The Flyer
Maryland Politics Watch has the Washington Post flyer, offering access to and influence over their journalists and government officials for $25,000 per meeting. You can see it HERE. Click on the image to see it full screen.
posted by JimK at 10:13 AM
50 Comments:
Katharine Graham must be spinning in her grave.
it's on page C1, Jim, and that seems appropriate to me
not a big story
I personally think they should have had the dinners
July 03, 2009 10:49 AM
Unlike Anon,Katharine Weymouth appears to have seen the error of her ways.
Today's WaPo has published an article called "Post Publisher Acknowledges Mistakes:
Weymouth Says Rushed Planning Led to Inaccurate Flier on Policy Dinners" on Page A-3 and CEO Weymouth has published her personal apology called "A Letter to Our Readers" on Page A-19.
The Washington Post's conduct, with our without an apology on Page A-19, is appalling.
yeah, this whole Washington Post affair is simply the end of civilization as we know it
you know, the kind where we half deliver children and slit their throats if they are inconvenient, where poor kids are forced to go to violent hell holes every day and where homosexuals simulate S&M sex in parade floats
but we simply must draw the line at arranging dinners where people can pay to meet with other influential people
btw, this is basically how retired Presidents pay for their retirements, speaking at events and charging to meet people
another Democrat scandal
Spitzer, Blagdonovich, Burrell, all the Obama nominees that won't pay their taxes, the continuing John Edwards revelations
all in the last year
and now, Marion Barry, arrested for stalking women
According to Rush Limbaugh, a good sex scandal played properly increases electability "with certain women in this country." See if you follow his logic:
"What emerges is that -- regardless of the moral ambiguities of Sanford's character -- the man was a real romantic with a knack for writing.
...here are the two AP alerts: First, "South Carolina governor tells AP that the mistress down in Argentina is his soul mate, but he will try to fall back in love with his wife."
AP alert number two: "South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he 'crossed lines' with a handful of women other than his mistress -- but never had sex with them." This guy is loyal to the mistress. This guy does not cheat on the mistress. Do you realize how the liberal women are going to eat this up? The liberal infobabes, they're swooning, folks. I'll guarantee you they are having to excuse themselves and go to the bathroom here to control themselves. This guy is amazing.
...South Carolina governor tells AP the mistress is his soul mate, gonna try to fall back in love with his wife. Have you ever tried to fall in love with somebody? Have you ever tried to fall out of love with somebody that you're in love with? That's called heartbreak, and people jump off the Golden Gate Bridge because of this sometimes. It's just not something you can snap your fingers and do. And then, to really seal the deal, he may have a political future.
...Now, if you're just joining us here, AP just ran two alerts. First alert: "South Carolina governor Tells AP that his Mistress is His Soul Mate --" I'm telling you, this is Hollywood, there are tears in the newsrooms of America. "-- But he's gonna try to fall back in love with his wife." Second alert from AP: "South Carolina Governor tells AP he Crossed Lines with Women Other than Mistress, but Never Had Sex with Them." He never cheated on the mistress, do you realize, folks, this could rival -- Mark Sanford -- no wait, stick with me on this. This could rival the first black president in terms of electability, the first governor to fall in love with his mistress. It's never happened.
Kennedy never fell in love with them; Spitzer didn't fall in love with them; Clinton didn't fall in love with them that we know about. What if Sanford, what if he ends up giving up his throne for love? Just like King Edward and Wallis Simpson, what if he gives up the throne for love, do you realize how electable that will make him with certain women in this country, gave up the throne for love? First governor to fall in love with and not cheat on his mistress.
What do you think of this opinion expressed by the preferred speaker of the GOP?
When Republicans are asked who speaks for them and 90% don't mention Limbaugh, it's hard to see why Anon-B calls him the "preferred speaker of the GOP".
Then, you remember how Anon-B thinks the Washington Post is a right-wing paper, and that Johns Hopkins only became a respected institution in the last two decades, and that John Kerry was going to win in 2004, and that the marriage defense proposition would fail in California, and that Sir BO has the experience and common sense to succeed as President.
Then, you start to understand.
It's part of a pattern of idiocy.
Having said all that, in case, Limbaugh may have a point. Sanford has probably talked too much for this to work but maybe not.
Sanford did have enough sense to choose a pretty awesome marital partner all those years ago.
it's hard to see why Anon-B calls him the "preferred speaker of the GOP".
I quoted the Gallup poll's June 2009 findings. Gallup found that more Republicans say Rush (and Newt) speak for the GOP than any other person.
Limbaugh may have a point. Sanford has probably talked too much for this to work but maybe not.
Sounds like a conditional agreement with Rush's opinion that Sanford's love affair could rival the first black president in terms of electability, the first governor to fall in love with his mistress.
"Gallup found that more Republicans say Rush (and Newt) speak for the GOP than any other person."
The poll said 90% of Republicans mention someone else.
Remarkable, actually, when you consider the full-court press the liberal media engaged in to set Limbaugh up as a straw man.
He's just a talk show host.
And you're just a liar.
"Sounds like a conditional agreement with Rush's opinion that Sanford's love affair could rival the first black president in terms of electability, the first governor to fall in love with his mistress."
Oh, I meant that, were Sanford sucessful in convincing the public that his affair was a tragic romance, he might get some sympathy. I mean, come on, look at literature and history.
