It's possible that the audio Big Journalism posted is all that was recorded on the cell phone. But even if this were the case, running with this audio alone, if that was all that existed, seems pretty questionable.So what else should they have run with, other than the complete audio recording?
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one ofNotice the reporters are talking about what they are doing to do, not what someone else is going to do. They will look for registered sex offenders in the crowd, or a fight, so that they can report on it.
them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person...
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ....we won’t know....we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the... ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul...I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
"If Sanchez meant that everybody who runs the networks is a lot like Stewart in that they're Jewish, that's obviously very, very bad, and portends serious trouble for him. I wonder, though, if that's what he really meant. Here's the full context of what Sanchez said about Stewart -- most of his complaint is directed at white liberals who, Sanchez complains, don't understand minorities despite their best intentions..."I'm not knocking Sargent for demanding that words be viewed in context, including for Rick Sanchez. Read Sargent's "update" to his post, in which he pulls back and notes that Sanchez's comments were not very defensible even in context.
"It’s unfortunate that a CNN pooh bah once said something tactless to you, but if that’s your best example of what sort of things you’ve had to overcome as a “minority” in America, then I suggest you might ask yourself why your last name is still Sanchez while Jon Stuart Leibowitz’s is now Stewart."--------------------------------------------
MANDERS: We have domestic enemies. We have home-born homegrown enemies in our system. And I for one think we have some of those enemies in the walls of the Senate and the Congress.In his first post, Sargent noted that '[i]n fairness to Angle, the incendiary remark was made by Manders."
ANGLE: Yes. I think you're right, Bill.
ANGLE: Well, we were talking about what's going on in Congress, of course, and the policies that have come out of Congress, and those policies as we've all seen over the last 18 months have definitely hurt our country.
* * *
ANGLE: There is no doubt that the policies that have been coming out in the last 18 months have injured us, and injured us most specifically here in Nevada.So, reading the transcript in Sargent's column, it is clear that Angle explained that she was referring to harmful policies. There is nothing in Angle's comments or clarification which suggests what Sargent (and the Reid campaign) wants to suggest about Angle, that she is advocating violence against members of Congress.
"This just makes the Dems look weak, unorganized, cowardly, and unwilling to take a stand for principles they plainly believe in."Contest: Name a topic, person, or policy as to which the quote will not work.
A group of people came and talked to us and convinced us that the thing to do would be to close the borders between Mexico and the United States; in effect, stop people from coming across our borders to the United States. This period of time for which I am so apologetic-to my family, mostly-lasted about a week or two. I introduced legislation.Nowhere in the transcript provided does Reid specifically mention the 1993 legislation, which would not have closed the border.
But I do want to tell him and the rest of my friends in the Senate, that is a low point of my legislative career, the low point of my governmental career. That is why I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform today. People in America are counting on us to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. They recognize that this country's national security depends on securing our borders and fixing our immigration system.Again, nothing in the transcript provided by the Reid campaign and published by Sargent references Reid apologizing for his birthright proposal. Nothing.
I made on the order of 150 posts to Journolist while I was member of the list-serv, most of which were on the short side. I rarely write long posts on discussion lists -- and for that matter I rarely write long e-mails – because I figure if I have something coherent and substantive to say it should probably go on my blog. Most of the posts were banal. They might involve things like: asking for advice on book-writing, seeing if anyone had contact information for a person I was trying to reach for a story, or clarifying a point of Senate procedure. Other posts involved "off-topic" threads on subjects like food or sports.Sound like there are some soundbites in Nate's e-mails, and he wants to get ahead of the curve.A lot of the other comments involved discussions of Democratic or Republican political strategy. Almost always, I made exactly the points in these discussions that I made on FiveThirtyEight. Sometimes, I used the phrasing "we" when participating in these discussions, which I would not ordinarily use on the blog. I’ve disclosed from the first day of FiveThirtyEight’s existence that I’m usually a Democratic voter, and Journolist’s membership consisted of mostly Democrats, so this seemed fairly natural.
In general, I don’t do a lot of name-calling, even in private, and there was very little of that in my posts. I can be sarcastic and I certainly tweaked a few people here and there. But essentially without exception, they were people who I’ve also tweaked in public at FiveThirtyEight.
No coordination, and just like Twitter? Great, so release all the emails.A handful of POLITICO reporters, myself included, were members of the now-defunct listserv, which has been portrayed at times as a kind of cabal aimed at, among other goals, doing physical harm to Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh and
destroying Fox News....
The list was free of the sort of effective coordination some critics allege, and many of its participants disagreed with one another bitterly, while others on the list mostly lurked silently. I can’t recall any substantive difference between what people wrote privately and publicly. Like many private e-mail conversations, it had no shortage of stray inflammatory and ill-advised comments, and many, many more mundane ones.I’d add only one thing: I never found out any good secrets on Journolist. It wasn’t that kind of list. But to get the flavor of it, you can read conversation that mirrors it on Twitter. That platform — although it’s in principle open and democratic — in fact reflects more or less the same virtues of hashing out ideas and the dangers of the herd mentality.
At risk of getting drawn into this debate, I was a member of J-List for some time, but never when I was writing for The Post. I'd originally signed up as a member when I was at TPM, and remained one after The Washington Post Company hired me to write for WhoRunsGov. But I almost never participated -- I was a lurker -- and I removed myself from the list well before my blog was moved over to The Post proper, mainly because I was sick of being overwhelmed by emails.--------------------------------------------
Palin encourages followers to read column warning that the BP escrow fund could lead to a Nazi-like dictatorshipGreg Sargent at The Washington Post promptly took time out from smearing Sharron Angle with the "Birther" epithet to post a similar headline:
Sarah Palin tells followers to read article comparing BP escrow fund to NazismAndrew Sullivan joined the act, awarding Palin a Hugh Hewitt Award, as did Alan Colmes, who wrote: Palin Jumps on the Sowell “Obama As Hitler” Bandwagon.
Sharron Angle went to court five times to defense of the Nevada Constitution. No other candidate in this senatorial race, including Harry Reid, has that record. As a result of Sharron Angle's dedication to constitutional law, she has been endorsed by Declaration Alliance PAC.Angle's campaign has denied sharing the group's views on Obama's citizenship, as the Nevada reporter has noted (Sargent's post is the link in the tweet below):
I asked her “flat out” whether she believed Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, and she replied, “No. Is that flat-out enough for you?”--------------------------------------------
There’s no denying that Reid still trails in most polls and that his approval ratings back home are in the tank. But with Angle’s shaky campaign launch, Democrats are now talking more about Reid’s post-November power and less about his inevitable demise.See how it works. Rasmussen just releases a poll showing Sharron Angle with a double-digit lead, and the Democratic spinmeisters portray Reid as lucky to have her. It's the narrative, stupid.
Asked to comment on the issue, Angle spokesman Jerry Stacy said via email: "Sharron Angle does not advocate a revolution. Her goal is to go to Washington with other like-minded elected officials who understand the proper role of the federal government as already defined by our Constitution."Sargent is doing what many bloggers do. But now that Sargent has The Washington Post name attached to his posts, it takes it to a whole new level.
I've found it. The 2010 race about which I can get motivated the way I was motivated by Scott Brown v. Martha Coakley.Nevada’s Wingnut Angle (Limerick)Motivated yet?
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Harry’s hopes for November looked bleak,
With Republican odds at their peak.
But he’ll easily wrangle
The wacky Ms. Angle.
Thank you, wingnuts for picking a freak.
Harry Reid's political operation in Nevada is quietly assembling a battle plan to take on Tea Partyer Sharron Angle in the general election, presuming she beats Sue Lowden in today's GOP primary.In that same post, however, Sargent himself distorted statements made by Angle:The strategy: Use her own words to paint her as, well, a complete whackjob. Sound familiar? That's what ground up Lowden in the wake of the chickens-for-checkups gaffe.
Exhibit A: An interview Angle gave in which she suggested she favors outlawing alcohol and supports legislating morality. This, in Nevada.Yet read the interview, including even the language quoted by Sargent in his post, and it is clear that Angle was not calling for outlawing alcohol, she simply was stating her personal beliefs on the encouragement of the use of any type of drug. As to legislating morality, Angle was observing that politicians inevitably bring their beliefs to bear on policy making.In an interview with Liberty Watch magazine, Angle expressed her opposition to legalizing marijuana, and added: "I feel the same about legalizing alcohol."
Angle campaign spokesman Jerry Stacy insists Angle doesn't want to return to the days of prohibition.Sargent grossly overstated Angle's statements and drew conclusions (such as outlawing alcohol) not supported by the transcript and contrary to Angle's actual position. And all in the context of warning about how Harry Reid's operatives plan on doing the same thing."Sharron doesn't want to make alcohol illegal," Stacy said. Alcohol is a legal substance adults can choose to imbibe."
Stacy said Angle has never introduced any legislation to ban alcohol, and even voted against taxes on booze.
We have oil reserves and petroleum reserves that we should tap into. And that's a policy that we really need to look at as a nation. How do we deregulate enough to invite our industries to come back into the United States and quit outsourcing their business? We need it here. And especially in this climate, and we also need to talk about taxation as well, you know, the corporate tax rate. Why is Ireland at 12.5%, here we're at 25-35%. We need to be competitive, and competitive in all markets.The full answer, not artificially cut off in mid-stream, gives a very different context than that portrayed in Sargent's post.
Yesterday Palin launched a bizarre and rambling attack on a journalist that by any standard should make us seriously pause. Her target was award-winning journalist Joe McGinniss, who has rented the house next door to her to research a book. The short version is that she suggested he might be peeping at her kids.Considering the severity with which Palin's kids have been mocked by the media (see my various posts on the disgusting attacks on Trig Palin), why is this not a legitimate concern. Whatever happened to leaving the kids of politicians alone?
So why didn’t the Times include Blumenthal “correctly characterizing his service” in its version of the video? That’s awfully misleading, isn’t it?Markos Moulitsas, linking to Media Matters, adds "The New York Times apparently now flacks for the NRSC."
Even if you don't believe the longer video is exculpatory in any way, as The Times says, there's no conceivable reason for leaving out the fuller context and letting readers make the call for themselves. It seems obvious that when dealing with a story this explosive, you would want to err on the side of more context, rather than less.
This defense is a non-defense. I wonder if Blumenthal would excuse someone being prosecuted by his office for fraud because sometimes the person didn't commit fraud.
Putting aside the illogic of the defense, Allahpundit (with a link to the full video) notes that the defense is not even an exoneration:
The key part comes right at the beginning. If he had said, “I served in the Marine Reserves in Washington during the war” and later said he’d served “in Vietnam,” that would have raised the question of whether he’d simply misspoken. As it is, there’s nothing in the first statement that would lead you to think he hadn’t been in-country; on the contrary, it reads like a textbook example of the sort of deliberate ambiguity the Times accused him of.I realize Blumenthal is in it to win it and is not going to throw away his chance for the Senate over mere mispoken words.
"Well, we'll just have to win."Update: One lesson Blumenthal and his media supporters apparently have not learned is that the cover-up can be worse than the crime. More information is trickling out which makes the Media Matters meme laughable (via HotAir):
"I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support."
The occasion was the Stamford Veterans Day parade Nov. 9, 2008.
The speaker was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, as quoted by The Advocate.
A trove of potential bulletin board material was unearthed Tuesday by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers from its archives quoting the once seemingly unflappable U.S. Senate candidate on his military record, one that he has been accused of embellishing.
During a May 18, 2009, military board tribute to veterans in Shelton, Blumenthal was quoted by the Connecticut Post as saying, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered."
I am disgusted and I thought they couldn’t top the World Trade Center gaffe. Into this Pres. Obama will walk tomorrow....Now, I love a good political fight, all things fair and all, but someone should tell Democrats that you draw the line on using rape victims in a mailer. Or maybe that’s just my delicate sensibilities. If this is what is being sent out by Democrats in Massachusetts to obviously help Martha Coakley bring affluent and suburban women, regardless of parties, to the polls on Tuesday. She’s finished, whether she wins or not.Let’s just hope the White House had nothing to do with this, not even giving a nod, though I wouldn’t put anything past David Axelrod.
A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend "to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate," with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
This has to be the Obama camp’s most direct and premeditated shot at the media yet: His outside political operation just blasted an email to supporters directly faulting the press for falling down on the job of debunking health care “lies.”What a strange view of the media's role. Rather than viewing the media in the traditional sense of a check on government power, the Obama campaign apparatus apparently grew comfortable with the media playing the supportive role of campaign cheerleader.
"Of course one's life experience shapes who you are," but she added, "Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been."Now it is revealed, by Greg Sargent, a supporter of Sotomayor no less, that Sotomayor used almost identical language in a 1994 speech:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”So the White House spin holds no water. There was no misspoken word. The language in question appears to be part of Sotomayor's stump speech.
