home

WMRM?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There is irony in this from Josh Marshall on John McCain's Iraq gaffe today:

This highly strained argument seems premised on the assumption that journalists should report not what you say but your own highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what you said.

Talk Left readers know what I am talking about.

Speaking for me only

< Jim Johnson Out As Obama VP Vetter | Resolved: That Congress Make Its Computers Safe From Hackers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WMRM? | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The hypocrisy. (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:41:50 PM EST


    Hypocrisy used to be a right wing thing (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    Now it has spread to the left. I think that my greatest fear for this nation is that the left, which has always been a rational alternative to the far right, is now becoming their mirror instead of their foil.

    Parent
    We we're always hypocritical (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    to someone or other.

    Parent
    It was not as widespread (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    Yes, there were always hypocrites, everywhere, but only recently have I seen it becoming less of an exception and more of a rule. For example, the whole "reaching out to fundamentalist" thing is being celebrated on Daily Kos as a way of reaching new voter's. Not that long ago, they were attacking Clinton for attending private prayer groups with conservative religious Senators.

    Heck, maybe it was always there and I simply didn't notice, but it seems new to me.

    Parent

    The scariest thing to me (5.00 / 15) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    is how easily they switch.

    If Obama told them tomorrow that he, too, had decided that we could be in Iraq for 100 years, JMM would be falling all over himself proclaiming Obama's visionary genius.

    Parent

    you said it. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Well that's easy.. if Obama said (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    we would stay in Iraq for 100 years, those would be 100 GOOD years.

    Parent
    The thing is (none / 0) (#128)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    That's not what Obama might theoretically say.  That's what McCain is ACTUALLY saying.

    I find it interesting how a story about McCain once again saying he wants to stay in Iraq basically forever, has turned into an attack on Obama.

    And not even for what Obama said. But for what a blogger said.

    Somehow... that seems... off.

    Parent

    welcome to TL (none / 0) (#129)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:12:31 PM EST


    Parent
    How true. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    I was reading comments in an earlier thread and marveled at the excuses, pronouncements and grand predictions offered by his supporters.

    It was actually funny to read them jumping through those O hoops.

    Parent

    He already did say that (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    He said that he would leave troops in Iraq or the middle east in order to fight al-quaeda and will have a protective force there to protect our embassy and diplomats.

    "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

    This is from his website, by the way. Under the heading "Bringing our troops home". In my very brief foray back into Daily Kos, I posted a list of what Obama had said he would do related to the middle east, and somebody accused me of confusing Obama's policies with Clinton's. There are going to be a lot of very disappointed people when they realize that Obama has been completely honest with them about his foreign policy - and they hate it.


    Parent

    His website? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    you mean the one his "supporters" always link to and tell us to read? THAT website?  ;)

    Parent
    I suspect few of them have read it (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    It's an iteresting read, although it is important to keep in mind that Obama has on two occasions disclaimed his stated positions, once on guns and once on something on his current web site (I don't remember what), because he said that aides wrote the positions and he wasn't aware of what they had written.

    Parent
    I'm just not that into him (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:57:56 PM EST
    The WORM keeps wiggling and turning and now it's all I can do even to look closely at it anymore.

    I'm sure there'll be a new Best Ever Spech at some point.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    We are not going anywhere and Afghanistan troop increases are clearly stated objectives, but you are not suggesting that this is any different from what Hillary was offering?

    I read both plans, and speeches, and both were essetially the same.

    Responsible troop withdrawal from Iraq, leaving troops to fight al-qaida and protect the embassies. Then, buildup in Afghanistan with an eye toward Iran.

    Parent

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    Is. Not. Running.  Hello?  Try to remember that.

    Parent
    Nice Snark (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:00 PM EST
    But I was responding to dianem who brought up a comparison of the democratic nominees. Sorry that you missed that, but good work, in that you are up to date.

    Parent
    Not Iran (none / 0) (#81)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:22:37 PM EST
    None of the candidates has actually proposed direct action on Iran. It is presumed that McCain will follow Bush's path, but I have never heard him threaten them directly. Clinton said that she would work toward a nuclear accord with the entire middle east that included assurances that none of them needed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons since the United States would take care of Iran IF it used a nuclear weapon. Obama has made some vague threats about preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Although these threats are creepily like those being made by Bush, he has emphasized that the preferred method of accomplishing this is by negotiation. I don't know what he plans if the negotiations fail.