He's certainly not the first governor to fall in love with his mistress.
Wouldn't be the first President either.
FDR died in the arms of his.
"Gallup found that more Republicans say Rush (and Newt) speak for the GOP than any other person."
The poll said 90% of Republicans mention someone else.
No it didn't! LOL Anon! Who's the liar??
Gallup reported Forty-seven percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents could not come up with a single name in response to the party spokesperson question.
Your 90% figure is a lie. Only 53% of GOP or GOP leaning independent respondents could name a person who spoke for the sinking ship of the GOP. Thank the architect!
Glub glub glub
BTW, Palin didn't even make the list.
FDR died in the arms of his.
Could be. At any rate he died knowing his policies had saved the nation from the Great Depression.
"At any rate he died knowing his policies had saved the nation from the Great Depression."
No, he didn't. He made it worse.
What saved the country was the efficiencies thrust upon us as necessary to combat the threat of the Axis powers.
"No it didn't! LOL Anon! Who's the liar??"
You did. You cited the poll as proof that your fat straw man, RL, was the spokesman for the GOP.
That was below misinterpretation and down to a lie.
addressed allegations making the rounds on blogs about a rumored investigation, reports The Washington Post. Late Friday night, Palin Tweeted, "See letter from my attorney [Thomas V. Van Flein] on baseless allegations of past 24hrs."
In the lawyer's letter to which Palin points her followers – and which has been posted on the FOX News Web site – he writes: "Several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the 'real' reasons for Governor Palin's resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin."
The attorney further states, "Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact." Threatening legal action against those who might continue to promote these allegations, Van Flein adds, "The Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."
Biden confesses that Obama administration is incompetent:
"In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos this weekend, Vice President Joe Biden gave a candid assessment of the administration's initial diagnosis of the nation's economic problems, stating, "We misread how bad the economy was."
To the right of the administration, Republican critics argue that the stimulus hasn't worked and that the government never should have spent the money.
To the left, detractors like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argue that President Obama and Biden didn't spend nearly enough.
With the jobs picture worsening in June, there is plenty of blame to go around, but no consensus has formed as to the best way forward.
To see just how the stimulus money is being spent, you can visit Recovery.gov.
And The Wall Street Journal has a wonderful interactive map so you can see just how much money your state will receive over the coming months."
OK Anon, straight, unspun facts:
"Nobody" got 47% of the vote as the GOP spokesperson in the June 2009 Gallup poll. Rush and Newt tied for second place as the GOP spokesperson at 10% each, and Cheney came in third at 9% in that same poll. Barracuda Palin didn't place at all.
BTW, it seems not all of the GOP is as enamored with Palin as you are. The WSJonline published an interesting article today, Governor's Move Highlights GOP Divide
WASHINGTON -- Sarah Palin's decision to resign as Alaska governor promises to move her further away from the Republican establishment, a position she and many in her grass-roots base are embracing amid speculation about whether she will run for president in 2012.
At the same time, the governor's unconventional decision to leave office without completing a term raises questions about the viability of such a run -- and about the state of the GOP field, following revelations of extramarital affairs recently by two other potential contenders.
Ms. Palin's resignation is "a risky move," said Steve Duprey, a veteran Republican activist in New Hampshire and an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "If she doesn't like the heat in the rather cold kitchen of Alaska, imagine what it's going to be like when she goes to a state like South Carolina or New Hampshire or Iowa."
Click link above to read the full article.
Here's a link to that WSJ Interactive Map an Anon referred to.
And here's the government's website Recovery.gov to track recovery spending.
"In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos this weekend, Vice President Joe Biden gave a candid assessment of the administration's initial diagnosis of the nation's economic problems, stating, "We misread how bad the economy was."
Except that the administration never said that the stimulus passed in February 2009 was going to be the only one we'd need. Back when he signed the stimulus bill into law, President Obama said more stimulus money might be needed. Here it is July, 2009, and it seems everybody including the media have forgotten what they themselves reported accurately to their readers in back February.
From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18, 2009
...The president has made clear that the stimulus package is just the first step toward economic recovery. On Wednesday, he plans to announce a $50 billion housing plan aimed at curbing foreclosures. "We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes, something I'll talk more about tomorrow," Mr. Obama said.
The administration also is pushing for legislation to overhaul the financial regulatory system that many believe failed to prevent many of the problems underlying the economic collapse. And the Treasury Department has put forward an outline of its plan to rescue the financial sector, using $350 billion already approved by Congress.
In addition, the administration is not ruling out a second stimulus package, though there are no plans to request one now, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
"I think the president is going to do what's necessary to grow this economy. But there are no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package at the moment. I wouldn't foreclose it, but I wouldn't say… we're readily making plans to do so."
Aunt Bea just keeps on spanking Bad anonymous - way to go Aunt Bea!
Maryland Gov. May Support Out-of-State Marriage
In May, Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno asked the Attorney General to determine whether Maryland can recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Now it appears that Gov. Martin O’Malley may be receptive of the idea.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/06/12962#respond
The U.S. has never been a leader in civil rights but bit by bit it eventually catches up with the leadership of countries like Canada.
