comment #1

Mgmax says ...

I hear Stephanopolous has gnarled, fungusy toes.

comment #2

SpinDozer says ...

'I hear Stephanopolous has gnarled, fungusy toes.'

You have the makings of an ABC political analyst or, possibly, an anchor. Please keep this career path option open.

comment #3

vansmith says ...

Charlie's got the shakes, these debates are bullshit. i'd promise everybody everything...

comment #4

K. Bowen says ...

So, if a Republican candidate had spent 20 years in a church headed by a man making regular racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American pronouncements and if he had had a "friendly relationship" and political associations with Eric Rudolph or some other unrepentant abortion clinic bomber, are you saying that it wouldn't be a relevant issue or an appropriate subject for questioning?

comment #5

swordandpen says ...

K. Bowen,

Ted Haggard was at the White House every Monday talking to George Bush. Was there as much of a fuss over that even though that nutcase may have been influencing government policy?

Unless Rev. Wright is going to be appointed to Obama's cabinet, I don't know how what he says will affect me as a voter or why this has superseded health care, the economy and the war as a relevant issue in the media's eyes?

comment #6

K. Bowen says ...

So you are saying that the Haggard connection is worthy of scrutiny, correct?

comment #7

Marcello says ...

What I hate, Bowen, is how disingenuous the Wright issue is. Because NO ONE really thinks Obama is racist, anti-semitic, or anti-American. So who cares? It's pure guilt by association. If it somehow tapped into a trend or concern about who Obama is or what he really believes, then fine, raise a shitstorm about it. But unless you actually feel like making an argument that he is racist, anti-semitic, or anti-Amercian, why don't you please shut up, or attack him for what you really hate: that he doesn't want to cut your capital gains tax.

comment #8

christian says ...

Yes, the capital gains tax! Americans making only 200,000 a year must sleep at night!

And yes, Haggard was giving spiritual advice to Bush weekly.
Sadly, that does reflect his policies of homosexual intolerance among other hypocrisies. Just as Falwell's lifelong hatred of gays, non-Christians, and liberals warrants Hannity's endless huzzahs.

And in case we've forgotten, Hannity airs on KABC. He's just
defending his mainstream media elite turf.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

"What I hate, Bowen, is how disingenuous the Wright issue is. Because NO ONE really thinks Obama is racist, anti-semitic, or anti-American."

No. He just gives a lot of money to those who are!

That's SO MUCH better.

comment #10

Walter Sobchak says ...

So what if the ABC guys asked questions that could be perceived as being of a "gotcha" variety? So what?

Man up a little. Every candidate gets tough questions. Just because they're being asked of "your guy" doesn't mean it's a media-wide, FOX-orchestrated conspiracy.

Like Obama's been getting SUCH a rough ride from the media. Please.

You're beginning to sound like a cry-baby.

Jeffrey, can you HONESTLY say that if that same line of questioning had been aimed at Hillary or McCain you'd still have a problem with it? You'd be on here saying something like, "those questions were out of line!"?

comment #11

Mgmax says ...

Nice example of this hypocrisy, Walter: The Nation ran a piece signed by a bunch of folks decrying character-gotcha questions and urging that the campaign be fought only on the issues, those highminded issues of the present day, not the candidates' pasts.

Someone ran a Nexis search on "George W. Bush" and "Texas Air National Guard" at The Nation. 72 hits.

comment #12

SpinDozer says ...

'You're beginning to sound like a cry-baby.

Next stop Sobchak-land!

Mgmax, exactly how many hits does "John Kerry" and "Swift Boat" generate? You'd have to be a Supersized Asshole to claim anything less than 10:1.

The "tough questions" posed were actually "stupid questions", but nevermind, the issue here is fairness. How many times will McCain be asked about his spiritual consorts? Or his role in the Keating 5? Or his flip-flops on any number of issues? If he is asked these questions, will they take up the first 3rd of the debate?

comment #13

SpinDozer says ...

'Like Obama's been getting SUCH a rough ride from the media. Please.'

I don't disagree. However, the appropriate tough questions will not address lapel pin issues...

comment #14

Mgmax says ...

Kinda missed the point there, Spinny. It's only hypocrisy if you're now decrying what you yourself did (72 times). It's not hypocrisy if you've always thought character was fair game.

I would bet on McCain being asked many of these things. And considering that, for instance, he led the way on campaign finance reform after having been in a scandal, he will probably provide intelligent, thoughtful answers to them, reflective of his many years of leadership in the Senate, which has made him an auspicious choice for his party's presidential nomination and a worthy candidate for president.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Bowen: Bush was BFF with Falwell and Osama's family, and no one considered those relevant issues.

