by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math We're allowed to criticize press coverage of Republicans too, right? Hopefully Chris Suellentrop won't use this as an excuse to stop reading my woefully underupdated personal blog, but the New York Times decides[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/what_conservati.html
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Now they can't even agree on whether or not to attack Nancy Pelosi on her choice of transportation.
The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance."This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.
Read more after the jump.
Republicans cite that Denny Hastert of Illinios used a smaller version of the plane. Although, I'm sure it slipped their feeble little minds that while Hastert's home in Illinois is 500 miles from Washington, DC, Nancy Pelosi's home in San Francisco, California is 2,700 miles away, and the smaller plane may not be able to make it all the way cross country without having to stop. 
Nancy Pelosi defended herself last night on Fox News as well:
"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.
Of course the twits at Fox News bring the Speaker of the House on to discuss her modes of travel. You know, they wouldn't want to actually discuss anything of real substance with her, like say, the Republicans blocking debate on Iraq.
| 
Read The Full Article:
http://www.capitoltalk.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=89
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Anna Nicole Smith from a small strip club in Texas to Playboy and in the media spotlight, lived a a bizarre life. Many Americans were entertained by her court ordeal and the news surrounding her.
Read The Full Article:
http://www.enewsreference.com/blog.shtml
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
Are you a soldier worried about being killed in Iraq? Fear no longer; the Army has instituted a new safety precaution just for you. No, it's not body armor or better training, and it sure ain't an exit strategy.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo! Her appearance on Imus this morning was just bizarre. The main point Imus wanted to cover is if she actually told Libby that Tim Russert hated Chris Matthews. I edited some stuff out (it's still a long clip) and tried to focus on her responses to this point and the Libby trial. Basically—try to follow [...]
Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/08/mary-matalin-is-dazed-and-confused/
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!To quote a song by a DJ known simply as "Miss Kitten:" You know Frank Sinatra? Anna Nicole Smith? He's she's dead....dead!! - Fox News
Cocaine loving Marion Barry wants you armed! - Wonkette
John Edwards blogger update. - Raising Kaine
Hoo Haa monologues. - West of Shockoe
CNN wankers. - My Left Nutmeg
America in a state..of denial. - Raising Kaine
ABC News condones hate speech (the picture to accompany this story is hilarious). - Daily Kos
|
Read The Full Article:
http://www.capitoltalk.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=88
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math If I may be so bold as to offer my thoughts on the topic of the New America Conference where Ezra's speaking today ... In The Two Americas, which I still think is the...[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/on_realignments.html
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Gee, you think?
I promised myself I wouldn't post about this woman, because seriously, who the hell cares? Strike that, the Situation Room has now devoted their coverage to this mess of a woman dying. And we wonder why CNN hasn't caught on that the Pelosi-plane story is a lie. There are apparently much bigger stories to investigate.
UPDATE: I'm reminded of the time I was having breakfast in my favorite diner in New York City a few months back, and this easily 85-year-old man was sitting at the next table with his wife, reading the New York Times. All of a sudden he says, way too loudly, "who the fuck is Anna Nicole Smith?"
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) is considering replacing the “state’s climatologist,” George Taylor, who has suggested that “natural variations” — not human-induced greenhouse gases — are to blame for the Earth’s recent warming. Taylor’s view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce greenhouse gases, nor is it in line with [...]
Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/08/oregon-denier/
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The uber-conservative republican Wall Street Journal published an editorial today attacking Senator Hillary Clinton on Iraq (which now makes me wonder if perhaps she's doing something right.) In any case, Hillary's campaign has prepared a point-counterpoint of the charges made in the WSJ editorial. Since Hillary's position on Iraq has been a topic of lively debate of late, I'm publishing the campaign's response, in full.
Hillary on Iraq: What the WSJ Won't Tell You
The Wall Street Journal published a piece today on Hillary Clinton's statements on Iraq. They bill it as "a summary of the arc of Mrs. Clinton's public thinking on Iraq." Actually, it's a highly selective account designed to distort and simplify her actual views.
First, WSJ article provides one quote from Hillary before the war, selectively quoting from her speech on the use-of-force resolution and attempting to paint her as unequivocally in favor of invading Iraq. They leave out these other statements she made before the war:
JANUARY 2003: HILLARY SENDS LETTER TO POWELL, URGES HIM TO CONTINUE ROBUST INSPECTIONS: "If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq...Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors." [Letter to Colin Powell, 1/31/03]
MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...[T]he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added." [AP, 3/3/03]
Next, the WSJ selects one quote from a Council on Foreign Relations Speech in December 2003 attempting to paint her as completely supportive of President Bush's policies. The WSJ leaves out these other statements, also made in December 2003:
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS WAR IS BEING RUN BY 'POORLY PREPARED PEOPLE' WHO ARE 'OBSESSED WITH IRAQ': "As a result, we are living with the consequences of refusing to admit the size of this undertaking. I've said on many occasions that it is bewildering to me how this administration, which is run by people who've been obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War, could be so poorly prepared once the military success was assured." [Press Conference With Jack Reed, 12/1/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH HAS 'NOT LEVELED WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE' FROM 'THE VERY BEGINNING': "I think that the administration has from the very beginning not leveled with the American people. There is no doubt that we have seen a rather disastrous aftermath of the military action." [Meet the Press, 12/7/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH'S 'HAPPY TALK' IS 'NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR POLICY': "I think that one of the missing elements in our strategy thus far has been the president and the administration leveling with the American people about what it is we're up against, how long it's going to take, how much it's going to cost?No reasonable person looking at the facts can't see that there are some real problems that we have to deal with. I don't think happy talk, you know, is a substitute for a policy." [Face the Nation, 12/7/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SLAMS BUSH FOR 'MISCALCULATION' AND 'INEPT PLANNING': "So, there was a lot of miscalculation and, and, frankly, inept planning that we're now living with the consequences. I regret the way the president has used the authority. I mean, it's one thing to say, you know, we're heading down a road that is rooted in the values and ideals and practicalities of what got us to this point, looking back at previous administrations, and there was an expectation about how that authority would be used, which, you know, frankly, I'm, you know, disappointed that it wasn't." [This Week, 12/7/03]
Finally, the WSJ selects on quote from a Larry King in late-April 2004, attempting to paint her as unquestioning of the intelligence Bush used to justify the invasion. But they leave out her speech on the floor of the Senate in October 2003:
OCTOBER 2003: HILLARY ASSERTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION 'GILDED THE LILY' ON IRAQ WAR INTELLIGENCE: ?Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay.? [Floor Speech, 10/17/03]
Since that time, Hillary has continued her criticism of the Bush administration on Iraq. You can watch and read her speech on the Senate floor last night HERE.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Powered by blogdig.net