Andrea- not anon
If Princess Sarah doesn't like the media attention- why doesn't she step away? She uses her kids as props and claims she wants privacy- what a joke. cmon, 2012,Palin/Sanford
"Rush and Newt tied for second place as the GOP spokesperson at 10% each"
Well, Anon-B-liar, Rush is who we've been discussing. The fact that you keep trying to divert attention is indicative of your deceitful intent.
90% of Republicans did not mention him when asked for a GOP spokesman.
To imply he is one is a lie.
"the administration never said that the stimulus passed in February 2009 was going to be the only one we'd need"
So, I guess Biden is lying when he said they didn't know what was going on.
Truth is, the last one wasn't designed for stimulus. It's mostly social engineering.
"Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno asked the Attorney General to determine whether Maryland can recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states"
This is a conflict of interest.
Madeleno is gay and just wants a law so he can marry some guy.
This guy sends Facebook messages to underage children:
"Sen. Richard S. Madeleno, a Democrat, sent a Facebook invitation encouraging 17-year-olds to take advantage of a new law that allowed them to vote in the last primary."
"The U.S. has never been a leader in civil rights"
An odd statement from a country that thinks the Queen is the Supreme Leader.
Canadian treatment of eskimos has been appalling.
"She uses her kids as props and claims she wants privacy-"
Such a bizarre way of thinking.
It's kind of like saying if girls are going to wear short dresses, they have no right to complain if they're groped.
From murdering unborn children to denying poor kids alternative to dangerous hell hole schools to pushing homosexual adoption to saying teens and special needs kids should be lewdly ridiculed if their parents are politicians, liberals are nothing if not anti-children.
This month's peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed — and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and there is not significant risk of harm.
The study, conducted by NARTH, examined more than 100 years of professional and scientific literature from 600-plus studies and reports from clinicians, researchers and former clients principally published in peer-reviewed journals.
"This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over homosexuality," NARTH President Dr. Julie Hamilton said. "It also confirms what we have seen in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from NARTH therapists.
"We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life, and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs."
The survey was assembled over 18 months by three of the leading academics and therapists in the field. It confirms the results of a 2007 longitudinal study conducted by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark Yarhouse that found that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for individuals and does not cause psychological harm on average.
The last finding is important, because it directly refutes unsubstantiated claims made by some factions of the American Psychological Association (APA) that it is unethical for therapists to assist patients to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.
"The APA's own Code of Ethics supports every client's rights to autonomy and self-determination in therapy and mandates that therapists either respect a client's practice of religion and sexual orientation or refer the client to a professional who will offer such respect," NARTH explains in the report. "Clients who are not distressed about their sexual orientation should not be directed to change by mental-health professionals. Conversely, clients who seek sexual reorientation deserve properly informed and competent psychological care from therapists who use interventions that have been scientifically demonstrated as helpful for achieving this goal."
Nicholas Cummings, a past APA president and author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health, concurred.
"This is a basic tenant of psychotherapy, that religion for most people is an anchor," he told CitizenLink. "To pull that out from under them is an egregious thing to do."
In finding that there is substantial evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through therapy, the study also found that treatment success for clients seeking to change unwanted homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential has been documented in the professional and research literature since the late 19th century.
"We acknowledge that change in sexual orientation may be difficult to attain," NARTH says in the report. "As with other difficult challenges and behavioral patterns — such as low-self-esteem, abuse of alcohol, social phobias, eating disorders, or borderline personality disorder, as well as sexual compulsions and addictions — change through therapy does not come easily. Relapses to old forms of thinking and behaving are — as is the case with most forms of psychotherapy for most psychological conditions — not uncommon."
Nonetheless, the report continues, "we conclude that the documented benefits of reorientation therapy — and the lack of its documented general harmfulness —support its continued availability to clients who exercise their right of therapeutic autonomy and self-determination through ethically informed consent."
A third major finding of the study is that there is significantly greater medical, psychological and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.
"Overall, many problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population — and sometimes much more," the report states. "Investigators using modern, state-of-the-art research methods have documented that many different pathological traits are more prevalent in homosexual than in heterosexual groups. No other group of comparable size experiences such intense and widespread pathology."
Among the scientific findings cited in the study:
• Despite knowing the AIDS risk, homosexuals repeatedly and pathologically continue to indulge in unsafe sex practices.
• Homosexuals represent the highest number of STD cases.
• Many homosexual sex practices are medically dangerous, with or without "protection."
• More than one-third of homosexual men and women are substance abusers.
• Forty percent of homosexual adolescents report suicidal histories.
• Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have mental-health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety.
• Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual ones.
• Societal bias does not contribute to the majority of increased health risks for homosexuals.
Jeff Johnston, gender issue analyst for Focus on the Family, said "those who claim to have the best interests of the gay community at heart" should support therapy.
"Social justice, compassion, concern and intellectual honesty," dictate that men and women who want to pursue freedom from homosexuality – whether because of faith or because of health risks– should be given that opportunity by the mental health industry."
Bad anonymous said "An odd statement from a country that thinks the Queen is the Supreme Leader".
The "country" didn't make that statement, I did. Similarly the "country" doesn't think the queen is the supreme leader and even if it did that wouldn't change the fact that Canada has lead the U.S. in every single civil rights advancement in the last 200 years.
You're hopelessly deluded if you think the U.S. has ever been a leader in civil rights but of course such delusions of grandeur in the face of the abject reality are pretty common for U.S. Republicans.
