What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>" Perhaps you find the Randi Rhodes routines about assassinating Bush to be just hilarious."</p>

<p>Randi Rhodes is shrill and gets old really fast, but Al Franken is really quite reasonable and never ever sounds angry. I listen to the rest occassionally, but I like Al.</p>

62

<p>Well, here is one reasonable voice from lucianne.com. (Thanks for the info about that website.)</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/10/10/frivolous_politics[/url]”>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/10/10/frivolous_politics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This article is more about the media than anything else, but encapsulates my feelings about Iraq. I don’t like any war. But I think there are times when it’s necessary to stand up for something one believes to be important.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>I already gave you one … from a source elected by the Democrats to be their leader: “This is a battle of good versus evil and we are the good”.
I have listened to Air America enough to know that their attacks are against all things Republican … Just take statements from TheDad and transpose them to the radio and you’ve got it.</p>

64

<p>“Zoosermom were posting about how there just had to be some way this was the Democrat’s fault”</p>

<p>I’m not even posting on this thread and the man still has to lie about me. Unbelievable. Stalking?</p>

65

<p>

—Zoosermom’s posts on the subject referred to. Don’t you just hate it when people “lie about you” by quoting your own words?</p>

66

<p>FF, I assume you’re referring to reports of Howard Dean’s stump speech:

I’ll be honest with you: I’d have no problem if a Republican politician did the same, substituting “Republican” for Democrat."</p>

<p>I similarly don’t have a problem with Karl Rove saying: “If leading Democrats had their way, their policies would make our nation weaker and the enemies of our nation would be stronger,” Even his patently false claim that “some important Democrats clearly disagree” with the proposition that “if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they’re calling and why” is okay with me - that’s just partisan politics. But the constant right wing media-figure attack on “liberals” - insisting that anyone who disagrees with a lockstep right wing world view is treasonous and mentally ill, is to me a different type of hate-mongering. It’s not just an argument over policies, or different ways to address issues facing our country - it is an attack on the fundamental human worth of anyone who dares to disagree. And I don’t see anything on the left to compare. If it’s out there, it’s well below my radar.</p>

67

<p>“I do NOT agree that the radio talk shows appeal to angry conservatives.”</p>

<p>But you did say they were “frustrated.” I get it now. Where conservatives are frustrated, liberals are angry and out of control.</p>

68

<p>It’s okay. They’ll be more frustrated when Speaker Pelosi takes office, and the Abramoff scandal hits the airways. Then they can blame their frustration on the Democrats, and they should.</p>

69

<p>kluge: Just ONE of the more intellectually dishonest things you tend to do is to cite Ann Coulter, Rush, Michael Savage, etc. as THE voice of conservatism. There are much more nuanced, moderate voices out there, and you know it (I hope). I rarely read conservative voices here who even try to pretend that Michael Moore, Howard Dean or Cindy Sheehan are THE only liberal perspectives out there.</p>

<p>Btw, I have listened to Rush, not regularly, but when I am able to, over the last several years, and he has caused me to LAUGH OUT LOUD many times. The man has a sense of humor, something sorely lacking on the other side of the aisle, it seems to me.</p>

70

<p>Kluge, you forgot the “some say that if we withdraw, the extremists will leave us alone.” A straw man argument, because I’m not aware of anyone who has had any such thing. Add Michelle Malkin to your list of GOP over-the-top megatrolls. I really didn’t think there was room for more than one Ann Coulter and that only as a bad example.</p>

71

<p>kluge: Re: lucianne.com: I’m just about done with you, sir. I distinctly said that the comments WERE conservative. I don’t take the time to read them. They usually cut off comments at a page or so and they ALWAYS cut them off if they get over the top. My point was NOT about the comments, as I rarely even peruse them, just as I don’t read blogs–why would I read the silly comments? I’m just sort of tired of your game-playing, frankly. You don’t play fair, which is kind of a waste of time.</p>

72

<p>Ann Coulter is a liberal who has been feeding at the conservative trough for almost a decade. Does it brilliantly, too.</p>

73

<p>Isn’t it amazing, kluge, that your viewpoints just HAPPEN to consistently tow the party line? How does that work, exactly?</p>

74

<p>Since this thread has become more of a slinging match of badies, may I suggest that prunes help in creating a more free flowing environment. A good year for prunes after several years of constipated crops.</p>

75

<p>Yes, I’ll bow out. Trying to have a discussion with kluge is like talking to my (formerly) 9 year old. I guess this is what one would call <em>frustration.</em></p>

76

<p>My neighbor does retail/mail order,chocolate covered fruit from their farm and other nearby farms. Yep, including chocolated covered prunes.</p>

77

<p>

<a href=“http://www.answers.com/topic/mike-malloy[/url]”>http://www.answers.com/topic/mike-malloy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<h2>

</p>

<p>I guess it’s time to upgrade your radar</p>

78

<p>For those of you who think NPR is biased, you might want to read this, but then of course you will probably see the source of the poll as biased too. </p>

<p><a href=“FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.”>FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.;

<p>"Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period. "</p>

79

<p>Sorry, FF, I can’t see what’s not there anymore. I guess there’s just not a market for that on the left. He’s gone. <a href=“http://www.airamerica.com/schedule[/url]”>http://www.airamerica.com/schedule&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>But there is a market for that kind of stuff on the right, isn’t there? Why do you suppose that is? Honest (I know inflection doesn’t come through in writing) I think it’s a question worth pondering. Why is there a market - and a pretty good sized one, at that - for the likes of Coulter, Savage and Limbaugh, but a guy who tries the same schtick from the left bombs?</p>

80

<p>"Peter Baker and James V. Grimaldi wrote in Saturday’s Washington Post: "A top aide to White House strategist Karl Rove resigned yesterday after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal.</p>

<p>"Susan B. Ralston submitted her resignation to avoid causing political damage to President Bush a month before the midterm elections, officials said. ‘She did not want to be a distraction to the White House at this important time,’ said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.</p>

<p>"A congressional report showed last week that Ralston accepted sometimes-pricey tickets to nine sports and entertainment events from Abramoff while she provided him with inside White House information. The bipartisan report said there is no evidence that Rove knew of or approved of Ralston’s actions, and sources said yesterday that the White House was surprised by the report’s revelations.</p>

<p>“The White House counsel’s office conducted a review of the report, but with Ralston’s departure it closed its inquiry yesterday. ‘Nothing more will come from the report, no further fallout from the report,’ Perino said.”</p>

<p>In other words: Nothing to see here, folks, move along.</p>

<p>Peter Wallsten wrote in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times: "Susan Ralston had worked as Rove’s executive assistant, functioning as a gatekeeper of sorts for President Bush’s most trusted political advisor. She was an aide to Abramoff before she joined the White House and became what the lobbyist called his ‘implant’ there.</p>

<p>“As Rove’s top staffer and a special assistant to the president, Ralston becomes the closest aide to Bush to leave in a scandal that has so far enveloped lobbyists, lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and an administration procurement official while, until now, sparing the inner sanctum of the White House.”</p>

<p>Pin stripes are out; prison stripes are in. Speaker Pelosi will subpoena Susan Ralston and things are going to be fun!</p>