    Parent
    Nothing Is Off The Table (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:50:58 PM EST
    And the number of times that they mentioned Iran in their AIPAC speeches parallels BushCo's Iran warmongering. Since most Americans have bought Bush rhetoric, seeming conciliatory to Iran would be bad.

    I have followed both Dem plans closely and they are not so different from one another, granted that Hillary fleshed out hers more fully. Although, accomplishing the task of making new friends in the region will be formidable given our history there.

    Given that, I am a lot less worried that a Dem President will attack Iran than Bush or McSame. And somewhat more hopeful that an agreement can be reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians with a dem at the helm.

    Parent

    Instead of listening to all of them talk (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    about attacking, I wonder who would be quickest to defend our interests if need be?  

    I sense a hesitancy about Obama that I didn't get with either Clinton or McCain.  

    Parent

    Double Edged Sword (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    I sense a hesitancy about Obama that I didn't get with either Clinton or McCain.

    Many see this as a positive trait in Obama. I would like to believe that Obama is less hawkish than Hillary was but I think that they are the same.

    This perception will be used against him by warmongers (GOP) but many are sick of the cowboy mentality and welcome Obama's position of talking to our enemies (save for Hamas) for a change.

    I never understood BushCo's position that the only way we would talk to Iran about stopping their nuclear program was if they stopped their nuclear program before we talked to them.

    You need a biiiiiig stick to make that happen, or you are actually interested in maintaining hostility for domestic political gain, rather than resolving the problem.

    Parent

    I think you meant (4.00 / 1) (#121)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    contemplative.  

    Heh.

    Stop trying to build him up.

    We know exactly where she is.

    Parent

    Build Him Up? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:27 PM EST
    Not me. I am trying to do no such thing.  On the war I have only been critical, and in the voting box I chose Hillary.

    But on the war both of our main choices were extremely dissapointing, imo, not anywhere as bad as the GOP, but still  disappointing and playing both sides.

    Parent

    Obama is a Hawk and (none / 0) (#123)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:10:14 PM EST
    is seen far more right than far radical left when it comes to foreign policy.

    Let's take a look at the newest article from socialistworker.org.  The Title:  Obama the Hawk?

    Lee Sustar explains that Barack Obama's hard-line speech at the AIPAC conference wasn't just pandering to the pro-Israel lobby, but a statement of his real position on foreign policy issues.

    IS BARACK Obama to the right of George W. Bush on Israel-Palestine?

    That was the question across the Arab and Muslim world following Obama's declaration of support for an "undivided" Jerusalem at the annual meeting of the main pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

    As Obama said to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 4:
    Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

    This hawkish statement contradicts official U.S. policy. Under the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords of 1993 that launched an Israeli-Palestinian "peace process," the fate of Arab and mainly Muslim East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war, is to be decided through "permanent status" negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Since then, the Palestinian Authority has insisted that East Jerusalem must be the capital of the Palestinian mini-state envisioned under the Oslo agreement.

    By appeasing the Israeli--and U.S.--right wing with his comments on Jerusalem, Obama was signaling that his administration wouldn't change the course set by George Bush.

    That means further construction of the apartheid wall in the West Bank to Palestinians into ghettos, more carve-ups of the West Bank to consolidate Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and continued support for the genocidal combination of sanctions and military strikes aimed at Gaza, one of the world's most densely populated areas.

    This isn't speculation. Obama spelled it out for the AIPAC audience:

    I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat--from Gaza to Tehran.

    Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade--investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.

    Obama's blank check for Israel is part of a plan to ensure that the Middle East remains thoroughly militarized under U.S. domination, even if some U.S. troops are shifted out of Iraq.

    The U.S. certainly wouldn't pull back from the region under an Obama administration. "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said, echoing Hillary Clinton's notorious comment that the U.S. would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. He added: "Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation."