Slaves took the underground railroad to Canada to gain their freedom, not to the U.S. They referred to Canada in code as "Heaven" when they sang hopeful songs of freedom. The U.S. lagged behind the free world and continued with laws oppressing blacks into the 50's and 60's whereas in Canada we never had laws forcing blacks to go to different schools, restaurants, and drinking fountains. Whereas Canada overturned the insane law against same sex sex in the 60's the U.S. remained a partner in evil until 2003. Canada passed equal marriage laws in 2005 while the U.S. crawls at a snails pace towards full equality. Canada never in outrageous hypocrisy slapped itself on the back proclaiming "all men are created equal" while at the same time defining its black citizens as three fifths a person.
No matter how you try to deny reality, its obvious and irrefutable that the U.S. has never been a leader in the advancement of civil rights. Canada is the symbol of goodness and rightness around the world, that's why so many American citizens pretend to be Canadian when they visit other countries around the world.
Bad anonymous said "This month's peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed — and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and there is not significant risk of harm.".
LOL, you're behind the times. The
"Journal" of Human Sexuality most certainly is not peer reviewed, its a biased Christianist fake publication created solely to promote anti-gay animus. Similarly NARTH is a hate group that has no credibility in the mainstream scientific and health professions.
Just as the "Journal" is fake, so the "study" by Narth is fake. It doesn’t consist of an experiment with study participants, methodology, measurements, analysis or results. Instead, according to this so-called journal — which I have a copy of — NARTH mined nearly 100 years of research on attempts to change sexual orientation. Of course, the vast majority of those studies were done when aversion therapy was commonly practiced, when many people sought therapy because they were convicted of homosexual offenses before Lawrence v. Texas to avoid jail, when few clinicians bothered to do any kind of follow-up, and when the APA still considered homosexuality a mental illness. Much of this paper is an updated regurgitation of several other articles already posted on NARTH’s web site.
This publication is not a dispassionate study of changes in sexual orientation. It is a cannon-blast of anti-gay animus in a long 94-page screed, a veritable anti-gay propaganda omnibus touching on all sorts of unrelated subjects including HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, psychiatric disorders, and “promiscuity as the new social norm.” As far as anti-gay propaganda goes, there’s little that’s missing here.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/06/13014#comments
Over the next several months — it is, after all, 94 pages of text — Box Turtle Bulletin will be going into greater detail to show just what a fraud the stuff posted by bad anonymous really is. Stay tuned.
it's going tp take several months, you say?
sounds like NARTH has the lunatic fringe gay advocates worried this time
why don't you leave the dark side and support people who want to be treated, Priya?
I know the old saying is "misery loves company" but that's an evil reason for trying to prevent others from getting help
90% of Republicans did not mention him when asked for a GOP spokesman.
To imply he is one is a lie.
Take it up with the venerable Gallup. They reported:
Asked to name the "main person who speaks for the Republican Party today," Republicans across the country are most likely to name three men: Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Cheney...
...Forty-seven percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents could not come up with a single name in response to the party spokesperson question.
Glub glub glub
"the administration never said that the stimulus passed in February 2009 was going to be the only one we'd need"
So, I guess Biden is lying when he said they didn't know what was going on.
Is that what you think Biden said? Let's go the transcript and find out precisely what he did say, shall we?
STEPHANOPOULOS: While we've been here, some pretty grim job numbers back at home -- 9.5 percent unemployment in June, the worst numbers in 26 years.
How do you explain that? Because when the president and you all were selling the stimulus package, you predicted at the beginning that, to get this package in place, unemployment will peak at about 8 percent. So, either you misread the economy, or the stimulus package is too slow and to small.
BIDEN: The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.
Everyone thought at that stage -- everyone -- the bulk of...
STEPHANOPOULOS: CBO would say a little bit higher.
BIDEN: A little bit, but they're all in the same range. No one was talking about that we would be moving towards -- we're worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But we're looking at 10 now, aren't we?
BIDEN: No. Well, look, we're much too high. We're at 9 -- what, 9.5 right now?
STEPHANOPOULOS: 9.5.
BIDEN: And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't -- I'm not -- it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in.
We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but a lot of people were saying that you needed to do something bigger and bolder then, including the economist Paul Krugman. He's saying -- right now he's saying the same thing again -- don't wait. You need a second stimulus, you need it now...
...BIDEN...There is a lot going on, George. And I think it's premature to make the judgment
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?
BIDEN: No, I didn't say that. I think it's premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September, $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of the grid -- the new electric grid.
And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.
He said "we and everyone else misread the economy" Bush/Cheney left freefalling. And just like Obama has from the very beginning of this economic crisis Bush/Cheney left us in, he's keeping the option open that more stimulus spending, like the WWII boon that lifted us out of the last Great Depression, still might be needed.
Even the WSJ got that one right in it's February 18, 2009 article. Did you miss that day?
Hey Priya Lynn, welcome back!
Anon said...sounds like NARTH has the lunatic fringe gay advocates worried this time
Oh brother Anon, are you taking your cues from yet another unattributed CitizenLink article? You just can't keep yourself from flinging their poo, can you?
