Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.
 

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

Edited to avoid, if only somewhat, being a sexist fuck. -- T.S.

Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.
 

Sexist fuck.

Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.
 

An excellent beginning to this installment of the PB, I see.

homicide/suicide bombers
 

I realize "homicide bombers" takes a bias against the people getting on buses or airplanes and blowing up themselves and some mothers and kids. what I don't get is why this is seen as "right wing."

Shouldn't the adjective go to main intent? If what they really wanted to do is commit suicide it would be alot simpler to just stay in Gaza and go boom! See, I think the dead mom and kids are what they're really after, so I sort of agree with the characterization.

homocide/suicide bombers
 

Shouldn't the adjective be an adjective?

homocide/suicide bombers
 

Is a homocide bomber one who blows himself up in the Castro?

New strategy for getting out
 

Rumsfeld uncovers the key to a stable Iraq in last week's news conference.

Getting foreign troops to help out? Unlikely.

Re-taking and crushing the Sunni triangle? Not before November 2, baby.

No, the key in the meantime is to rely on the Iraqis' inner sense of self:

To quote Bill Maher, "well, sure -- it might've been OK before ...."

Selling the news (lost in the shuffle of the thread change)
 

Jesus Christ, people, have none of you realized that THIS IS SEBBY YOU'RE ARGUING WITH!?!

He's just trying to make a point via hyperbole, and y'all are looking at the trees and not the forest. He's like Ronald Reagan telling that story about that lady on welfare who drives a Cadillac -- the specific facts don't matter, they merely serve as the temporary framework for the broader point. His facts aren't meant to be taken literally.

Sheesh. Don't you people read the FB?

Up From the Muck
 

Burger:

You don't see a difference between spin and rhetorical devices as compared to lousy fact-checking coupled with adament assurances that the network stands behind its reporting? But, if you want to equate Dan Rather and Michael Moore, please feel free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob: Jesus Christ, people, have none of you realized that THIS IS SEBBY YOU'RE ARGUING WITH!!!

He's just trying to make a point via hyperbole, and y'all are looking at the trees and not the forest. He's like Ronald Reagan telling that story about that lady on welfare who drives a Cadillac -- the specific facts don't matter, they merely serve as the temporary framework for the broader point. His facts aren't meant to be taken literally.

Sheesh. Don't you people read the FB?

___________________________________________________

Me:

Burger - No. I see no difference. The delivery mechanism does not change the innacuracy of the information.

Bob - You lead me to an interesting point... There have been three effective Presidents in the past 30 years - Reagan, Clinton and Bush II. All men were generally considered to be "loose" speakers who's words were not always as accurate as they could be. And, with the exception of Clinton, who was a micro-manager, none could be considered terribly detail-oriented. And none were known for marshalling facts to their defense. Clinton was a wizard of wordplay - he'd face off against stats with no facts at all and come out winning. NOW, John Kerry and Al Gore are two of the most organized, fact-armed, stat-firing candidates in years. If they can be summed up in one word, "lawyerly" would suffice. Neither found/will find higher office despite going up against a seemningly weaker opponent, and the main reason was/is that people couldn't stand either man. Now, if you look at both men, you'll see two personalities most partners woul LOVE to have in associates of any level. Both men are utterly middle-management types, but not built for anything higher.

SO, when you call me out for speaking interms of forests as opposed to trees, I warmly embrace your assessment. It reminds me I'm not a lawyer personality, which is precisely what I use these boards to remind myself every day. You're a real mensch for providing the compliment.

I mean this in all sincerity. I think you're a pretty good judge of people, so you make me feel pretty damn confident that I'm not another middle manager, even though it feels like it a lot.

homicide/suicide bombers
 

2

So now the flag, caring for the troops, and patriotic music makes them biased? OK, whatever.

anybody remember this>?
 

Joe Lockhart did an interview this morning, related to the Burkett story. Sebby's still crouching in the corner with that one, snarling at anyone who comes in for the kill, so I'll leave it for the moment.

I did see something else in the article, that if true does sort of make a valid point for the Clinton years. He says back in his days, they used to have a press conference every day. Now, Bush's WH has had them twice in the last two months.

As a matter of policy, I sort of do like the idea of a national press conference every day. Maybe just a few questions on a slow day, and certainly not involving the President more than once a month. But communications with the public seems like its probably a good thing.

Is he telling the truth though? I was busy during the Clinton era, too busy to pay attention.

Hello

anybody remember this>?
 

Terry McAwful still has a press conference every day.

anybody remember this>?
 

and Kerry hasn't had one sinse 8/9/04

anybody remember this>?
 

To be fair, Lockhart was saying that McClellan should give more press briefings, not that the President should give more press conferences. I'm sure Kerry spokesmen have been available more than twice in the last two months.

The transcript of the Lockhart thing is on Atrios, and it's fun to read. Very unclear to me why the existence of a telephone call between Burkett and Lockhart should be a story, but he does a good job of flipping it around.