Making the Roberts hearings trivial, indirect, and full of lies?

Yeah, pretty much...surely you don't think otherwise?

I mean seriously - Roberts' entire confirmation process consisted of senators asking, "Are you a rightwing ideologue nutcase", Roberts saying "Nope, not me", and the entire Senate saying, "Well that's good enough for me!"

And that's how you get a lifetime appointment to the federal bench!

Here's what I want to know, though: does Keith Olbermann know that Jonathan Turley is a member of the Federalist Society?

That's why Turley was quoted in this piece, right? He was at the FedSoc "fete" for the Borkmeister?

Cuz otherwise, the dropping-in of Turley's name like that would seem to be gratuitous and out of context, Julia.

She was working to make a strong stand where her husband didn't, or couldn't, and I'd be very, very surprised if, whatever she says, this move wasn't discussed thoroughly with his campaign people beforehand.

You're right that it wasn't just about the gentility - but if you listen carefully, Eliz. says in the video (Coulter is blabbing over her, but it's audible) that "I haven't talked to John about this call." She could be lying, but why bother?

The utter contempt for women that the heckler in the audience (echoed by The Coulter Monster) shows with just that one question: "Why isn't John Edwards making this call?" - as if Elizabeth can't even have a thought of her own without clearing it with her husband first - is pretty typical of the Republican attitude toward "uppity" women.

SHE decided to make the call - yes, she probably wanted to create some sort of positive experience for John's campaign, but they were HER thoughts she was expressing.

And if anyone else, not a candidate's wife, had said the things Elizabeth said, would they have been any less true?

Ms. Dahl:

To my way of thinking, there can be only two possible explanations for your insertion of the quote by Prof. Jonathan Turley into this piece:

1) Prof. Turley was at the fete, and is therefore to be presumed to be a member of the FedSoc, or

2) By inserting the quote where you did, bracketed above and below by quotes from George Priest who WAS there, you wish to make it APPEAR that Turley was there and therefore etc.

I find it an important distinction, and important to know if Prof. Turley, a frequent guest and commentator on matters constitutional on Keith Olbermann's program, is a member of or otherwise consorts with the likes of Robert Bork and his FedSoc fellow-travellers.

And in any case, the way you placed the quote is ambiguous, and is a good textbook illustration of sloppy writing.

So how bout clearing this up for us? Pretty please?

Thanks!

No, Cheney didn't blink. He NEVER blinks, hasn't anyone else ever noticed that? Cyborgs don't need to.

Seriously, the neocon scum do this once in a while - something that to the uninitiated looks like it might almost be something sort of resembling maybe backing down juuuuust a little - so as to pull the heat off a tad.

And then they go right on about their business, screwing the country and the world, and our beloved press and congressdogs and "judges" (if by "judges" you mean those apes who, when confronted by the alpha male of their group, turn their rumps up in a submissive posture, only wearing black robes)LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT EVERY EFFIN' TIME!!!!!

No, Cheney didn't blink. He's gonna do whatever he wants, now and forever more. And no one we might reasonably depend upon to try to stop him can do anything about it.

We report, you decide: did Tweety actually ADMIT it was a setup?

You know who’s on the line? Someone to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today, we said she could.

Anyone have a strong enough stomach to have waited out the commercial break and find out what the Coulter Monster had to say afterward?

Bet she doesn't appear on Tweety's show again soon. Or I dunno - maybe I'm wrong, maybe she IS that much of an attention whore, and will take this kind of treatment just to get on the air.

Speaking of full quotes, and the Bill Maher thing, and so on - you can't pull that kind of fast one here. Quick and dirty:

Maher never WISHED Cheney had been killed - the remark came right after Cheney was in the Baghdad Green Zone when a bomb went off within his hearing distance. That remark leans toward the tasteless side if you have any favorable inclination toward Cheney (I don't, you seem to.) But if you (and the Coulter Monster) can equate an empirically unprovable statement of potential cause and effect by Maher with an unequivocal statement of personal desire by Coulter (IF Cheney had been etc., vs. I'll just wish Edwards had been killed), then res ipsa loquitur.

She wants Edwards dead, according to her statement, Maher says, IF it had happened, there might have been these consequences. No difference for you?

Oh and BTW, I saw the Maher video - when he said that, he wasn't trying to be funny. He does that once in a while - says something serious. You should try it.

The author responds

John Turley spoke at the Federalist Society event. The quotes were taken from remarks he made on the day's first panel.

Look, Ms. Dahl - I know this is your first War Room post, and I hate to give you such crap about it - but "The author responds" is a bit priggish of you. That kind of stylism went out of general usage in, oh I don't know, about 1859.

And Prof. Turley's first name is Jonathan, not John.

It matters. Ask anyone named Jonathan.

Or Julie.