No, it doesn't sound like anyone's nervous about NARTH. The truth is Dobson's Focus on the Family uses its publication, CitizenLink as a megaphone for NARTH, and both organizations are well known for embracing anti-gay propaganda and faulty research methods. NARTH has been unable to get their so-called research papers published in genuine and prestigious peer-reviewed publications so they have created their own fake "peer-reviewed publication" and use CitizenLink to blast it to FOF minions like Anon. In fact, as Box Turtle Bulletin reports:
the so-called “peer reviewed” journal is not actually a journal. The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a booklet published by NARTH themselves. In fact, it’s structured more like a book than a journal, with only one article whose title matches the title on the front cover. This journal is billed as “volume 1,” and was, according to its acknowledgment, conceived back when Joseph Nicolosi was still president at NARTH. At this rate, I would expect volume 2 to show up sometime in 2011.
This is very similar to another stunt pulled by George A. Rekers in 1996. He too created a one-off journal, also called The Journal of Human Sexuality which seems never to have made it to a second volume. It looks like NARTH decided to recycle Rekers old idea.
And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.
NARTH, garbage in, garbage out. They should be embarrassed, but they're too full of fear and loathing for people of non-heterosexual orientation to notice.
Gee, it must be true if a prestigious sounding institution like the "Box Turtle Bulletin" says it.
Did they also have an article on the new Crayola colors for the fall season?
You know it and I know it: they're taking a couple of months because most of their reporters are busy working on the Halloween craft issue.
"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures"
That's comforting.
I guess we would have done just as well with anyone and everyone for President, huh?
What's comforting to me is President Obama's determination to lift our economy out of the mess Bush/Cheney left it in.
Bush/Cheney saw the recession coming and what did they do? Nothing except for piecemeal patches, throwing billions of borrowed dollars at a time, at one industry after another, all year long last year.
Remember these?
Bear Stearns, $30 billion
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, $400 billion
AIG, $180 billion
Auto Industry, $25 billion
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, with TARP $700 billion
Citigroup, $280 billion
Bush signed into law more than $1.6 trillion in bailouts in 2008, but when he left office, our economy was in shambles with all indicators, especially jobs, nose-diving along a nearly vertical drop.
Obama's already managed to reduce the slope of the drop for job losses, gotten drug companies to discount drugs for seniors ($80 billion over 10 years worth), gotten hospital associations to contribute $155 billion over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance, not to mention reaching a nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia, to name just a few of his accomplishments in his first six months in office.
I guess you miss those good old *comforting* days when jobs were disappearing faster than today and seniors drove to Canada or Mexico trying to afford their medications, huh Anon?
Gee, it must be true if a prestigious sounding institution like the "Box Turtle Bulletin" says it.
Did they also have an article on the new Crayola colors for the fall season?
I don't know, AnonSybil, but maybe the "prestigious sounding" Dr. Throckmorton will publish his "article on the new Crayola colors for the fall season" for you tomorrow.
"What's comforting to me is President Obama's determination to lift our economy"
I'm not sure Anon-B still has all her marbles.
"Hey Priya Lynn, welcome back!"
PL won't be around long, B.
PL's a quitter.
PL disappears when PL starts losing a few arguments.
Of course, first PL will get flustered and start deleting failing arguments even before they go up.
Then, PL flames out.
PL will then return after a time of therapy.
You would think that a GOP supporter would *not* want to talk about quitters these days.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. They don't go fishing.
But as we all know, quit happens! Just ask Sarah Palin, the quitter governor of Alaska.
Interesting video of Sarah Palin talking about Hillary Clinton and her reactions to the "excess criticism" female candidates face:
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska
Newsweek's Women and Leadership Event
Hosted by Karen Breslau
San Francisco Bureau Chief
March, 2008, Los Angeles
Breslau: When you look at the coverage, when you listen to the conversations, what do you see?
Palin: Well, you know I think, fair or unfair, the.... I do think it is, is a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts. And I think that's unfortunate, but fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it really. I mean you gotta plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into, um which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also, but um when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, "[unintelligible] that doesn't do us any good." Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, uh I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that because again fair or unfair, it is there. I think that's reality and I think it's a given. I think people can just accept that she is going to be under that sharper microscope. So be it! I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be, ah, the best candidate, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point, so it bothers me a little bit hearing, hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.
"does herself a disserved to even mention it really"
"I mean you gotta plow through that"
"perceived whine about that excess criticism"
"fair or unfair" (three times in less than 2 minutes!)
"I think that's reality. And I think it's a given."
"I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be, ah, the best candidate"
"so it bothers me a little bit hearing, hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level"
Oh poor Sarah. She was unable to imagine how different it might feel when you are the object of all that "excess criticism" that comes to candidates, especially women candidates who run for national office. Hillary Clinton stayed in the race until the end, the very bitter end and beyond. She took all the "excess criticism" the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine and her rival Democrats could dish out and now she's Secretary of State.
Palin quit and went fishing.
Palin's a hypoquit.
Palin 2012! Bring it on!
Just imagine if she'd been elected vice president and suddenly needed more time with her family or decided she didn't like the nasty things people were saying about her, and quit. We are really lucky she didn't win.
Keith Olbermann reported
"Boss Limbaugh, all exercised over the North Korean‘s testing of long-range missiles last week. So he says,
“I wonder what Obama is going to do. He‘ll probably call Hugo Chavez to find out what to do about it, except Hugo is in the hills marshalling forces to invade Honduras. If we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here to help us get our government back.”
