

And all the, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, crazy teatards!" doesn't strike me as a compelling defense. I could see why some folks might treat it, quite reasonably, as a confirmation, rather than an effective refutation. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 1, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

All, check this out, with one day left, conclusive proof that voters have not bought the Dem message about the GOP:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/dem_message_fail.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 1, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

rjw88 or trbajaz, I kinda doubt that KVTA will sue Breitbart over a voice mail that their reporters left. But, you never know Dan Rather sued CBS over his own mistake (even though they highest appeal court in New York finally ruled again him earlier this year). If they do sue, let's see if it gets any further and where discovery leads. Why would ABC sue him (they just invited him to do election coverage)?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 1, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

CBS - Corrupt Ba$tard$ $yndicate

They should fire the news staff and the generl manager of the KTVA station. The FCC should review their license in the context of "serving the public interest" in light for conspiring to influence a federal election in such a vile manner.

Quo warranto, B.O.?

Posted by: SlovenianWonder | November 1, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence12 hit upon the stunning idiocy of rjw88. Obviously, KVTA knew they were being recorded because they "LEFT A MESSAGE". It is called "voicemail" and it is quite the common technique. If someone leaves a message and then fails to hang up, then the message they left becomes much longer, but no one can claim they didn't know they were being recorded (except maybe rjw88).

Posted by: RickCaird | November 1, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

The reactions to this recording are almost as informative as the recording itself. The manipulations of Greg Sargent, Andrew Breitbart, Media Matters, et all would be shocking if it was not so routine.

Some items are unspinnable, but still they try. If they are paid enough.

Posted by: pj48 | November 1, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I wouldn't believe anything coming from a cherry-picker like Breibart. Also, can anyone tell me ANYTHING the Republicans have done over the past 10 years that has in fact decreased the deficit, created jobs or helped the economy.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 1, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The reactions to this recording are almost as informative as the recording itself. The manipulations of Greg Sargent, Andrew Breitbart, Media Matters, et all would be shocking if it was not so routine.

Some items are unspinnable, but still they try. If they are paid enough.

Posted by: pj48 | November 1, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I wouldn't believe anything coming from a cherry-picker like Breibart. Also, can anyone tell me ANYTHING the Republicans have done over the past 10 years that has in fact decreased the deficit, created jobs or helped the economy.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 1, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious - did any of the posters bother to actually listen to the recording? Because if you did, then you heard the reporters gleefully talking about taking down Joe Miller. Whether or not they were actively trying to find the child molester at the rally or were merely speculating how they would report it if Miller's opponents found the molester, it's very clear that they were salivating at the thought that something could be reported that would be a negative for Joe Miller. So much for unbiased reporting.

Posted by: biancaneve | November 1, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

so the bimbo palin and the faggy brietbart are trying to stir things up, breitbart and his boyfried o'keefe should stop trying to pretend they are journalists.

Posted by: calif-joe | November 1, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

biancaneve:

Agreed. Let's all watch ABC tomorrow night to see the liberals disintegrate into dispair ; )

If you haven't seen this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-01/obamas-morning-after-plan/

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

SlovenianWonder:

http://www.petitiononline.com/cbsboyct/petition.html

calif-joe:

Is it any wonder that Greg Sargent and you are talking about this INSTEAD of the shellacking that the Dems are going to take tomorrow?

Five states have polls that close at 7 p.m. EDT, and 16 more close by 8 p.m., featuring plenty of telling races in the East and Midwest. First up: Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia and Vermont, offering the first hard evidence of just how big a night it's going to be for Republicans.

If the GOP can unseat Democratic Rep. Baron Hill in Indiana's always-hard-fought 9th congressional district, for example, that's a good sign for Republicans trying to take control of the House. And if Republicans can capture all three seats they've got an eye on in Indiana, that could well signal a GOP tsunami.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Hi Jake D

I am curious about something. What do you do for a living?

Posted by: larsonlk | November 1, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

larsonlk: Joke claims to be a 76- or 77-year-old retiree. If that is true, he is the most immature person of that age on the planet.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 1, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks observer

How about what he/she did for a living before retiring?

Posted by: larsonlk | November 1, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Once again, everybody can see how the "Corrupt B-trds" of the lamestream socialist media work against American values and principles.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | November 1, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party patriot wrote:
Once again, everybody can see how the "Corrupt B-trds" of the lamestream socialist media work against American values and principles.

___________________________

How? Please explain. I don't see it.

Posted by: larsonlk | November 1, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

It takes a special kind of person to make Pam Geller seem reasonable.

Posted by: mattintx | November 1, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of pathetic, shallow, and not-clever-by-half comments.What happened in some of your lives to make you such angry, miserable human beings? What a way to go through life.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 1, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on now, man up! Sarah Palin cited this as fact, doncha know.

That means, also, that it is, as all good patriots and mama grizzlies know, too, factual just like when Obama, also, wished a happy birthday to a man known too as an enemy of this great nation fighting for our rights and upholding the values of Americanism and king Salmon.

Posted by: arancia12 | November 1, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Barry H Entai said:

"Poor Breitbart. If only he were a liberal, he'd have his own primetime show on MSNBC by now."

If Andy is so danged great, why doesn't he have a primetime show on Fox?? Heck, even Christine O'Donnell will have a show on Fox soon!

Why won't Fox hire him? I'll answer that right now...political celebrities who are employees of Fox at least have some likeable qualities. A lot of people find Sarah Palin to be beautiful and glamorous. Gov.-Rev. Huckabee has an avuncular and likeable persona. Breitbart comes off as a giant, LA-tanned bundle of negativity. He looks to be the stereotypical jerk Hollywood director, something that he probably aspired to be before he got into the internets.

Posted by: fabucat58 | November 1, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I find it funny that patholical serial liar and noted race baiter Breitbart is going around bragging about being an analyst, while ABC News is furiously claiming otherwise.

Memo to ABC News: You invite a pathological liar and paranoid schizophrenic like Breitbart on your network, and he will do what he always does....LIE!
.

Posted by: DrainYou | November 1, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"What-if scenarios?" What media seeks to game plan how they'll cover a registered sex offender attending a rally of thousands or a insignificant protester? What media would suggest giving air time to such matters? Especially days before the election.

CBS Anchorage has authenticated the recording. A recording in which staff members joke about searching the rolls and causing a controversy for a political campaign during the final days of an election.

They should just fess up and apologize. Their attempts to explain it away are just embarrassing.

Posted by: cprferry | November 1, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Andy Breitfart would NEVER lie! LOL!!!

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | November 1, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I worked as a reporter and editor for three decades. I never, ever did any kind of game planning like this -- sex offenders popping up at political rallies? How bizarre can you get? -- or heard of anyone else doing it. This sounds incredibly far-fetched to me. And Greg Sargent ought to admit it, too.

Posted by: dakotadoug83 | November 2, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company