    Parent
    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#135)
    by tree on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:29:37 PM EST
     on both moral and factual grounds. One of the ways that Obama got himself in trouble here and proved his lack of FP cred was by even mentioning an "undivided Jerusalem", which to the Israelis means Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, including those sites most holy to all Moslems, and expelling the Palestinians who live there. There is in fact a long running and insidious drive by Israel to do just that by condemnation, legal strangulation of Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, unequal enforcement of land regulations, confiscation and fraudulent transfer. A statement like this can give them a green light to continue these discriminatory acts. Obama's stated position in favor of an "undivided Jerusalem" is also in direct contradiction of decades long US foreign policy positions,which have always viewed the status of Jerusalem as dependent upon  mutual negotiation of a final peace agreement. This is why he had to walk his statement back.

    As for Israel being an "accomplished international  fact", one could say the same thing about Apartheid South Africa, which was likewise an accomplished fact for most of the last century, as was slaveholding USA for nearly a century. The best and in the end only possible resolution to the conflict is a sovereign nation, or two, that fully recognizes the equality of all its citizens, not just those that can claim a certain religion.    

    Will any of the US Presidential candidates recognize the need for religious equality in  Isreal? Sadly no. But I have followed the candidates closely on this and do agree that Obama is, at least in his speech, just as much or more of a hawk than Clinton. He obviously feels an overwhelming need to pander to AIPAC on this issue and that is both a hawkish position and a position that will do nothing to solve the problems in the Middle East. Israel needs tough love. Obama is too weak on this issue to give it to them.

    Parent

    Sounds like authoritarians (none / 0) (#137)
    by splashy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:07:29 AM EST
    Who do whatever the leaders say, even if it's a 180 change.

    Find out more about them here.

    Parent

    Another good word for it- (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    Doublethink.

    Parent
    Unless the real Josh Marshall (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    has escaped.

    Something's in the (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    water at the blogger water cooler.

    Josh.  Josh.  Josh.

    Don't you see what you're saying here?

    Reality-based, my ...

    Parent

    Seriously, does anyone think this will really (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    hurt McCain...an apology and it will be forgotten. Somedays I think the Iraq occupation has been entirely forgotten.

    his entire argument is premised (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    on victory there.   So technially this was a real gaffe.

    it isn't important how long the troops occupy Iraq--so long as they are "winning"

    Parent

    See, that's how I thought (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    it would be spun. He said what really mattered were the casualties. Of course he favors "victory" there over immediate withdrawal.

    Now, ask him to define "victory," and you'll hear some very loud crickets chirping.

    Parent

    I'd be happier (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    if I thought Obama was going to end this madness once and for all.

    Parent
    I used to think that he would... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    until Samantha Power said otherwise.

    Parent
    madamab.....this is the t-shirt I will be (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    printing:

    obama...always for it, before he is against it...

    Parent

    he will not (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    I'm not sure anyone will have the guts to sound the retreat.

    You have to hand it Nixon. His retreat from Vietnam was iconic if very belated.

    "Run"

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    I love how McCain was promising we'd be out by 2013. How Bush-like - AFTER his one and only term as President!

    If the U.S. weren't in such dire straits right now, what with two endless occupations and the economy in the toilet, this whole McCain-Obama kabuki would be quite amusing.

    Parent

    Actually I think it's much more likely that (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    Obama bombs Iran, or invades Pakistan, than withdraws troops from Iraq, based on his own statements.


    Parent
    based on the way things are going... (4.50 / 2) (#61)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    ...generally, outside of either McCain or Obama's control:  I wouldn't be surprized if other states become theatres of war.  I consider us to be in the 1930s or 1910s still.

    Parent
    Well, our media is stuck in Pre-Socratic (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    mode.

    Parent
    Don't Diss the Pre-Socratics. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    They came up with some amazing insights given the tools at hand.

    I'd rather think of the media as sophist pigs but then again that might be dissing the sophists.  

    Parent

    Yep (4.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    because Obama caves. McCain will go into Iran because he has some crazed notion that it's going to solve a problem. Obama will go in because he's too afraid of offending the GOP.

    Parent
    Given the Similarities (none / 0) (#126)
    by creeper on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    between Obama and Bush, what you wrote is not far-fetched.

    Why wouldn't Obama succumb to the siren song of being a "war president"?  After all, it worked for Bush for seven years.

    Parent

    I'm not sure about that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    He seems to be assuming that we will win in Iraq and establish a stable system in which our troops can remain as a force for stability in the middle east. I think this was always the goal of the neocons - to have a good location to keep troops that wasn't Saudi Arabia. McCain seems to think that we can quiet things down enough to have troops there, like they are in other nations.