"Send some people here, help us get our government back; what does that imply? Foreign nationals from Honduras to do what? Add to the political discourse? Or some sort of call to armed insurrection against the elected government of the United States? Why am I asking this question of Mr. Limbaugh? Instead of someone from Homeland Security asking him, since publicly advocating the overthrow of the government of the United States is, in fact, a federal crime.
"Just imagine if she'd been elected vice president and suddenly needed more time with her family or decided she didn't like the nasty things people were saying about her, and quit."
That actually wouldn't be a big deal, Merle.
The President would appoint someone else and Congress would approve.
That's how we got Jerry Ford.
I'm sure Ms. Palin appreciates your approval of her "I Quit!" governing technique.
Maybe she'll send you a salmon!
She's in as good shape for the 2012 nomination as anyone, other than maybe Mitt Romney.
She has a large group that avidly supports her.
The public is fascinated by her and she will raise beaucoups of money for Republican candidates in 2010.
The issues she has already pointed at Obama will be real winners in 2012.
The reaction since she quit is further affirmation of the fear she stirs among liberals and the media elite.
She is walking proof that things they advance as common wisdom are false.
She's in as good shape for the 2012 nomination as anyone,
I think you should watch this video.
You'll hear Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan, David Gergen and others point out that quitting an elective office when the going gets tough means you should not expect to remain a viable candidate for future elective office.
so what?
this guy, William Kristol, is smarter than Rove, Buchanan and Gergen:
"I like Sarah Palin (though I don't know her well). I respect her (though I'm aware of some of her limitations). I wish her well (though I'm not convinced she should be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee).
I am convinced, though, that she should have a chance to compete and make her case. In this, I seem to differ from many of my friends in the mainstream media and the Republican establishment. They tend not only to dislike and disdain Palin, they also want to bury her chances now as a presidential possibility. What are they so scared of?
It's silly to claim Palin has no chance to win the nomination or the presidency. The fact is, despite a rough campaign in 2008, Palin has been (for what it's worth at this stage) a co-front-runner in polls of GOP primary voters for 2012, along with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. In a recent Pew survey, she had the strongest favorable-unfavorable numbers of the likely candidates among Republicans.
She has fervent supporters, which would presumably help her in primaries and caucuses. Among the general public, she has a not-great but not-unmanageable 45-44 favorability rating.
Will her poll numbers fall because she has opted to step down early from the Alaska governorship? Perhaps. But the short-term effect of that decision will soon be swamped by judgments people make as they see her out and about, speaking and opining on the issues of the day.
She'll be able to make the case effectively that she should be the nominee, or she won't.
The odds are that she won't -- just as the odds at this point are against any one of the GOP candidates. It's a wide-open race. And Palin may not even run. But the panic among mainstream media commentators and the GOP establishment suggests real worry that if she does, she might pull off an upset. Why else the vehement assertions that she's clearly made a terrible mistake? Why else the categorical insistence that her political career is finished? Aren't they all protesting too much?"
"The media establishment didn't protest much about the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. He gave a good speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, was elected to the Senate that fall, and immediately started running for president. He didn't accomplish much in his four years in the Senate (nor could he have been expected to). But that didn't seem to hurt his standing. Isn't Palin about as well positioned for the 2012 GOP nomination as Obama was in 2005 for the 2008 Democratic one?
I think so -- except that her own party's establishment fears and even loathes Palin, while the Democratic establishment wasn't set against Obama. The hostility of the GOP establishment may be an obstacle to her success. On the other hand, given the performance of GOP operatives and pols over the past few years, maybe their opposition isn't a bad thing.
In any case, this is the same GOP establishment that rallied behind first-term governor George W. Bush in 1997-98 and then propelled him to the nomination in 1999-2000. Had Bush accomplished more than Palin at that point?
Texas has a lot more people than Alaska does, but the Texas governorship is a weaker office -- and some of Bush's first-term initiatives went down in flames, while Palin's have largely succeeded.
It's true that Bush didn't quit as governor and successfully ran for reelection. But why is it more admirable to run for national office while a sitting governor (or senator), spending a fair amount of time out of your state (or away from Congress), necessarily neglecting or delegating some of your duties -- than to turn the office over to your constitutional successor so your constituents have someone working full time on their behalf? Palin will have to endure some fair criticism for abandoning her office before her term ended. But she should also get credit for not using her state office as a means of campaigning for a higher one.
She won't get that credit. For psychological and sociological reasons too deep for me to grasp, a good chunk of elite America hates Sarah Palin and what they've decided she stands for. But if she wears their scorn as a badge of honor, comports herself with good cheer and personal dignity, studies up on national issues and takes the lead in selected debates on behalf of conservative principles against Obama administration policies, she has a shot.
If she's as foolish, erratic and even nutty as her critics claim, then of course she'll fail. If she performs well, she may succeed. If you have an anti-mainstream-media and anti-GOP-establishment bone in your body, it's hard not to root for her at least a bit."
Here's the link to Anon's two-day old editorial.
William Kristol, is smarter than Rove, Buchanan and Gergen
Combined or individually? Well, in either case, that's not saying very much.
Tell us Anon, how many successful Presidential campaigns has Mr. Kristol run?