Mgmax: "No. He just gives a lot of money to those who are!"

Bush gave money to Bob Jones and his family made money off of the nazis, so...

" The Nation ran a piece signed by a bunch of folks decrying character-gotcha questions and urging that the campaign be fought only on the issues, those highminded issues of the present day, not the candidates' pasts. Someone ran a Nexis search on "George W. Bush" and "Texas Air National Guard" at The Nation. 72 hits."

I imagine Shrub dodging the draft has everything to do with his inability to fight a war, while Wright complaining about "America is teh evul" does not reflect on Obama's ability to reach out to different groups across the board in a productive manner.

Walter: That's kind of the problem, Walt. They're not "tough", just pointless wastes of time which avoid the real issues.

comment #16

SpinDozer says ...

Actually, Gebert, it's you (unsurprisingly) who misses the point. The relevant issue is NOT hypocracy of whether one wishes to address character issues, it's whether those addresses are apportioned equitably.

McCain may get the questions, but its doubtful that they will last for weeks on end as with Obama's preacher.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "And considering that, for instance, he led the way on campaign finance reform after having been in a scandal, he will probably provide intelligent, thoughtful answers to them,"

He didn't seem to provide thoughtful answers to violating his own campaign reform law.

comment #18

Mgmax says ...

Oh, another one who thinks he's being so clever (and thuggishly menacing) by using the real name I've... never remotely hidden.

Not to mention another one presuming to tell me what my point is. No, goddamit, my point is my point! Go find your own point, kid! What the hell does "it's whether those addresses are apportioned equitably" mean? Who's supposed to determine that, the FCC? Who said there's anything fair about any of this? I want presidential candidates tested by rank unfairness, because life is going to be unfair to them soon enough and they better be able to handle it.

comment #19

corey3rd says ...

The president went down to the airport to pick up a guy whose organization hid child molesters from the law.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I want presidential candidates tested by rank unfairness, "

Except when they start illegal wars and out CIA agents...

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

"The president went down to the airport to pick up a guy whose organization hid child molesters from the law."

Then they smoked a doob behind the Kwik-E-Mart and listened to Bob Seger.

comment #22

kidkosmic says ...

The Disney/Diebold/Zionist/Rove collective strikes again!

Obama should appeal to the Supreme Court!!!

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

kidkosmic: "The Disney/Diebold/Zionist/Rove collective strikes again!"

As opposed to black football players, lesbians, single mothers, and women who engage in abortion?

comment #24

SpinDozer says ...

'Not to mention another one presuming to tell me what my point is.'

Wrong again MGMax (no threat intended, you simply don't rate high enuff, but if you get a big 'enhancement' out of it, enjoy)).

Your point(s) is/are typically hatched on a remote right wing fantasy island and no one with any intelligence would debate the strawmen you screed on. The point which is important and that reasonable people should be able to agree on is that 'character' issues should receive the media's attention they warrant...lapel pins, hand over heart, not so much, Corruption, yea. & the FCC should not need to get involved unless the media feels compelled to cover a non-issue (ie., Swift Boats) at something approaching a 10:1 ratio to a "real" issue (W's war record) or that Obama's preacher is worth 3 weeks of coverage and McCain/Hagee/Falwell is worth 45 minutes.

comment #25

Mgmax says ...

Spin, I know you're having trouble with this, but the reason we disagree on this is not because I'm stupid, but because your argument for a central authority having the power to decide what the important issues in our presidential campaigns and to punish news organizations who deviate from your approved storyline is the most numbskulledly fascist thing I've heard all week, and thankfully, not remotely likely to happen as long as there are people in red states who still have guns to take up against that kind of oppression.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

comment #26

The Hoyk says ...

How many times will McCain be asked about his spiritual consorts? Or his role in the Keating 5? Or his flip-flops on any number of issues?

I don't think McCain wears flip-flops; he strikes me as a Florsheim or Nunn Bush type. Though if he does, that would explain a great deal about why Jeff doesn't like him.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Spin, I know you're having trouble with this, but the reason we disagree on this is not because I'm stupid, but because your argument for a central authority having the power to decide what the important issues in our presidential campaigns and to punish news organizations who deviate from your approved storyline is the most numbskulledly fascist thing I've heard all week,"

You're right. Being required to inform is not the purpose of any news organization. What's important is to parrot Republican talking points. How liberal of you, Mgmax.

"and thankfully, not remotely likely to happen as long as there are people in red states who still have guns to take up against that kind of oppression."

Yes, the one thing those red-staters hate is getting a different perspective.

comment #28

SpinDozer says ...