    I don't know if this is possible, or desirable. I'm leaning toward no. It would be nice if Iraq could be a stable Democracy, but that ship has sailed. That argument won't work with the right wing, though. They need to believe in victory, even if we only manage to scrape together a face saving deal that allows us to leave without acknowledging defeat.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    It seems Iraq just really isn't on people's radar a whole lot lately. Is that a good or bad thing? I don't know.

    Parent
    I suspect it will be on voters' radar now. (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Disgusting (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    The media coverage (or more correctly the lack of media coverage) on Iraq has been disgusting. We still have soldiers killed almost on a daily basis. Iraq are still being killed at a terrible rate and yet to watch our media (TV or print) you would think it was over. Why are these people dying if it isn't even worth covering?

    Parent
    Geo. Steph mentions those who were (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    killed on his talk show.  Other than that, I can't think of any other place where it is mentioned...

    Parent
    He does (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    the names of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (he doesn't say how many in each place), and, of course, only the names of those the pentagon released. There are others whose names weren't released.  


    Parent
    That's a big question (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    The product is being relaunched by the White House. They are importing millions of acres of shrubbery and flower beds into iraq as we speak...

    That is one reason why McCain may escape Dole's fate.

    Parent

    Get me a shrubbery! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    Sorry, you reminded me of the Knights Who Say NI!

    Parent
    They're building a stronger frence? (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:54:58 PM EST
    (WHUT?)

    Parent
    A shrubbery! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:57:45 PM EST


    Parent
    JUst look out for rabbits! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by themomcat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Too Sad (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Dave B on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    Thought a poem might be appropriate.

    It's such a shock,
    I almost screech
    When I find a worm
    inside my peach!
    But then, what really
    makes me blue
    Is to find a worm
    who's bit in two!

    -William Cole

    BTD (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    you are going to be called the anti christ of the blogosphere if you keep this up. Heh, I've got to laugh though. McCain seems to be asking for the same consideration that Obama has had for the last several months. I knew the press was going to start worshipping McCain. I guess they are tired of Obama already.

    Oyyyyyyyyyssssh. (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    Does JMM own a mirror?

    If so, it must be of the Magic Mirror On The Wall variety.

    You know, one that tells him he is the fairest of them all?

    Marshall must be swimming in Koolaid (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:00:01 PM EST


    Parent
    WHats a (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    Gaff?  Seriously.  How is it defined?  How do we know the difference between someone saying something stupid because they're stupid or because imprecise speech is a byproduct of candid discourse?

    Now that I've distanced myself from the process it all suddenly looks like a jr. High election.

    Suddenly? (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    Sheesh.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    the realization wasnt so sudden.

    Didnt you know I only meant "sudden" relative to the last 8 years of political history.

    Maybe I didnt mean sudden.  

    Parent

    It's gaffe becaus eit's actually true (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    as far as the pro war people are concerned.  The question :

    "How long are we over in Iraq?"

    should be met with a blank stare and an evil eye if you are asking a pro war person.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    we've killed and tortured and rendered homeless millions of Iraqis. And their women are certainly lamenting.

    Yay! We won! Can we leave now?

    I have GOT to upgrade my entourage (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    I never get the wide WERM latitude or to retrofit the outrageous stuff I do with a more fake and pious intent.

    That cuts it, I'm getting new peeps, preferably with less marshmallow content.

    So many times throughout (5.00 / 13) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    this primary process I've wondered, what is the real difference between the so-called progressives and the vast right wing conspiracy?

    On a personality and character basis, I'm just not seeing it anymore.

    I've come to realize I have no more in common with Josh Marshall or Kos or Yglesias than I do with Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh, who all have, it's obvious, a lot in common with each other.

    Basically, any distortion will do. Any smear will serve. The other side is demonic, and they are on the side of the angels.

    And the most disturbing thing of all is that I think they really do believe it.

    They are not like you and me.

    The real losers in this election (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    Are the progressive bloggers and readers. Your comment about not being able to tell the left from the right is spot on!  Many of those sites have lost all objectivity. I really hated to see that happen. I turned to the internet because of the biased half truth news that was being spewn by the MSM.  

