Blitzer: All right Jack Cafferty, what do you think, a McCain Powell ticket?
Cafferty: Amen to that. I second everything McCain said. I wish McCain, I mean Powell would have run for president. I would have made a lot of what’s going on right now irrelevant, in my humble opinion. I think Colin Powell is giant and I wish he would take a more active role in setting the direction for this country.I would follow him damned near anywhere.
Gosh. I think he recently took a pretty damned active role in the direction of our country, don’t you? And jack and his pals in the media followed him to hell:
Cafferty is the no nonsense “regular guy” on CNN’s best political team on television and a lot of people like him. He’s an idiot.
Spocko, (the guy who chased Melanie Morgan off San Francisco radio) wrote this in the comments to our “pudding” series about questioning the premises of these right wing frames. He makes an excellent observation:
I decided that the only way to have an impact on the charade of the “market place of ideas” was to go to the only people they really listen to, the ones who paid them. The advertisers.
This is the “real world” and it is the ultimate of rejecting their premise.
I reject the entire premise of their show. The fake participation, the stacked deck with loving callers. I reject their rhetorical tricks that are used on people who do get through occasionally who they destroy with their high school debating tricks and shouting. (Hannity especially)
People like Rush, Hannity, Grover Norquist, Bill O’ Reilly and Coulter are the ones who create these kind of rhetorical games. They think up the frame. They then give them to their listeners who repeat them for their co-workers and family. My mom regularly uses the rhetorical tricks that Rush uses on the one person in the family who disagrees with her. But because this person doesn’t want to attack my mom she thinks she has “won the conversation”. Personally I hate having to have these conversations with people because I really don’t like confrontation. Especially if my goal it really to persuade and change someone’s mind rather than WIN the conversation. I think some men thing that if they humiliate the other person that they will then admit defeat. And that is what they want. “All right! You are right! I was wrong. You are the smarter person. I will change my ways!” These people often want to appeal to some third party and argue as if a impartial judge of debate is listening in.
What do I gain if I “win” a conversation on talk radio? Even if I had a segment where they didn’t control my volume and my on button, if I “won” the argument the second I’m off the air they will mock me. They never modify their opinion with the correct information. See how often they bring back Zombie facts. As Monty nicely put it, it’s NOT about an “honest inquiry or debate.” It’s about entertainment, stirring the pot or creating the media’s standard “X vs. Y” controversy story.
When I went after the talk radio hosts I chose to change the venue, work on them from outside their frame and even from outside the venue they control. And it had an impact.
The financial impact on the station was big, but the bigger picture method was bigger. They listened to the money people because even if they say, “We had great ratings!” the money people say, “We don’t care, we only like great ratings if they give us more money.” To save face (and to avoid a breach of contract lawsuit) they didn’t fire the K S F O radio hosts at the time, but eventually they slipped them the pink slip for doing the one sin that corporate radio doesn’t forgive, costing them money.
Spocko deserves a medal for fighting back against that shrieking creep Melanie Morgan. And that’s how he did it. Liberals should do it more often.
Can someone tell me why a Democratic congress would allow this to happen?
The people who had been invited to testify had flown in from around the country with their credit card bills in hand, only to learn that they couldn’t talk unless they would sign a waiver that would permit the credit card companies to make public anything they wanted to tell about their financial records, their credit histories, their purchases, and so on. The Republicans and Democrats had worked out a deal “to be fair to the credit card lenders.” These people couldn’t say anything unless they were willing to let the credit card companies strip them naked in public.
The hold the credit card companies have on congress is obscene. And at a time of increasing financial insecurity and economic turbulence, this fealty to their corporate masters is more and more untenable.
This one is particularly egregious. The credit card companies testified for hours about what good citizens they were and how they treated their customers like kings. They provided no proof or back up for their claims but when average citizens wanted to testify, they demanded that they be able to smear them by releasing information about their Victoria Secret purchases or telling the world they were “extravagant” spenders by buying a new television set.
This is the kind of thing that’s going to become a huge, real life issue over the next months of the presidential campaign. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Democrats aren’t going at this with everything they have. This is the kind of thing that hits Americans where they live and would get them far out front on these pressing economic issues. Would they really rather lose the election than cross the credit tcard companies? What’s the point of that?