'the most numbskulledly fascist thing I've heard all week'

I'll be sure to bring up the 'fairness doctrine' once a week to you expire, it's a horribly complex method of insuring fairness that we enjoyed until Saint Ray-Gun abolished.

'the reason we disagree on this is not because I'm stupid'

erm, well if not stupid, would you settle for 'ethically challenged'. Your point was that bad old Liberals are hypocrits for having character issues for one party and not the other. Though you imply the opposite isn't true, it is, in spades.

comment #29

Mgmax says ...

The sad thing is that thanks to the salon-totalitarian Chomsky, our universities are full of people like you two believing the loathsome Leninist idea that a free press is corporately controlled and only a controlled press (a job for which you kind will modestly and selflessly volunteer) will truly be free. In a "freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" kind of way.

That is not "liberal." It is the very opposite of liberalism, and its mortal enemy.

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

A "free" press doesn't fire reporters who actually report on issues, while keeping reporters who report lies.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

A free press does all sorts of things, good and ill, because it is free and NOT monolithically controlled by our elitist betters in the name of one rigid idea of what's right. If you don't understand that, you don't understand much.

Considering that you just told me I was an SS guard and named a Jew I would have oppressed, which is astonishingly offensive (both to me and to the real victims of same), your timing in advocating fascist control of media in this thread could hardly be more clueless though not, based on your long record here, at all surprising.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: A free press is still beholden to public scrutiny. And if it does not serve its function, it's simply wasting our precious airwaves and trees on tripe. It's not about wrong or right, but about substance versus Yellow Journalism. As we've learned from skinhead groups, an uninformed public is a dangerous one.

And I said that you would sympathize with an SS Guard who demanded that a Jew wear a star on his clothing, because you exhibit the same mentality of "us against them". Furthermore, I don't see how Jews who were not viewed as "true Germans" would have any problem relating to a black man who is not viewed as a "real American".

comment #33

SpinDozer says ...

'The sad thing is that thanks to the salon-totalitarian Chomsky...'

So you are saying that Chomsky & Lenin wrote the fairness doctrine and the citizens of the US lived in a totalitarian nightmare until RayGun came along. Interesting thesis, tell you what, don't call us, we'll call you.

comment #34

christian says ...

Mgmax, the airwaves do not belong to corporations (in theory anyway) they are licensed and must serve the public good. ABC promoting a debate as an American Idol competition replete with incessant, sleazy ad breaks "sponsored by Verizon" in no way elucidates the electoral process nor is it a triumph of the free market nor a free country. It is a form of totalitarian control.

If these debate questions were to have any weight, they would be chosen by actual representatives of the country, not a media elite afraid to ask the questions that would reveal their own failure at being a "free press." The free press that regurgitated Bush war propaganda to convince people like you that Iraq was going to blow us up. ABC is part of that fascism.

comment #35

SpinDozer says ...

BTW, I neglected to congratulate Mgmax on the Goldberg-ian indiscriminate use of 'fascism'. Bonus points when you apply to Vegans.

comment #36

Mgmax says ...

I see "Goldberg" has joined "Coulter" and "Limbaugh" as a scare word used when you have no argument.

What a pity he couldn't have been named Goldstein, it would have been poetically apt.

comment #37

SpinDozer says ...

'I see "Goldberg" has joined "Coulter" and "Limbaugh" as a scare word used when you have no argument.'

Applepollywoggies, I was under the impression that a guy named Goldberg wrote a retarded book empowering vapid rightwingers to accuse liberals and the left of fascism. Seeing that you are throwing the word around without regard to its meaning, I made the assumption that you were a Goldberg acolyte, smearing the left with what the right is undoubtably guilty of...No?

comment #38

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Asking a Presidential candidate about his 20 yr relationship with a domestic terrorist and his relationship with a white hating racist pastor isnt gotcha politics.

They are legitimate questions especially for a guy who has done NOTHING of substance in his life except give a decent speech in 2004.

Please. Some Obama lover please give me one accomplishment. One piece of legislation. Something where he reached across the aisle.

I'm hearing crickets...

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

David: "Asking a Presidential candidate about his 20 yr relationship with a domestic terrorist and his relationship with a white hating racist pastor isnt gotcha politics."

It is when he's black and not white.

"Please. Some Obama lover please give me one accomplishment. One piece of legislation. Something where he reached across the aisle."

What has Mr. Compassionate Conservative done?

comment #40

Mgmax says ...

"Applepollywoggies, I was under the impression that a guy named Goldberg wrote a retarded book empowering vapid rightwingers to accuse liberals and the left of fascism. "

In other (less cutesy) words, you are using something you haven't read to make a point anyway, trusting that no one will call out your ignorance?

I never referenced Goldberg once. I referenced your and D.Z.'s deeply illiberal attitudes, which was sufficient to my point, and no empty bluster will change that.

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

'I never referenced Goldberg once. I referenced your and D.Z.'s deeply illiberal attitudes, which was sufficient to my point, and no empty bluster will change that.'

Empty Bluster. Like a wingnut "calling me out" on my ignorance of something that said wingnut is wholly ignorant of my knowledge thereof. Or maybe you speak of the wingnut's hysterical blubbering about a media policy which was standard up until about 25 years ago. Anyway you slice it, bluster is all you got. Its all you've ever had, and almost certainly all you ever will have. You're pathetic.

comment #42

Mgmax says ...

Did you have a point to make, or are you just pissing away your time in the comments section of some guy's blog?

comment #43

SpinDozer says ...

well, obviously. those of you with your thumbs up your butt may commence sucking.

comment #44

Mgmax says ...

Made you post!

comment #45

Mgmax says ...

Oh, and I don't believe for a second you've actually read Liberal Fascism, because you'd never spend your money on it. Tell me the first person referenced by their full name on page 260, and do it soon enough that I can believe you didn't pop into the nearest Barnes & Noble to check.

comment #46

SpinDozer says ...

'Oh, and I don't believe for a second you've actually read Liberal Fascism, because you'd never spend your money on it.'

Every once in a while you get part of it right. I would never spend my money on this, thankfully, there are these quasi-socialistic institutions called libraries which means I don't have to purchase every single book I read.

comment #47

Mgmax says ...

Page 260?

comment #48

Mgmax says ...

Oh, but no doubt you've returned it by now. Pity. Still, you should be able to answer some basic questions, from memory alone, since you read it so recently. Let's see if you can get 2 out of 3:

1) Who does Goldberg call the first leader of a fascist government in history?

2) What aspect of Father Coughlin's views leads Goldberg to call him a leftist rather than a right-winger?

3) Complete this chapter title: "Liberal Racism: The ______ Ghost in the Fascist Machine"

comment #49

christian says ...

And what was Goldberg's take on WMD's in Iraq?
While we're chatting about free-thinkers.

comment #50

christian says ...

No really. Goldberg has no intellectual gravitas, nor honesty. He's another rightie dough boy reveling in PNAC war fantasies.
Let's go back to October 2003 and heed Goldberg's global vision as it reveals his depth of understanding fascism:

Q: If you're the leader of a peaceful and prosperous nation which serves as the last best hope of humanity and the backbone of international stability and a bunch of fanatics murder thousands of your people on your own soil, what's one of the smartest thing you can do?

A: Knock the crap out of Iraq.

Why Iraq? Well, there are two answers to that question.

The first answer is "Why not?" (If it helps, think of Bluto burping "Why not?" in Animal House.)

The second answer: Iraq deserved it.

Now. Here's the important part: Both of these are good answers.

Now, the war with Iraq was obviously less cut and dry than 2+2. But it still always added up to the right decision in my book. But, since everyone's looking for a single persuasive equation, I should say the kicker for me was simple: We needed to kick someone's butt (other than Afghanistan) and Iraq was by far the best candidate. Indeed, nearly a full year before the war � in April of 2002 � I wrote: "The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense."

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200310200928.asp

comment #51

Mgmax says ...

Christian, a great number of people seem to take this tack, that if Goldberg can be discredited a priori, then the uncomfortable implications of his book can be safely ignored. I think the book should be honestly taken on its own terms, which are well-researched and serious, and not made to bear the weight of the often more frivolous career by which he got to it. You can disagree with his premises (for instance, there are certainly arguments to be made that his conflation of statism in all forms with fascism is misleading) but trying to turn him into a bogeyman name-- Coulter and Limbaugh and Goldberg, oh my!-- does not demonstrate intellectual seriousness toward its arguments.

SpinDozer, since you've read it, looking forward to your take, with references to specific sections.

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I think the book should be honestly taken on its own terms, which are well-researched and serious, and not made to bear the weight of the often more frivolous career by which he got to it."

But if he's an up-and-coming Presidential candidate with a ranting preacher, that's a different story.

comment #53

Mgmax says ...

Yes, because one is a presidential candidate, and the other is an argument.

comment #54

christian says ...

"Asking a Presidential candidate about his 20 yr relationship with a domestic terrorist and his relationship with a white hating racist pastor isnt gotcha politics."

It doesn't explain why George Bush was never queried about his family's long business relationship with the Bin Ladens. Gotcha!

comment #55

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: You mean one is a candidate, and one is an influential pundit.

comment #56

Mgmax says ...

I mean one is a two-dimensional object consisting of abstract thoughts, and the other is a bestselling book.