    Parent
    I see it as (none / 0) (#104)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:21:38 PM EST
    too much cheerleading, not enough critical thinking.  

    I'm not really sure what the definition of "progressive" is.  I've always been a moderate Democrat, socially liberal but fiscally fairly conservative.  Is that a progressive?  

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    I feel like I have no home anymore - left or right. They seem to all be equally agenda-driven, not reality-driven now.

    Parent
    Quite true (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    But, you know, I've also been thinking that there's an important upside to all this.

    I think this has shaken a lot of us out of our "dogmatic slumbers" (to borrow a phrase from Kant).

    I can see that sometimes Fox News can be more fair than CNN. I can see that progressive bloggers often resemble closely Rush Limbaugh. I can see that sometimes even right wing pundits can make sharp, and largely correct points, and that liberal pundits can perversely and deliberately distort the truth.

    And this is very enlightening to me, and makes me rethink a lot of what I simply assumed was true before.

    I'm sure that my basic values are not going to change, because I know how I came to them and why I believe in them. But a lot of the political and cultural infrastructure that has been built purportedly around those values now strikes me as highly suspect.

    In some ways, I feel like I've awakened in a Phillip Dick novel or in The Matrix, and what seemed to be reality is, well, something else entirely.

    Parent

    Very well said (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    And I like your optimistic spin on what can be learned from this. I agree with everything you said, particularly that it's an important learning experience that can wake us up and make us question everything - from the left and the right. Perhaps just a maturity lesson.

    On the other hand, it's a little depressing to find out how wide and deep the problem is, and how quickly someone can change from a seemingly trustworthy and objective person to just another lying liar (Olbermann being the quintessential example).

    Parent

    Candidate-Driven Rather Than Agenda-Driven, (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    I think.  Unless the agenda is personal aggrandizement.  It's a variation of  "My Country, Right or Wrong".  Except it's now "My Candidate, Right or Wrong".  Progressive values are taking a back seat to getting Mr. Right elected.  What comes after that is too far down the future for any of the smart kinds to think about.  

    Parent
    I can hear Somerby's mordant chuckle from here (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:22 PM EST


    I've learned (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    to never trust anything these bloggers say anymore. Before I jump on anything McCain or anyone else said, I will go and check the complete context. After all their disingenuous cherry-picking and ginned up outrage, I have become an obsessive fact-checker. I just could not believe the RFK assassination circus (among other things) - when I went back and looked at what she said, it was just absurd how they were trying to spin it. I'm not interested in defending McCain, but I'm also not interested in lies and distortions. I'll check for myself EVERY SINGLE THING they say now.

    It's fair to attack McCain without compunction (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    But one must avoid looking silly while doing it. LIk ethe guy who kidnapped JMM.

    McCain is just as responsible for the war as anyone else in the Whitehouse. He should pay the psychological/political price for helping to get it started (and susequently keeping it funded lavishly).

    Parent

    And JMM personally bears a great (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    deal of responsibility for the war.

    Parent
    He was right there (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by makana44 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:37:26 PM EST
    building the rationale for going into Iraq, feeding on and adding to the frenzy himself. Then he has the Hypocrisy (with a capital H) to disqualify Hillary for voting for the AUMF. And that for Democrats four years ago it never invalidated Kerry (to the contrary - it was Dean who was clearly against the war), shows how bogus and hypocritical that whole issue was in the first place.

    Parent
    To spare you the extra work, check first to see .. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    ... whether it passes the logic, laff and smell tests based on the post/ers' own parameters.

    When totally bugeyed, their positions often vary from paragraph to paragraph.

    Parent

    Then, when you've checked and (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    realized that once again a quote has been mangled, taken out of context or paraphrased beyond recognition, you'll save yourself time by simply going to the source first.  And then to save even more time, you stop reading the out of control blogs or listening to the pundits.  

    And don't forget to do the same thing with the videos - make sure that they weren't judiciously edited.

    Parent

    I have a feeling we're about to have a (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    season full of irony. I'm already having to make sure I'm not drinking anything when I read blogs or when I watch the MSM. :-)

    Or read TL (none / 0) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    but for the LOL factor, not the hypocrisy.


    Parent
    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MonaL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    I never visit TPM, so thank you for going there BTD.  But exactly where is Josh's head these days?  I wonder quite often whether I will ever get over what happened this primary season.  My jaw is still hanging open in disbelief.

