Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Your right. 9/11 is not the entirety of our economic problems. We are also still getting over the recession that the Clinton administration left.

Great. Then why does Luntz recommend bringing up 9/11 every time that the economy, defecit, debt, or outsourcing are discussed? Why? I'd like a simple answer, please.

Per your recommendation, I'm reading the .pdf file now; there are some very juicy bits that I will cut and paste to show you just how effectively language is manipulated to fool people.

Cycloptichorn

Of course 9-11 affected the economy. But the deficit we're running has increased by record amounts each year since. You can't blame all of that on 9-11.

It's clear that the Luntz memo is an example of using marketing tricks to sell bad policy, something the Democrats have often been accused of.

Well, how about doing some math then. Figure how much of the deficit is a result of 9-11 and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Figure out how much of the deficit has been spent on a build up of military strength, re-construction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and homeland security.

I think you will find that subtracting all that from the deficit, it becomes quite small.

I don't disagree that fiscal responsibility has gotten way out of hand. But, as I have always said, blame the pork fed legislature, not the executive branch for that.

Me thinks McGentrix has lost his collective mind.

Blaming Clinton for the recession. Next he'll be blaming Clinton for 9/11.

It is the standard default argument neocons constantly fall back on when they are cornered and are having a difficult time debating with the "adults."

Tax breaks during a time of war is unprecedented, and yet Bush did the unthinkable. So much less revenue coming in to the Federal Government, billions upon billions spent on a fake war, the dollar falling to record lows, gas prices going back up -- OH, WAIT. Terrorism!! 9/11!!! Gays, God and Guns!!! The Evil AARP!!!

Oh, um, er, what was I just talking about?

I blame all of them. It is a Republican administration with a Republican Congress that gives the executive whatever is asked for. I agree that pork barrel spending has always been a problem, but it pales in comparison to the current spend fest. The easiest, most obvious question to ask is, knowing that you were going to prosecute these wars in response to 9-11, why did the tax cut package have to be so large? Why didn't they tighten their belts? I won't even get into the fact that invading Iraq was not a response to 9-11.

Gosh, finally we agree on something Dook. You have no more idea of what you are talking about than the rest of us do. Glad to see you admit it. :wink:

Just like the Bush administration does when they make their projections on budget deficits. Thanx, McGentrix. You just pointed out another propoganda ploy by the Bush Crime Family to not include these costs in their budget in order to truly reflect what the deficit really is.

Bravo!!

Recession = March 2001 per Bush himself.

9/11 = September 2001

Tax cuts = ???

The return of Jeff Gannon



We had mixed feelings when we read last week that Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert was done talking to the press. On the one hand, we'd heard quite enough from him. On the other, his every utterance had that sort of can't-help-but-look attraction of a car accident on the side of the road.

Gannon/Guckert has made it easy on us: He's back. A week ago, he said he had talked to his lawyers and decided not to say anything further in the press. Now he says he's talked to a publicist about how to get the "widest audience possible" to hear his story.

In a new interview with Editor & Publisher, Gannon/Guckert says he hopes to be back at the White House soon -- this time as a trophy guest of someone or other at the April 30 White House Correspondents' Dinner. "I have every intention of attending this year's [dinner]," Gannon/Guckert said. "Don't you think I could? I'm sure someone is going to ask me or offer me the opportunity to go. It is a great publicity event."

Controversial guests are part of the game at the Correspondents' Dinner; Paula Jones and Betty Currie were both guests -- of Insight magazine and the Washington Post, respectively -- at the 1998 dinner. Gannon/Guckert told E&P that he has attended two previous Correspondents' Dinners, and he boasted of meeting John Kerry, Al Franken and cast members from "The West Wing" at them. Gannon/Guckert is not a member of the White House Correspondents Association, which sponsors the dinner, so he couldn't have gone to the dinners unless someone invited him. He wouldn't tell E&P who had that honor.
When he's not checking his mailbox for an invitation to this year's dinner, Gannon/Guckert says he's working on a journal about his White House experience and eyeing a career as a public speaker. He's also thinking about a return -- if you can call it that -- to journalism. "I still think, despite the bad things being said about me, I am a journalist," Gannon/Guckert told E&P. "I have been one for two years and have written about 500 articles. I paid a big price for the privilege to call myself a journalist."

-- Tim Grieve / Salon

[09:18 EST, Feb. 23, 2005
_____________________________________________

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

LOLOLOLOLL!!!

HEEHEEHEEHAAHAAHAAA!

Whew! He calls himself a journalist after that big $50 price tag!!!!

LOL!

Wait... That means that in less than 30 days on the job for Talon, he had already been invited to the exclusive correspondents dinner?

Hmmm.

CoastalRal opines:


The only thing admitted here is what you fail to get.

Neocons are notorious for not getting such things as sarcasm, cynicism, and subtle humor. Like you, CoastalRat.

Very sad. It's probably why most comics are more liberal than conservative.

Perhaps if you asked nicely, bear, the moderators might re-activate your account...

What's with that constant accusation, McG?

Feeling threatened by a woman with intelligence and a sense of humor?

No, not at all. perhaps bi-polar is indeed fitting. Prior to Bear's self imposed banishment, Squinney did not frequent the political forums as often or with such relish.

perhaps squinney tires of the adult topics she usually attends and is taking a recess to play with the children. then again, perhaps she's just bored.

Speaking of children:

McG - Politics is where I have always hung out the most. You're probably confused because, where Bear delighted batting you around like a kitten with a ball of string, I simply put you on "igmore."

The owner of this site has spoken by phone to both of us on more than one ocassion and knows we are not one and the same, so there's really no need making a fool of yourself any further.

quite right mcg and with your implication of being the adult here I can only respond to the level of your adultness with childlike wonder and amazement. Perhaps when I am older and better informed I can emulate your astute poltical/philosophical sophistication. On the other hand, I might read the neo-con handbook on real politik so that we can join hands in celebration of the death of humanism in the post-Reagan america. Doesn't much matter to me, I'm too old to care anymore and being over 55 I get my SS payments anyway. So I'll probably just spend the rest of my days shooting **** with my 30-30 and watching the cartoon network. You go right along banging the drum loudly and I'm sure there will be others to join your parade. I don't mind watching from the side lines.

I have never accused you of being the same person. I merely assert Steve is using your account because he can't bear to keep himself away.

You're giving yourself too much credit, McG, in suggesting he can't stay away from bantoring with you. He doesn't need you. Deal with it.