Uh, none! He ran Alan Keyes' unsuccessful campaign for the US Senate right here in Maryland in 1988, which Paul Sarbanes won, hands down. He served as a foreign policy advisor for Senator John McCain's unsuccessful campaign for President in 2008, which Barack Obama won, hands down.
Palin should quickly sign him on to her 2012 Presidential campaign before someone else snaps him up!
"Here's the link to Anon's two-day old editorial"
Bizarre.
We're so impressed with your abilities on Google, Anon-B.
Any thoughts on Kristol's comments?
Any thoughts on Kristol's comments?
Well, since your last comment was just another lame personal attack against me, sure, I can respond to some of Kristol's nonsense for you.
By the way Anon, I'd think a pro-business GOP supporter like you would want to give readers access to the commercial websites you quote from in order to help increase traffic to the ads posted there. When you steal their product and pass it off as your own, you are cutting into their website traffic revenues. That's not good for business.
OK, I have a few comments on Kristol's editorial.
Kristol said But the panic among mainstream media commentators and the GOP establishment suggests real worry that if she does, she might pull off an upset.
There is no "panic" in the mainstream about an "upset," there's a fitting reaction to her Fourth of July bombshell announcement. She made an announcement to quit, surprising even her staff and allies, on the eve of our most patriotic holiday. She deliberately hid her secret shocker for some time, and now that it's exploded, Kristol's trying to give her cover by feigning surprise at the rapid and prolific media reaction to the bomb she tossed on the eve of the Fourth of July.
Why else the vehement assertions that she's clearly made a terrible mistake?
Uh, because she has made a terrible mistake. You don't prove you're a good candidate for elective office by abandoning your own elective office barely over halfway through your term because there's too much attention on you that distracts your staff. With all those oil revenues, Alaska can certainly afford to hire some more staff to get both jobs done and help bring down the unemployment rate, all at the same time. It's all part of the job she quit, governing and handling distractions that come up.
Why else the categorical insistence that her political career is finished?
Let's see, she got elected, was highly popular, and now she's managed to lose the approval of many of her constituents back home as she seemed to lose ability to focus on her state duties. She's got a devoted core of supporters that's about as big as Ross Perot's. How many votes did Perot manage to siphon off in the general election? She's likely to do about as well as he did.
Aren't they all protesting too much?"
Well, they're much less obnoxious than those Capital Hill staffers (mostly Tom Delay's) banging on election office doors in various Florida counties, disrupting recounts in 2000, or those God Hates Fags Baptists from Kansas. Nah, I don't think they're all protesting too much. I think the press is simply reacting to the shocking maverickiness of her Fourth of July bombshell.
Mark my words, she loves the every bit of the publicity, judging from the many interviews she gave her first day she'd gone fishing, to **get away from all the nosy media madness.**
Had Bush accomplished more than Palin at that point?
No, and that's the point. Look what a disaster Bush turned out to be. We don't want to see the Palin disaster. That's why we overwhelmingly voted for change last November.
It's true that Bush didn't quit as governor and successfully ran for reelection.
Well duh, Mr. Kristol! Here you are pointing out two successful things Bush did that Palin didn't. Bush didn't go to 5 different colleges to get his degree either.
So by comparison, Palin make Bush look good!
why is it more admirable to run for national office while a sitting governor (or senator), spending a fair amount of time out of your state (or away from Congress), necessarily neglecting or delegating some of your duties -- than to turn the office over to your constitutional successor so your constituents have someone working full time on their behalf?
Because it's more admirable for Governors to finish their job, which includes governing and campaigning and handling distractions. Governors have to be able to balance it all, that's why a governorship is considered such good training for Presidents. Balancing and handling all of her duties as Governor is what Palin failed to do. She couldn't handle the full job so she decided to up and quit and go fishing. When has another sitting Governor quit barely over halfway through the term to potentially prepare to run for a "higher calling" office?
she should also get credit for not using her state office as a means of campaigning for a higher one.
Does Kristol think she's going to drop her title "Governor" during her campaign and not mention her experience as the Governor of Alaska? Now that she's quit her day job, she doesn't have to do that icky boring state business anymore. Now she's free to concentrate on branding herself for some future Presidential run.
"I'd think a pro-business GOP supporter like you would want to give readers access to the commercial websites you quote from in order to help increase traffic to the ads posted there. When you steal their product and pass it off as your own, you are cutting into their website traffic revenues."
oh, dear
I guess I'm a one-man recession
"There is no "panic" in the mainstream about an "upset," there's a fitting reaction to her Fourth of July bombshell announcement. She made an announcement to quit, surprising even her staff and allies, on the eve of our most patriotic holiday."
oh, dar
not on our most patriotic holiday
I think "panic" is the appropriate
the mainstream media is worrie that their strategy to demonize Palin will fail if they don't have her trapped in the executive office
"You don't prove you're a good candidate for elective office by abandoning your own elective office"
she didn't need to prove that
she already has
as for abandonment, she perceived, correctly, that the interests of her constituents would be better served by someone who didn't have the national media interfering
her decision was statesmanlike and polls show it hasn't changed Americans' minds about her in the least
the whole "quitter" image is completely in the mind of the out-of-touch commentators inside the beltway
some of them could use a nice long hiatus themselves
"She's got a devoted core of supporters that's about as big as Ross Perot's. How many votes did Perot manage to siphon off in the general election? She's likely to do about as well as he did."