    I agree but (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    that makes it all the more galling that Clinton's supposed militarism compared to Obama was a prime reason that many people that I know voted against her and for him. I think people are going to be very disappointed. They should have read his website.

    Ironic (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:59:15 PM EST
    Politics is all done with smoke and mirrors. As BTD has oft said there is not a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Obama, but you would never guess that from the fantasies both camps had about their candidate. Especially the fantasy that Obama anti war.

    Many say that Obama's anti war position is what won it for him. I am not convinced that was all there was to it.

    Parent

    Actually, (4.50 / 2) (#131)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:34:28 PM EST
    I think McCain is right.  It doesn't matter too much when troops will come home.  It's impossible to withdraw the troops fully and everybody knows it.  The troops in Iraq aren't going anywhere, no matter who the president is.

    And, if you draw down the troops to 60,000 or so and move them to Kuwait, like Obama wants to do, I think, you're basically creating a worse situation.  A force that isn't big enough or close enough to accomplish anything but too big to stay out of trouble.  It's like trying to put the stopper back in the Viet Nam war and reduce troops down to the "advisors" they had before they started ramping up.  I can't see it working.

    Off topic, but wholly appropriate. (4.00 / 1) (#94)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    The meaning of "joshing" or "joshing around" or "to josh" is instructive for Big Tent's story.

    Yahoo Answers (link) :

    According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the name Josh was regarded in mid-19th-century America as a typically rural name. A Josh was 'a country bumpkin' or 'a hick', a rustic who was rather slow and not too bright. Here's an 1863 quotation from Hearsill's 1491 Days: "We were 'gobbled up' and taken to the Arkansas Battallion H'd Q'rs ... Luther says that the only thing he regrets in the affair is to be arrested by 'Joshes'." Lacking evidence of any other source, it seems likely to me that josh meaning 'to make fun of' has its origin in this use of the proper name. Joshes, then, were the ones who were joshed, rather than the joshers.

    A rose by any other name. . . .

    likily he's not got a VP yet (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    just Keep Mccain talking enough and he'll say dumb things.

    I'm shocked he's not limiting himself to Churchillian pronouncements and simply redirecting questions about teh war into questions about victory.

    He badly needs a VP to pick up the slack for him. He doesn't work well for himself if he's having to justify the war on these sorts of terms.

    when are we to expect surrogates to pick up the slack for each of outr "brilliant " extemporaneous  speakers?

    Between McCain Gaffes (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by themomcat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    and Obama misspeaks, Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart should have enough material for hour long shows.

    Parent
    I just said to my husband (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    that we're looking at the two lower men on the presidential totem pole.

    Hillary topped both of them.  :(

    Parent

    I was amazed at the (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    Uncle Sam costume that Stewart popped on the cartoon of Obama.

    The America/Israel double pin was a riot.

    Parent

    The biggest difference in gaffes (none / 0) (#106)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:29:56 PM EST
    is that a lot of McCain's are funny.  I heard he said yesterday he would "veto all beers."  

    I still chuckle when I hear that one:  "I'm a liberal republican."  

    Parent

    "I'm a liberal republican." (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    That was classic :)

    Parent
    I'm beginning (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    to think we are going to have a foot in the mouth and under the bus contest all the way to Nov. It'll be a repeat of the 1976 election.

    Parent
    luckily he's not got a VP yet. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:05 PM EST
    I know that this is OT since the thread is about JM but how is what McCain said the second time around a

    highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what [he] said.

    From the video it appeared that McCain just changed the subject to loaded non sequitur and then dropped it. Something like "look wild geese" while your pocket is picked.

    McCain must figure that the words

    I am concerned about combat deaths
    will just be met with nodding heads because he is a Military expert. Personally, I have no idea what he was talking about.

    You are right (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    It is off topic. It is not my inclination to defend John McCain. I'll leave that to Republican bloggers.

    I am vigilant about integrity and I will NOT forget the lack of it in the blogs the past 6 months.

    Parent

    it's interesting t o see you catching the lack (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    of self consciousness.

    You are a man after Hitchen's heart. just don't go over to the darkside when you hit 50.

