Letters to the Editor
-
Deadly, I would hope..
Deadly blow to Broder - in a reasonable world.
Thank you for exposing Ignatius for me and others. One should make a collage of his writings over the last 7 years, with commentary, and publish it: Wisdom from below the Belt.
-
The only problem with "courtiers" is...
...that they only attend the court of Rethuglican Kings.
Should somehow the peasantry get riled and installed one of those terrible Democrats in the White House, the Davids immediately tut about said Dems "trashing up the place" and doing their darnedest to expose how the terrible, terrible Democrats are making life miserable for the true princes of DC. You know, doing evil things like installing progressive income taxes, cutting into GOP fortunes such that they're restricted to buying a new Bently every other month instead of every other week.
-
@someNYguy
"I call bullshit."
Well you should. Point taken. Here is what I was looking at:
Congress as a whole rated only 29 percent approval, down 14 points from its start in January. The reason: People think it has been spinning its wheels. By 82 percent to 16 percent, those polled said it has accomplished little or nothing this year.
This offering, which I'm assuming originates from Cole and not Broder, simply refers to congress's inability to pass legislation. This in turn is Cole's basis for saying that a meaningful chunk of the public is not targeting any particular party, but rather Washington incumbents and the Beltway in general.
As I said before, I don't buy that. But I maintain the point that Broder's column puts Cole's logic into the marketplace for assessment.
-
Lucien Callow and Fagan, the two British fops on SNL
The two Davids.
Exactly. Another word that comes to mind is "courtiers." I cannot think of another word more antonymous with "journalist."
-- thomas c
The British Fops, or Lucien Callow (David Koechner) and Fagan (Mark McKinney) appeared in several episodes during the SNL 1995-1996 seasons. The characters first appeared on Weekend Update, but later appeared in several other sketches, namely monologues. The Fops would appear in Victorian period clothing, and used a silly take on the period's language, mannerisms, and culture, not sparing the subsequent perversion also known for the time. As part of their bit, the fops would famously appear "bare ass naked," as they put it, but of course still wearing the wigs.
http://snl.jt.org/group.php?i=210
-
Chris C..
I see your point. But still I am not convinced that American public is disenchanted with Bush...
OK a couple of questions:
1) Why did the Congressional Democrats so readily condemn the MoveOn ad recently? If Americans were truly disenchanted with Bush, what did Congressional Democrats have to fear? Most of them who voted to condemn it were elected only recently, mostly on anti-GOP platform. And some of them from Red states.
2) Why aren't mainstream Americans condemning the latest war move against Iran?
See my point is this: Broder and Ignatious and their likes, they wouldn't be so blatantly lying and spreading disinformation if they sensed that Democrat leaders in America had some spine. And they know that all this pleasing Bush mentality is coming from Democrats because American people are all too willing to condemn Democrats for any move they make regd the military.
See Broder and Ignatius arent dumb, they are liars sure, but they arent dumb. Why is Hillary so popular among Democrats? we sit and cry about removing out troops from Iraq and ending this stupid war and yet she is in the lead, despite the fact that she voted for it out of political considerations and hasnt said a word against the looming war with Iran? so what does that say about Democrats? Why did she vote for the war when Durbin, Pelosi, Byrd didnt? what was it that they knew that she didnt? Why was Obama against it, despite the fact he was running for Senate? when she is all too willing to give Bush a blank check, Broder and Ignatius sense that America's appetite for war and their willingness to give Bush to shred civil liberties hasnt abated.
So while I agree with you that we need to be vigilant and expose Broder and Ignatius for the liars that they are, I will also maintain that its misleading for Glenn to say that Broder and his moronic students like Russert dont have a pulse on the American heartbeat. They watch Hillary cackle her way to giving Bush what he wants, and she maintains a decent lead. They was Congressmen and women dance to the GOP music lest they be called unpatriotic and hardly any of mainstream America raises a word.
-
GOP:dull and un crEaTiVe.
hence goes the Gop, like the Whigs?
good ridden.
your opinionmay vary...
oh well..
international moms list-serve 1995-2002
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
Oslo likes their people? especailly children?
canada? family values? walked the talk?
[GOP:ad nauaseum]
kitty
-
War on Iran
As if anticipating Mr. Greenwald's warning, it was reported today that Gen. Petraeus has announced that there is further evidence of Iran helping insurgents in Iraq, with explosive devices and other support. It was also noted on NPR that the Iranian ambassador to Iraq is a member of the Republican Guards. Did not Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama just vote with the Republicans to label the Iranian Republican Guards as a terrorist organization? And does that not allow Pres. Bush to invoke war powers from some 2002 or 2003 Congressional resolution? Frightening, frightening....
Nancy Brockway
-
More BS
While the Broder piece is meta-reporting (i.e. not about substantive policy but rather election strategy), I find that it does represent a contribution to the 'marketplace of ideas' that Gore refers to.
In other words, you are saying that the truth needs to be balanced with falsehoods in order to give readers a choice. Admittedly, this is an opinion piece and not reporting, but the opinion rests on misrepresentation.
The American people rose up and pulled of a statistically highly improbable coup of turning both houses of congress over to the Democrats and giving them a mandate to end the US military involvement in Iraq and rein in the unlawful excesses of the president. Cole is saying that this is not so, that the American people want the Democrats to work more closely with the president. No one could have worked more closely with the president than the 109th Congress. If that is what the people wanted, why did they vote every Republican incumbent running out and return every Democratic incumbent?
If one wanted to write an opinion based on the facts it would say that the people want an end to the war in Iraq and they want restraints on executive power and that by obstructing every attempt by the Democrats to accomplish this congressional Republicans are thwarting the will of the people and can expect to pay for it in the next election. I wouldn't really expect the Republican House Campaign Chairman to say this, however.