Is the American left now a movement of economic issues and nationalism, of identity politics and social justice, or something else? How do the New Democrats fit into the contemporary left?
It warms the cockles of my heart that Perlstein’s answer was to dispute the very premise of the question, a rhetorical tactic I have been advocating for years and one that is crucial if we are serious about re-creating an intelligent public discourse.
To pose a question is to define the space of acceptable answers. My classic example, “So, would you rather that Saddam stay in power?” restricts the set of possible answers to equally bad, and unreasonable, choices. If you answer “no” then the inevitable follow up is, “Then you can have no serious objections to removing him, as the president wishes.” If you answer yes, then you’ll get, “So, you don’t care at all about the enslavement of the Iraqi people.”
The phrasing of the question – a deliberate, cunningly crafted partisan stinkbomb – compels a particular kind of intellectual stupidity and debased reasoning. The only proper answer to, “So, would you rather that Saddam stay in power?” is to strenuously object to the nature of the question itself. But that was never done when it would have mattered. Even today, I can all but guarantee that at least 4 or 5 commenters will “rise to the challenge” and answer eithert yes or no, failing to recognize that the question is a setup.
So kudos to Rick Perlstein for refusing to play the modern version of the game. It is far too much to expect that the LA Times will get what Rick was doing. But at least some of the Times’ readers certainly will. And that’s a terrific start.
Clearly somebody at the LA Timeshas been skimming his free copy of regular columnist Doughy Pantload’s magnum opus during lunch.
Is the American left now a movement of economic issues and nationalism, of identity politics and social justice, or something else?
Oh no. They don’t understand at all. The American left is now a movement of America hating and chocolate pudding. Or is it masturbation and godless fascism? I get so confused.
Anyone else see the problem here? How else does this question simply make no sense? The editors obviously mean something by “identity politics and social justice.” But identity politics is another phrase that tends in the direction of a slur — it tends to describe people dumbly voting based merely on their sex or their race, something that is impossible, it’s supposed, for white men to do — while social justice is something to which most citizens would say they at least aspire. But again, this bizarre question seems to lump them together as a common pole — against the opposite of that meaningless pair “nationalism” and “economic issues.”
I’ve tried out the question on a few smart friends, and all of them responded with dumbfounded silence.
That’s just a little excerpt of his entertaining reply, which is, btw, in the LA Times itself. Perhaps some of my more erudite readers (you know who you are) would also care to politely weigh in over there on the subject.
So Republicans want the House to enter into a secret session to discuss the FISA bill, and there’s a pretty entertaining debate on the House floor about this right now. My favorite part was when Dan Lungren (R-CA) said that the classified documents that the Intelligence and Judiciary Committee have seen would not be able to be discussed in that secret session. Which makes you wonder if the secret session is just for a big pinochle game or something.
Of course, there’s hypocrisy here, as just a few weeks back the Minority Leader called a proposed secret session by the Democrats a “stalling tactic.” But I think we can all figure out the point of the secret session. It’s to make sure every newspaper and broadcast outlet in the country reports on a “secret session,” which alludes to all kinds of secret and scary information that the Congress must act upon, and the Democrats’ intransigence on giving phone companies amnesty is making the country less safe. That’s pretty much it. It’s the Parliamentary procedural version of a “24” episode. Similar to the President’s version of a “24” episode in whiny-ass-titty-baby speech form:
The bipartisan House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees have already held numerous oversight hearings on the government’s intelligence activities. It seems that House leaders are more interested in investigating our intelligence professionals than in giving them the tools they need to protect us. Congress should stop playing politics with the past and focus on helping us prevent terrorist attacks in the future.
Members of the House should not be deceived into thinking that voting for this unacceptable legislation would somehow move the process along. Voting for this bill does not move the process along. Instead, voting for this bill would make our country less safe because it would move us further away from passing the good bipartisan Senate bill that is needed to protect America.
… Rep David Scott (D-GA) just wondered whether or not this session is a political ploy, so that Republican members can run to the press after tomorrow’s FISA vote (which does not have retroactive immunity) and say “They voted against it even though we had a secret meeting!” Ya think? Minority Whip Roy Blunt just admitted that the relevant committees had access to all the information that they will offer. Still, it’s in SECRET!!! (Please add your own Count Floyd from SCTV voice when saying the word “secret.”)
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network.
The Bush administration tried to keep this report under the radar by not posting it on line, but it didn’t work. (They apparently haven’t heard of pdf files)
I wonder if Stephen Hayes will lose his job or cease being invited on important gasbag shows as an expert? He’s very, very serious you know.
Transcript of the statement Gov. Eliot Spitzer delivered on Wednesday announcing his resignation:
In the past few days I’ve begun to atone for my private failings with my wife, Silda, my children and my entire family. The remorse I feel will always be with me. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me.From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given much — the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York, and the chance to lead this state. I am deeply sorry I did not live up to what was expected of me.To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize. I look at my time as governor with a sense of what might have been, but I also know that as a public servant, I and the remarkable people with whom I worked have accomplished a great deal.There is much more to be done and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work. Over the course of my public life I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct.I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason I am resigning from the office of governor, and at Lt. Gov. David Paterson’s request, the resignation will be effective on Monday, March 17, a date that he believes will permit an orderly transition.I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that as human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family, then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children.I hope all of New York will join my prayers for my friend, David Paterson, as he embarks on his new mission and I thank the public once again for the privilege of service. Thank you very much.
CAFFERTY: One other thing that stuck out watching his announcement today is how absolutely ice cold he was — no remorse, no compassion, no emotion. Didn’t even look at his wife for the entire — reading the thing like he was doing the luncheon speech at a Rotary Club in Bayonne.
(CROSSTALK)
STENGEL: Jack…
BORGER: That’s a hard thing (INAUDIBLE) —
STENGEL: … I have to say, he — what he didn’t do which he could have done is that Nixon “you won’t have me to kick around anymore” bitterness. He talked about the public trust. He talked about the people’s business. I thought it was…
BORGER: He apologized.
STENGEL: … I thought it was noble remarks that he made today.
CAFFERTY: Well, except that I didn’t suggest — I didn’t see any genuine feeling of remorse. It was just I got caught, this is what I have to do now, my lawyers are trying to make a deal with the prosecutors so I don’t have to go to jail so I’ve got to read these words then I’m out of here…
Now I realize that Cafferty is a self styled TV curmudgeon, but really, I can’t stand that stuff and the attitude is all too common among the gasbag types. Spitzer evidently didn’t grovel quite enough for old Jack, who like so many busybodies in this country are always sitting from atop their apparently perfect marital pedestals looking down their noses at other people’s personal frailties.
Spitzer apologized with dignity, which is a quality that Americans no longer appreciate. In our culture today, it’s all about wallowing in humiliation — and making a buck at it, if at all possible. Maybe the Spitzers could satisfy people like old Jack there if they signed on to do a reality TV show and revealed all their inner turmoil for his entertainment.
All the news shows had on so-called experts talking about why Mrs Sptizer would “stand by her man,” speculating about the “arrangements” they must have made for her to come out there and be publicly humiliated. They had that sick “blue dress” look on their faces, smug and superior, as they congratulated themselves and each other publicly for having such superior morals and superior marriages, feigning deep sympathy for Mrs Spitzer while they proclaimed they would never put up with such betrayal themselves. Fox news even had this atrocity on its web site:
No doubt these days are extremely painful for Governor Spitzer’s wife Silda. In addition to her own pain, she has 3 children — and no doubt she is doing as any Mother would do and that is to try and help them with their own pain from their Father’s conduct.
So here is your chance…if you could send a note to Silda Spitzer that you knew she would read, what would you write her? Here is your chance…post your note to her right here:
How thoughtful. I’m sure Mrs Spitzer is anxious to know what the public thinks of her marriage and wants to take a poll on what she should do.
Marriage is a mysterious and highly personal institution, that only the two people involved can truly understand, and which others should be cautious about judging too harshly. Gloating over someone else’s foibles in that area is just asking for karmic retribution. Nobody is immune from marital problems.
And anyway, I wonder what would happen if members of the press had their marriages put under a public microscope? Somehow, I don’t think we’d see Ward and June Cleaver swimming around.
CORDES: Big-city mayors, members of Congress, presidents, and presidential candidates: Why would they let sex jeopardize a position they worked so hard to win? LAUREN SILVERMAN (clinical psychologist): Sometimes people who are very powerful feel as if they’re exempt from the law. They may cut corners and feel as if they can get away with it. PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I did something for the worst possible reason, just because I could. CORDES: And there at their side, almost always, are the wives, showing support in the face of something that seems unforgivable, as Silda Spitzer did yesterday. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She looked awful, like, you know, your heart went out to her — which, if he was appealing for that, then yes. But I can’t imagine even asking her to do that after what he put her through already. QUINN: I can only think that ambition, their own personal ambition, is part of why they stick by these men, because they are accomplished women in their own right. And so, why would a Hillary Clinton or a Silda stand by her man and allow herself to be humiliated unless there was something in it for her?
Quinn, the daughter of a general, was raised in high military society. As she describes in her book “The Party: A Guide to Adventurous Entertaining,” she was first patted on the bottom at a Washington cocktail party by a randy Sen. Strom Thurmond when she was 17. From young socialite she moved on to dabbling in journalism, writing party stories for the Washington Post in the 1960s. She was a disaster at television and wrote a book about the debacle. But, failing upwards, she was about to be hired by the New York Times when Ben Bradlee, the storied executive editor of the Washington Post, lured her to his new Style section.
At the time Bradlee was married but separated; Quinn was living with journalist Warren Hoge, who would later work for the Times. Quinn and Bradlee became an item, Bradlee’s marriage failed, the two were married in 1978 — and Sally Quinn’s career took off.
And then there’s Glen Beck and some rightwing Dr. Phil:
BECK: Yeah, I have to tell you, that crossed my mind with these women, that, I mean, you don’t stand there — you don’t even — I mean, you don’t even walk up to the podium, you’d be in such shock. Now, maybe they’re standing there at the podium because they are in shock, and they just don’t — they haven’t, you know, woken up to it yet, or they knew.
Can you live with a guy who’s making it with hookers for years and not really know?
EIGEN: Well, you know, this is a sad situation. But you know, the bottom line is — how do I say this genteelly? They’re paid to not worry about it. And they’re in a position — they’ve bartered themselves, in many cases. And unfortunately, you know, she’s made her bed, and she’s sleeping in it.
Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.
The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.
Related Pew surveys have found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. “Coverage of the war has been virtually absent,” said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.
It’s really just incredible. You wouldn’t suppose it has anything to do with this story appearing on Page A12, would it? Alongside the one about the rocket attack killing 3 soldiers yesterday?
Because Juan Cole asked me to, here’s the AP’s report on the even more deadly day for US troops on Monday:
It’s all good though, because Tucker Carlson has been replaced by a show called “Race For The White House,” filling that crucial campaign coverage gap, and in addition to telling us who said what about whom and who played what race or gender card, I’m sure David Gregory will keep us completely informed about the latest from Iraq.
This last bit, from the original article, is noted, in closing, without comment.
Compared with those Americans surveyed who correctly identified U.S. casualties at around 4,000 (3,975 as of yesterday morning, according to the Pentagon), 84 percent identified Oprah Winfrey as the talk-show host supporting Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination…
OK, one comment… they’ve really deep-sixed this war, haven’t they? All the more to dodge their own culpability, I guess.
…adding, it’s of course harder for some media outlets to report the news when the White House Pentagon actively seeks to censor it.
The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won’t be emailed to reporters and it won’t be posted online.
How can we expect reporters to cover it? They won’t even GET AN EMAIL! (Not that it’d matter much if they did, particularly to those who need to inform the public on exactly how many times Eliot Spitzer used the call-girl service and who the actual prostitutes were. No shit, that appeared in the NYT today.)
As Glenzilla says, “The goal is to raise as much money as possible to run local ads against one or two of them, alerting as many possible voters in their districts of their endless complicity with the most radical, corrupt aspects of the Bush administration’s chronic lawbreaking and illegal domestic spying.” Thanks to you, we have a lot of options. Let us know who you think deserves to be the target of our efforts for joining with the Republicans to try and pass retroactive immunity for Dick Cheney and the telecom criminals. Cast your vote here