    Parent

    And not at all to defend McCain but.... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:39:35 PM EST
    With this remark

    Rather, he said that it was "not too important" when they come home.

    Marshall is distorting McCain's remarks. Granted, McCain's remarks were disjointed, but the impression I got was that McCain did not mean that it was not important when they'd come home but that his and other politicians' estimates of withdrawal dates are "not too important" because that will be determined by facts on the ground.

    But Marshall seems to think McCain actually said on national television that he doesn't care when the troops come home. That's insane. Reminds me of the numerous insane things Hillary has been alleged to have said, wished for.

    In a recent, mangled speech, Barack Obama told a crowd in VA that it was ridiculous that asthmatic kids were admitted into hospitals through emergency where "they take up beds." He caught himself and tried to explain that if they only had preventive care, or "inhalators" (which he first called breathilyzers in a fit of stunning, once-in-a-generation eloquence) then they would have to be admitted. He clarified and in his clumsy context, it was clear that he had nothing against asthmatic kids.

    But by Marshall's rules, dammit, Obama said those poor sick kids "take up beds" and ought not to be admitted to the hospital. And that's what responsible reporters should say.

    This is really sad. I think that clearly bloggers and journalists need to go back to school on some old-time ethics and the necessity to edit one's self (in the absence of editors) for bias.

    But bias now is actually "in." Why, I'm not sure....Entertainment, I guess. But it sure does make for a fertile environment for untruths and propaganda to spread and choke out anything resembling objectively presented data.

    Thank goodness for YouTube. It may prove to be far more valuable than anything on the blogs and in the MSM.

     

    Parent

    Check the title of the post (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    hint, what does "WORM" mean?

    Parent
    Oh, I know. :) I was really responding to squeaky (none / 0) (#72)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    But I didn't make that clear.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    So Don't Defend Him (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    Bloggers have been absurdly blind, and Josh is one of them, but at the risk of continuing OT remarks, McCain and the GOP machine is not troop friendly, so McCains gaffe is not out of line with the policies he supports.

    For the GOP troops are fodder, and marginally useful until they become a social service problem. At that point they become competing with funds that are for killing technology. Social welfare is a big no no, corporate welfare is essential.

    Parent

    Yes, but none of that (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    justifies Marshall's spin of what McCain said. That's the point, I think.

    Parent
    I Disagree (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:06:50 PM EST
    Josh is correct that McCain could give a hoot about the troops, imo, What is ironic and should be embarrassing to Josh is this:

    But this highly strained argument seems premised on the assumption that journalists should report not what you say but your own highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what you said.

    Given that this has been Josh's et al, operating procedure for the last six months or more. He is blind to his own nonsense.

    Parent

    well, we agree on the last point (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    We just disagree as to whether or not Marshall accurately reported what McCain said. I don't think  he did. That's not defending McCain; that's defending accuracy in reporting.

    It would be wrong to rip Obama's words out-of-context and assign them a meaning and intent that the context did not support.

    It's wrong to do that to McCain, too.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    Nothing that I have seen by McCain or BushCo convinces me that they think that the lives of our troops are important, except when they provide a backdrop for propaganda.

    You forget that these creeps knowingly sent our troops into Iraq under false pretenses. And will use them for gain, but discard them when they become a problem.

    Not sure what you have been reading regarding the horrendous treatment our troops are getting from the US government, but clearly it is not the same stuff I have read.

    Parent

    OK, Now you're being insulting (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:28 PM EST
    Nothing that I have seen by McCain or BushCo convinces me that they think that the lives of our troops are important, except when they provide a backdrop for propaganda.

    You forget that these creeps knowingly sent our troops into Iraq under false pretenses. And will use them for gain, but discard them when they become a problem.

    Not sure what you have been reading regarding the horrendous treatment our troops are getting from the US government, but clearly it is not the same stuff I have read.

    1. I don't forget anything about our troops and what they're enduring in Iraq and how they got there. Where do you get off making that kind of assumption about me?

    2. I've read a ton about the horrendous treatment our troops are getting. What the HELL does this have to do with the point of this thread and my point about the inaccuracy of Josh Marshall's reporting of John McCain's statement?

    God, no wonder you don't get it. You're doing to me what Marshall and bloggers in general seem to do these days: build strawmen and tear 'em up.