Perot was a third party candidate that did remarkably well in spite of the fact that he went a little nuts during the fall campaign.
Sarah will run for the Republican nomnation.
Anyone who thinks she doesn't have a shot is a fool.
The national media is no fool, however, which is why they are determined to discredit her.
If she didn't have a good shot, she wouldn't be newsworthy.
"Mark my words, she loves the every bit of the publicity,"
oh, dear
Anon-B's on to us
"it's more admirable for Governors to finish their job, which includes governing and campaigning and handling distractions. Governors have to be able to balance it all, that's why a governorship is considered such good training for Presidents. Balancing and handling all of her duties as Governor is what Palin failed to do."
Oh, Palin proved very adept at that.
That's why she came to McCain's notice.
Contrast that to Obama, who was elected to the Senate and immediately began to campaign with absolutely no executive experience.
He'd have served his cosntituents better had he quit and accomplished nothing in his less than full Senate term.
But, if he had quit, he'd have no platform.
Illinois got nothing out of that little bait and switch.
"Does Kristol think she's going to drop her title "Governor" during her campaign and not mention her experience as the Governor of Alaska?"
Why should she? It's part of her resume.
"Now she's free to concentrate on branding herself for some future Presidential run."
And since she was going to do that anyway, now she has given Alaskan a fulltime governor to serve their interests.
That's more than the people of Illinois got from their junior Senator.
I guess...
I think....
Therefore it's true, huh? < eye roll >
her decision was statesmanlike
Her decision to quit her job as Governor because she can't manage to take some heat *and* do her job is **not** statesmanlike in any way, shape or form.
the whole "quitter" image
was created by Governor Palin when she quit her four-year elective office job a year and a half before it was over. Just like she quit her job as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2004.
Palin's a serial quitter.
Sarah will run for the Republican nomnation.
Anyone who thinks she doesn't have a shot is a fool.
I agree, Rove, Buchanan, Gergen are fools. She's got a good shot at the 2012 GOP nomination, and nothing would make me happier than to see her run against Obama's second term.
she came to McCain's notice.
Palin was brought to McCain by the the powers that be in the GOP who didn't like his preferred running mates of Ridge or Lieberman because they are pro-choice. I wonder how badly McCain regrets doubting his own instincts and following the bad advice of the fools at Rove & Co. A bipartisan ticket running to lead a country chomping for change might have had a really good shot.
now she has given Alaskan a fulltime governor to serve their interests.
And now lots of Alaskans say "good riddance" to Sarah Palin
Why should she [drop her title "Governor"]? It's part of her resume.
So is the fact that she resigned a year and a half before her term was done as Governor and also before her term was up on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Illinois got nothing
The people of Illinois stood proudly as their freshman Senator Obama, who had completed his full first term in office, was sworn in as the first African American President of the United States. Residents of Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, are filled with pride too.
I'm glad to see you're conceding that Palin has a good shot at the nomination.
You can chatter on about the concept of "quitter" but the American people have clearly indicated they don't care.
Alaska is better off with a governor that won't have to deal with the distractions that the threatened East Coast elitists are causing.
We'd prefer a person who puts the interests of their constituents above their own persoanl interests.
Please remember the historic example of Richard Nixon who hang around in the White House for about a year and a half after it was clear he was ineffective.
Despite calls from editorial boards and leaders in his party, he hunkered down and said "I'm not going to be the first President to quit."
We don't need another Richard Nixon and, in 2012, it'll be clear we don't need another term of Sir BO.
It would be tempting to say Barry O stopped serving the citizens of Illinois once he started running for President but, truthfully, he never started serving them. He started running for President almost immediately after being elected Senator.
(we're reminded here of Joe Theismann, who wrote a book called "How to Quarterback in the NFL" when he was still a third-stringer)
Sure, Illinois was probably proud that one of its adopted residents was the first half-black President but Alaska will feel the same when a NATIVE BORN Alaskan becomes the first woman President.
Things are looking good for 2009. The governorships of New Jersey and Virginia will both flip to the Republicans.
2010, Congress will flip too with a lot of fundraising help from the very popular Palin.
Then, 2012.
You can chatter on about the concept of "quitter" but the American people have clearly indicated they don't care.
Correction, a portion of the GOP base "have clearly indicated" they "see her more favorably." On the other hand, ABC News reports on the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
"...The findings underscore how polarized opinions of Palin were even before Friday's surprise announcement. Seven in 10 polled say their views weren't affected by her decision. Among those whose opinions shifted, Democrats by a 4-1 ratio and independents by 2-to-1 view her less favorably. Republicans are somewhat inclined to see her more favorably.
Time will let us see if your new predictions (or chain rattlings, we never can be sure with you, can we?) turn out as badly as your others.
predicting politics is fun, an American sport
you can tell by the reaction of the liberal establishment, they are alarmed that mine is dead-on
they predicted the election of Al Gore and John Kerry even on election night before the polls closed
and Anon-B was at the home in front of her TV tray table, swilling muscatel and squirting cheese whiz in her mouth
and believing every word they said
of course, she also believed it when Bill Clinton told us he never knew that woman, Ms Lewinsky
Post a Comment
<< Home