The Democrats Gloat Thread

I don't think politicians, or their talking heads, should be protected from any kind of question.

The ability to think and respond on their feet is something I expect of political leaders.

Ducking questions and questioners seems so freakin' gutless
<shrug> but hey, it's The American Way. The American voters can deal with the consequences of their choices.

<edit> I suspect dlowan will say we all have to deal with the consequences.

0 Replies

Here's what it is with you folks ... Questions you like = good; Questions you don't like = bad.

Stated another way ... Questions critical to Bush = good; Questions favorable to Bush = bad.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Here's what it is with you folks ... Questions you like = good; Questions you don't like = bad.

Stated another way ... Questions critical to Bush = good; Questions favorable to Bush = bad.

and to you and your folks.... Questions favorable to bush good.... Quetions critical to bush bad......

What's your problem?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Here's what it is with you folks ... Questions you like = good; Questions you don't like = bad.

Stated another way ... Questions critical to Bush = good; Questions favorable to Bush = bad.

and to you and your folks.... Questions favorable to bush good.... Quetions critical to bush bad......

What's your problem?

I'm not the one with the problem. You folks are the ones complaining Helen "the opinion columnist with an ax to grind" Thomas has been relegated to the back row.

0 Replies

But the reason behind Bush's double dissing of Thomas isn't directly related to his basic contempt for White House beat reporters. Bush ignored Helen Thomas because she is no longer the Helen Thomas of yesteryear, a deadline artist writing news for tens of millions of UPI readers. She left the waning wire in silent protest, after convicted felon Rev. Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications rescued it from collapse in 2000, and took a job at the Hearst News Service. There, .

I dare say that if you were Bush or his handlers, you'd pass her over at a press conference, too. Her loathing for Bush is palpable. "This is the worst president ever," she told the Torrance, Calif., Daily Breeze in January. "He is the worst president in all of American history." Though Thomas never masked her crush on Democrats when she worked as a news writer, she comes completely out of the closet in her columns, ripping "Bush's headlong drive into war, his favor-the-rich economic policy and his campaign to put right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court." As the child of Lebanese immigrants, Thomas knows exactly which religious button she's pushing when she repeatedly condemns Bush's plans for war on Iraq as a "crusade."

But Thomas' opinion columns are a model of restraint when compared with the snarky speeches she delivers in lieu of asking questions at White House briefings. In the past, Ari Fleischer usually gave Thomas first shot, and in recent weeks she rode a constant theme:

___________________
She ia an old, gross hag who hung around a lot longer than she should have.

0 Replies

But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?

Isn't he fabulous ?

"Mr. President ,
Do you think my utter lack of credentials makes my butt look too fat ?"

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?

This is the hypocrisy which I've identified. You complain about G/G, but think Helen is just peachy?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

squinney wrote:
But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?

This is the hypocrisy which I've identified. You complain about G/G, but think Helen is just peachy?

Well,
her escort sevice does leave a little to be desired.

0 Replies

LionTamerX wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
squinney wrote:
But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?

This is the hypocrisy which I've identified. You complain about G/G, but think Helen is just peachy?

Well,
her escort sevice does leave a little to be desired.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif

0 Replies

LTX wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

squinney wrote:

But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?
Quote:

This is the hypocrisy which I've identified. You complain about G/G, but think Helen is just peachy?

Well,
her escort sevice does leave a little to be desired.

Thomas isn't known as the Bulldog of the Press Corps for her journalistic style alone.

Now, back to something I wanna get off my chest -

dlowan wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Just an observation here - how come it seems the folks who jump right up and complain "They do it too, only worse, and don't admit it":

1) are well (and more or less equally) represented on both sides of the silliness

2) all claim "the moral/ethical highground" on the basis of their own perception of the behavior of those they consider adversaries

3) and finally, don't eschew the practice they bipartisanly condem, but rather persist in continually egging one another on?

Might it not just be that whatever else may be at issue, some folks just plain ain't happy unless they've got somebody to be angry with?

Timber, given that you are just as capable as anybody of very extended sniping, in fact more capable than most, and often fully as nasty in your way (eg your gloating performance post election was actually the worst and most childish, in my estimation, possibly because it was of a depth unexpected of you) I always find your attempts to look not only magisterial but majestic and nonpartisan when you come in and deliver these little homilies very odd.

I am also interested in what you actually think the effect is, since you have done it since the inception of the site, with no effect as far as I have ever seen?

Truly, a look in the mirror mught be a reasonable thing to do.

Anybody mistaking timber for nonpartisan has a bit of catching up to do. And yeah, timber does a bit of sniping from time to time, sometimes with some pretty heavy firepower. Unlike some, however, the shots are aimed not at members here, but at ideologies, philosophies, statements, conclusions, opinions, or positions. Slamming the loony left moonbats for their gullible, touchy-feely idiocy is absolutely equivalent to slamming the bigotted, red-necked bible-thumping neocons for their slavish devotion to the devil incarnate puppet of big business who leads their party - and both are something entirely other than personally slamming a member. Now, some folks don't like what I have to say once in a while ... surprise ... I don't like some things some other folks have to say once in a while. And ... surprise ... I go after those things. Those things, not those who bring those things to the discussion.

Some occasionally forget there is a differentiation between argument and arguer, and there are some who seemingly just can't conceptualize the distinction. Call Bush an idiot, call Dean a raving maniac, call The Republican Party insensitive, self-serving, hypocritical closet bigots, call The Democratic Party elitist, wrong-headed, hypocritical ignoramuses - fine. Call an ideology, philosophy, statement, conclusion, opinion, or position stupid - fine. Call a member here any of that - not fine.

One may be pretty rough on an ideology, philosophy, statement, conclusion, opinion, or position with which one takes issue without directing vituperation and personal invective toward the proponent or presenter of that with which one takes issue. One may, but some don't. That precisely is the point of my "little homilies".

0 Replies

Lash and Tico's assessment of Helen Thomas is pretty much on target. The lady is losing it. She is not going to endear herself with the White House with statements like this:

Quote:

"The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told The Hill newspaper. "All we need is one more liar."

Quote:

In a May column, she wrote that Cheney "certainly could campaign on the theme that he has had experience in running the White House."

Quote:

She's called Cheney "probably the most powerful vice president in recent times, perhaps in U.S. history."

Thomas told the Hill she thinks Cheney would like to run, "but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."

Source: Drudge Report, WorldNet Daily, MSNBC, and others.

So much for the objective, unbiased White House press corps.

I wonder why so many here think she hung the moon? Smile

0 Replies

0 Replies

timber writes

Quote:

Call an ideology, philosophy, statement, conclusion, opinion, or position stupid - fine. Call a member here any of that - not fine.

This is the principle of good debate in a nutshell. Any personal potshot at an opponent in a formal debate will cause huge points to be deducted from the offender's score and will almost invariably cost him/her the match.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

LTX wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

squinney wrote:

But, Gannon / Guckert is a swell reporter worthy of calling on, right?
Quote:

This is the hypocrisy which I've identified. You complain about G/G, but think Helen is just peachy?

Well,
her escort sevice does leave a little to be desired.

Thomas isn't known as the Bulldog of the Press Corps for her journalistic style alone.

Now, back to something I wanna get off my chest -

dlowan wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Just an observation here - how come it seems the folks who jump right up and complain "They do it too, only worse, and don't admit it":

1) are well (and more or less equally) represented on both sides of the silliness

2) all claim "the moral/ethical highground" on the basis of their own perception of the behavior of those they consider adversaries

3) and finally, don't eschew the practice they bipartisanly condem, but rather persist in continually egging one another on?

Might it not just be that whatever else may be at issue, some folks just plain ain't happy unless they've got somebody to be angry with?

Timber, given that you are just as capable as anybody of very extended sniping, in fact more capable than most, and often fully as nasty in your way (eg your gloating performance post election was actually the worst and most childish, in my estimation, possibly because it was of a depth unexpected of you) I always find your attempts to look not only magisterial but majestic and nonpartisan when you come in and deliver these little homilies very odd.

I am also interested in what you actually think the effect is, since you have done it since the inception of the site, with no effect as far as I have ever seen?

Truly, a look in the mirror mught be a reasonable thing to do.

Anybody mistaking timber for nonpartisan has a bit of catching up to do. And yeah, timber does a bit of sniping from time to time, sometimes with some pretty heavy firepower. Unlike some, however, the shots are aimed not at members here, but at ideologies, philosophies, statements, conclusions, opinions, or positions. Slamming the loony left moonbats for their gullible, touchy-feely idiocy is absolutely equivalent to slamming the bigotted, red-necked bible-thumping neocons for their slavish devotion to the devil incarnate puppet of big business who leads their party - and both are something entirely other than personally slamming a member. Now, some folks don't like what I have to say once in a while ... surprise ... I don't like some things some other folks have to say once in a while. And ... surprise ... I go after those things. Those things, not those who bring those things to the discussion.

Some occasionally forget there is a differentiation between argument and arguer, and there are some who seemingly just can't conceptualize the distinction. Call Bush an idiot, call Dean a raving maniac, call The Republican Party insensitive, self-serving, hypocritical closet bigots, call The Democratic Party elitist, wrong-headed, hypocritical ignoramuses - fine. Call an ideology, philosophy, statement, conclusion, opinion, or position stupid - fine. Call a member here any of that - not fine.

One may be pretty rough on an ideology, philosophy, statement, conclusion, opinion, or position with which one takes issue without directing vituperation and personal invective toward the proponent or presenter of that with which one takes issue. One may, but some don't. That precisely is the point of my "little homilies".

Aha.

And my view is that you often do not, but are blind to it, (like most of us) yet still deliver homilies.

I most certainly do not see you as nonpartisan, yet I see you as often claiming that ground in your lectures.

Hey, you know that one person's "heavy firepower" is another's popgun with delusions of grandeur. Lol! Certainly your attacks on other members usually have more subtlety than some others use.

Er, most of us know the TOS, Timber, not sure why you explained it again?

So it goes.

You like to deliver lectures, I like to firecracker.

Peace, man....

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Hmm, yes, I know about that, and I find that pretty terrible, like the no photos of coffins from Iraq.

What on earth is the hang up with showing dead bodies and coffins with you people?

Truth versus lies.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

LionTamerX wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Ahhh?

Helen Thomas?

She would ask the "wrong" questions!

Whaddaya mean restricted?

I think they make her sit waaay in the back of the room, and they no longer take questions from her. They don't consider her a "real " correspondent.

She's as "real" a journalist as Arianna Huffington.

Ah, I love the right wing.

I researched her when I noticed the revolting attacks on her appearance and ......(well, and......nothing, cos that is all they ever did, really, ...comment on her looks) being made by some on the right here.

She is a wonder!

A little biased, but hey, who would notice that under Bushinc.

I have read her biography and so on.

I love the slimers.

They lead me where I might not otherwise have gone.

Yay Helen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Oy! US TV "news", as far as I was able to gather, is actually worse than ours, in general, except for a few real gems, of course.

But I had thought there was reasonable critiquing in some print media (NO print media could be worse than ours!), especially after they realised how they had been scammed re Iraq.

Perhaps it's no longer "mainstream" for Americans to get their news in print? Having revealed myself as an elitist European supremacist pig by asking this question, I may as well go on and insult the American public in general. From reading the liberal New York Times and the conservative Wall Street Journal, I find that every American who wanted to know how reliable the evidence for WMDs was, could read about the serious doubts in either of those papers. Every American who wanted to know how shaky the case for war in Iraq was, could read it in either place too. And every American who wanted to know whether Bush's plans for tax- and social security reforms added up, could read in either newspaper that they did not. (In the case of the Wall Street Journal, admittedly, the reader had to decide that the trusted their reporting over their commentary.)

If many Americans today are surprised to learn that they have been governed by a Potemkin facade of a president for the last five years, it's not because the information wasn't there. It's because they didn't want to know. These people have no one to blame but themselves. It was them who shot the messenger with the bad news, by switching to another channel or buying second rate papers instead of first rate ones. But to acknowledge this is to criticize yourself and the people you work and play with. It's so much easier to blame everything on "the media corporations", or on some other convenient abstraction. Hence the scapegoating we see in the article blatham cited over in that other thread.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Here's what it is with you folks ... Questions you like = good; Questions you don't like = bad.

Tico -- I'd like to better understand what you're saying here. Could you please name three questions that you think "us folks" would find bad because we dislike them?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Lash and Tico's assessment of Helen Thomas is pretty much on target. The lady is losing it. She is not going to endear herself with the White House with statements like this:

Quote:
"The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told The Hill newspaper. "All we need is one more liar."

Quote:
In a May column, she wrote that Cheney "certainly could campaign on the theme that he has had experience in running the White House."

Quote:
She's called Cheney "probably the most powerful vice president in recent times, perhaps in U.S. history."

Thomas told the Hill she thinks Cheney would like to run, "but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."

Source: Drudge Report, WorldNet Daily, MSNBC, and others.

So much for the objective, unbiased White House press corps.

You seem to miss what is pretty much the basic essence of objective reporting - which is quite surprising considering you say you worked in journalism extensively.

There's nothing wrong with a journalist having political opinions. It would be weird to expect journalists to not have any political views of their own, like everybody else.

What is wrong is when journalists propagate their opinions through the news reporting they do.

That is why step one for a good journalist must always be to be aware of one's own, unavoidable, political bias - and filter it out again from any straight news story he's writing.

The quotes you deliver here seem clearly enough to be that of a journalist individual explicitly voicing her personal opinion.

If you can come up with quotes where Thomas let her opinions starkly colour any actual/factual reporting she did, you may have a case. Now you dont.

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know