    You're just arguing with a bunch of bees in your bonnet. And you owe me an apology. I've sweated too many nights worrying about friends in Iraq and cussing the Bush administration to be attacked by some self-righteous jerk with poor reading and reasoning skills.

    (Sorry for the burst of incivility, Jeralyn, but trust me, I'm restraining myself.)


    Parent

    Sounds Like You've (2.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    Got the bees in your bonnet, I certainly don't. The point of this thread, imo, is that Josh Marshall should take the log lodged in his eye before he points to the mote of dust occluding others vision.

    Not that McCain inadvertently uttered the underlying truth about how the GOP treats our troops.


    Parent

    Here's a thought: (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    We should not have let Obama off the Hook in 2005. He didn't lift a finger to stop Alito or Roberts, and, as you well know, had the "audacity" to essentially tell us we were too partisan. His recent floor show with Lieberman just seems false now.

    Parent
    funny he (none / 0) (#69)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    should mention that. lol

    Too funny (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM EST
    This really cracked me up.

    Left or right, Obama or McCain (none / 0) (#80)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:22:16 PM EST
    we need to talk about Iraq in America, but we won't. I know a lot of Democrats think the thing to do is just pull out. I am pretty darn liberal, but I have a strong "pottery barn" problem with that. (My BFF is, if anything, more liberal than I am, and she does, too. Maybe cuz we were both raised as military brats?)

    I don't think it's right to send the same little core of army troops we have over to Iraq, over and over again. I don't think our being in Iraq is wonderful for the Iraqis, but leaving, just leaving, is probably worse. And as David Brooks mentioned on the News Hour last week, the Surge (I hate that term) that Obama voted against does seem to be having a large measure of success--for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Erm.

    What, exactly, to do? Nobody wants to talk very honestly about this--least of all, Democrats!

    With all due respect...that is nuts (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST
    We are the most heavily armed war machine in the history of mankind, we went into a nation that did NOTHING to us and murdered it.  There is NO ROLE for us there but to leave, apologize and pay massive reparations.  Would you want the murderers of your loved ones hanging around trying to "help" in the aftermath.  The Iraqis are perfectly capable of taking care of their own affairs, and our inability to accept this speaks to a wildly ingrained sense of military/industrial complex syndrome.  For heaven's sake, our man Maliki just went to Iran to meet with those Bush yaps about not dealing with.  This whole thing is insanity and thinking our presence there does anything positive is worse insanity.  I repeat: we murdered a nation, sent millions into refugee camps, there is nothing left for the American military left to do but get the hell out and yesterday.

    You cling to the notion that somehow you can kill people FOR NO REASON and then make it all better.

    This ain't WWII.  Can't be done here.

    We have broken something we cannot in any way repair, and that is the ugly truth, and the one we don't want to face.

    Can't be done here.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#132)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:37:55 PM EST
    I think you're right.  But your concerns are not what's driving this.  What's driving this is the U.S. needing to protect U.S. interests in that area.  And that's not going to change no matter who the president is, IMO.

    Maybe I'm wrong.  It would be nice to be wrong.

    Parent

    In the eyes (none / 0) (#134)
    by makana44 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    of Bush's true constituency -  the military industrial complex and big oil - he will go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He has conducted war for 6 years, created two permanent wars that we cannot extricate ourselves from, and overseen the price of oil increase by 500% (if the $250 bbl headlines are true, then it'll be by 1000%). All in the name of the US of A.

    Parent
    Honestly, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    we screwed up right from the Get Go.  The senate (and everyone else) should have listened to those Generals who said it would take around 400,000 troops to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish.  

    Instead, they tried to do it on the cheap -- and they got what they got.  

    It really falls on the shoulders of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney because they were the main "Deciders" on this whole thing.  

    Parent

    'WMRM?'? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    I give up. What does it mean? The best I could find was: 'Write-Many, Read-Many' with 'Windows Media Rights Manager' an alternative.

    I can't make sense of either in this context.

    What McCain Really Meant (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    the corollary to WORM (What Obama Really Meant)  :-)

    Parent
    Dean WMRM. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:49:45 PM EST


    Parent
    What McCain Really Meant :) (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:46:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I think that interview was from 2002... (none / 0) (#114)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EST


    Bus insults (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    deleted.

    WMRM? | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment