This is supposed to be a 'appy occasion! Let's not quarrel and bicker over 'oo killed 'oo!

He probably thinks Bush/Cheney/Rove are now officially the past in that nothing substantial is going to happen until the next President comes into office.

Maybe Stengel thinks we should only focus on future crimes.

Ok, but where do we get the pre-cogs?

Of course, this would be a strange idea from the editor of a magazine that couldn't seem to write enough about Whitewater.

Stupid fuck.

Ethics are so last week.

What a corrupt and ridiculous "explanation." Is he planning to apply this across the board to any investigation of wrongdoing -- all of which, by definition, are concerned with what happened in the past?

Also notice his mealy-mouthed reliance on "perceived." He's not concerned that Democrats are focusing on the past, oh no -- he's concerned that it may be "perceived" that they be doing so.

Personally, as a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Stengel to be perceived as a paid-off GOP apologist and all-around hack....

Comments like those from people like Stengel drive me up a wall. I don't think Democrats ARE obsessed with Rove; I do think they would be happy to see him frog-marched off to federal prison, but it's no obsession.

But the real problem is that Stengel and others of his ilk overlook the fact (yes, fact) that Rove created and pushed the campaign talking points that equated Democrats with traitors. In several districts, the patriotism of Democrats was openly questioned in campaign ads. That's slimy as hell and it leaves a really bad scar on the victim.

But hey, it didn't touch Stengel. Why should he spend time thinking about it?

His second attempt at it is even worse.

Now he's speaking for the common man ("as a citizen"), giving advice to Democrats, as pundits are wont to do.

Do these morons explain the past 6 years of Republican victories (and catastrophe) by telling themselves that the Democrats' problem was a failure to listen to pundits' wise advice?

Hey, dumbass the past ain't gonna fix itself.

And as for your concern about the Democrats not being forward thinking enough, stick it up your ass. If you can get your head out of the way.

If we don't arrest someone within the hour, it's the past.

Ya know, like any good TV show.

Doesn't he know that the past is never past?

My guess is that by "focused on the past", Stengl may mean something like "Rove will be gone soon anyway, and by concentrating on him the Democrats will soon be closing the barn door after the horse has bolted".

Floop,

As Shakespeare says, "the past is prologue." So I guess that means that the politicization of the Justice Department is the prologue to the ultimate destruction of the Bush administration.

When you find yourself defending attorneys who don't have the minimal level of competence asked of government lawyers

When mocking one of the usual wingnuts it's polite not to post using exactly the same screen name they use. Change it to "American Schlock" or "American Pigeoncrap" something like that.

And parody doesn't work if you are too over-the-top with it. Not even someone as dim as the real Chickenhawk could still seriously argue that the issue was competence, not now that Gonzales and the rest have abandoned that ill-conceived lie in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

HTH

Nice to see that you folks can't take good advice. Bre'r Rabbit had it about right. "Please don't throw me in that brier patch."

"Except that this scandal only broke open eight weeks ago."

... and has developed more legs than a 10 story whorehouse with each week that passes. It's tough not to draw the conclusion that some MSMers resent the fact that the story broke on the internets, instead of on their precious pages.

Democrats should look to the future and never to the past?

That's convenient. Every crime that Republicans commit is technically in the past, so I guess they should never be held accountable.

(never mind how many years Whitewater dragged on for)

Republicans have nothing but contempt for the average persona ('peasant'). The feed the populace a constant stream of lies, fear, and slogans and the masses just gobble it up. They talked about Yugoslavia as a war that had broken the back of the US military (never mind not a single soldier was ever killed on the ground) but refuse to acknowledge that the war in Iraq (which has gone on longer than WWII) is a complete failure.

All they're trying to do is run out the clock for political reasons. They don't want the "defeat" to be scored on Bush's watch. They want those images to be tied to the next president. And they honestly don't care what the cost will be in blood or dollars to make that happen.

Has any political part in our nation's history ever become so corrupt, so devoid of principles, so incompetent, and so inimicable to the welfare of the average citizen (not to mention the fate of mankind as a whole)?

If you're still a Bush supporter you need psychological counseling.

The last four words were the key, when Stengel said, "I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future." Stengel perceives the Dems as not making serious plans for the future. So do I.

Politically, the Dems have no need to make serious plans. They can win elections by attacking Republican actions (especially Iraq) and focusing on Republican scandals.

But, what if Stengel's impression becomes more widespread? If the general populace starts seeing the Dems as nothing but attack dogs. the Dems won't be so popular.

Karl Rove squeaked through on Nixon's pardon, and look - the fucker is back again. He's got to be dealt with. Or he and his ideological offspring will continue to corrupt American politics for another generation.

Rove, and his political terrorist tactics must be stopped.

By focusing on Rove's past crimes, we can prevent his future crime - Bushco still has 666 (!) days in office.

But in the modern GOP, Accountability is just a word that has no meaning.

So how far in the past does a scandal have to be for Stengel to want to ignore it? I mean if Bush shot a hooker in the White House last night, but we didn't hear about it until today does that mean it is unimportant?

"They can win elections by attacking Republican actions (especially Iraq) and focusing on Republican scandals."

A Republican is complaining about Democratic attacks? I'm not sure if this is laughable or pathetic.

"But, what if Stengel's impression becomes more widespread? If the general populace starts seeing the Dems as nothing but attack dogs. the Dems won't be so popular.

You might want to check with the USA Today poll before you reach for your keyboard & make a complete ass out of yourself again:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-26-poll-bush-aides_N.htm

"Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege."

But, what if Stengel's impression becomes more widespread? If the general populace starts seeing the Dems as nothing but attack dogs. the Dems won't be so popular.

Posted by: ex-liberal on March 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM

So I take it you prefer your government be run by incompetent criminals instead of zealous law enforcement.

Stengel himself said it best when he said: "The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided"

Oh, wait. That was another Stengel.

If the general populace starts seeing the Dems as nothing but attack dogs. the Dems won't be so popular.
Posted by: ex-liberal on March 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Which is it?

Dems are supposed to have spines and fight for their constituency, and not be "effete" and "surrender monkeys"?

Or, they're supposed to be agreeable, and cooperative and civilized?

Which is it ex-lib? We'd really like your advice on which side of this false dilemma we should be picking.

Rick's doing a heck of a job for Time.

I've got a lot of respect for big time editing.
It's hard work see...

Like war presidenting.

Apparently, when speaking as a citizen Mr. Stengel feels relieved of the need to read polling results, which I assume the editor of Time would be familiar with. You know, the polls that show a majority of Americans want Rove to testify under oath about this matter? The polls that show that Republican corruption was a major component of the November Democratic win? For the Democrats to be perceived as cleaning up that cesspool will hardly be 'unfortunate' for them.

Maybe what he meant to say was that it's unfortunate for Democrats to focus on the pasta.

Except that this scandal only broke open eight weeks ago. Is the new rule that anything older than last week now counts as focusing on the past?

Er, Kevin, the Democrats surely have wanted to "get" Rove a lot longer than eight weeks.

Anyway, the point is the Democrats now have majorities in both houses, and are therefore in a position to fight Bush on policy, and on ideas, by, you know, actually passing legislation and daring Bush to veto it. Using their power to set perjury traps and stage confrontations is something the public will see through, just as they did when the Republicans tried to do it to Bill Clinton. Sure, the GOP may have done it. but apparently the Dems are no better than the GOP.

He's one of a not so new breed: the media whore concern troll.

"Using their power to set perjury traps and stage confrontations is something the public will see through..."

Um, the way you avoid a perjury trap is by telling the truth. I realize that's a Triple Lindy for folks in this administration, but it's a pretty straightforward proposition. The only reason there's a confrontation is because these folks don't like being put in a position where they have to tell the truth.

A pity democrats lack the wit to defeat republicans with better programs. Their decapitation has worked so well, I guess I can't blame them, though.

Here in Memphis we have been rocked for the last several years by federal probes and indictments of local Democratic politicians. In Memphis most of the prominent local Democrats are black. So, most blacks have seen the investigations as racist. Our local media has refused to connect the national discussion about partisan federal probes with what has been happening here. Indeed, the local newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, is currently running a series on our "Culture of Corruption". The paper even pointed out that Memphis seems to be part of a national trend of political corruption. But in the blogosphere, there is currently a discussion connecting our probes to the political-overtones of U.S. Attorney scandal. As Andrew Sullivan points out, the real story that no one is telling is that the Justice Department has been targeting local Democratic officials- city councilmen, state senators, etc. for prosecution. The national media is not interested in local politics and the local media think the probes are merely local stories. Memphis is exhibit A. However, there may be some smoking guns out there. The attached post from www.smartcitymemphis.blogspot.com appears to be such a smoking gun. Given that most of the several hundred indictments and prosecutions around the country have been targetting locals (as opposed to more prominent state and federal politicians), it may be plausible that investigators were just this brazen:

Friday, March 23, 2007

Partisan and Racial Politics In Memphis Are The Same Thing

Federal investigators are justifiably thin-skinned when faced with widespread criticism in the black community that their prosecutions are racially-biased. African-Americans are equally justified in questioning whether just is really blind, particularly color blind.

This transcript of a conversation between an FBI agent investigating the “Tennessee Waltz” and a suspect does raise some interesting questions.

One thing we do know: this is one conversation you'll never hear in federal court.

FBI Agent:

We would be interested if you can tell us anything about Democrats involved in payoffs or corruption.

Suspect:

When you say Democrats in Memphis, it’s the same as saying black. Is that what you’re saying?

Agent:

Well, we’re asking about Democrats. Can you tell us anything about them taking money from developers or anyone else? We think they’re taking payoffs, but we need someone to wear a wire or give us information.

Suspect:

Well, if you’re asking about Democratic officials, it’s the same as asking about African-American officials. While you’re chasing blacks for taking a few hundred under the table, there’s millions being exchanged by whites right in front of you, and you don’t even seem to see it.

While the conversation had seemed like just a footnote to recent investigations here, in light of recent news coverage about the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys for possibly being too even-handed in their investigations of Democrats and Republicans, it indicates that questions about local prosecutions being racially based might more accurately focus on whether they are partisan based. Of course, here, that ends up being the same thing.

A study of reported federal investigations published in conjunction with Congressional hearings into the firings of the federal prosecutors turned up this interesting fact: from 2001-2006, 79 percent of the 379 elected officials and candidates who’ve been investigated were Democrats. Only 18 percent were Republicans.

Perhaps our local news media would calculate the percentages for Memphis, because on first blush, it looks like they would be even more unbalanced than the national ones.

Yes, your honor I did murder those people, but let's not focus on the past....

No no Kevin. He means crimes committed in the past need to be overlooked, while thoughtcrimes that will be committed in the future should be pursued with absolute vigor.

What an idiot. And he's in charge of Time.

Darin, that's a really interesting issue. But what the hell is that "conversation"? Where is it from? It doesn't look like an actual transcript - people don't talk that way, as far as I know. Is this an account from memory by someone? If so, who?

If there is a way to substantiate disproportionate targeting of Democrats for corruption investigations by the FBI, that'd really be something.

Is that the best he can do it?

That excuse doesn't even pass the smell test.

How about, I got caught with my pants down making a ridiculous prediction that I presented as fact?

What...you don't think that would play well in Swampland?

Stengel, Downie, etc...BLECH...

A pity democrats lack the wit to defeat republicans with better programs.

Gee, where was this concern when the GOP was in charge, and strangely, spent all their energy on wrecking the system to create a permanent majority, and none of their energy on actually solving problems or improving things?

Or is it one standard for the GOP, and another for the Dems? Sorry, stupid question...

Stengel: As a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future.

And what about the future investigations and prosecutions that were being handled by the fired USAs? Were the firings to disrupt future indictments? Was Rove involved because we know his buddy Tim Griffin replaced one of them. We don't know Rove's role for sure so it merits attention and oversight.

As Greenwald said at Salon on Mar. 26, 2007, of Stengel and Tweety's crew:

What if Rove really engaged in serious wrongdoing? Stengel, like virtually all of his Beltway media colleagues, really couldn't care less.

Journalists are supposed to be, by definition, eager for investigations of government misconduct. That is supposed to be their purpose, embedded in their DNA. Yet virtually across the board, the prevailing Beltway conventional wisdom has become that -- as always -- investigations are "bad for Democrats," that Americans don't want their Leaders investigated, that it's all a terrible distraction from the oh-so-important business of legislating.

On what do these media stars base these constant, emphatic claims about what Americans want and don't want? On nothing other than their own personal desires, which they cowardly and misleadingly attribute to what "Americans believe," even though such claims are baseless and false.

In the last election, anger over Republican corruption played a major role in why Americans threw Republicans out of power:

By a wide margin, Americans who voted Tuesday in the midterm election say they disapprove of the war in Iraq. But when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls.

And as I recall (though cannot yet find, but will add as an update), polls before the election also demonstrated that clear majorities of Americans wanted more oversight and checks on the administration. Claims that "Americans don't want investigations" are just false and reflective of nothing other than their own desire to defend the administration.

These Beltway media figures are not only completely vapid, shallow, and devoid of any objective other than to defend government leaders, but they are completely out of touch with the "Americans" whom they constantly invoke as props in order to depict their own biases and beliefs as being shared by the American mainstream.

First from CNN, Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006: 57% said it was "good for the country" if Dems in Congress "were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Admin. has done in the past six years."

Next, and the timing is more poignant and current:

And then we have this USA Today poll, taken over the weekend (exactly when Stengel and his colleagues were warning Democrats that Americans would be angry if they pursued Karl Rove):

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?
Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%
15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?
Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%
16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?
Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%

Kevin,

So how long until Stengel is replaced by someone competent? You're head of Time and you cattily dismiss the biggest scandal since watergate, and then make some excuses about your shallowness?

What does it take to be a big media exec these days, obviously ability, integrity, and discernment are not required. Make me angry just talking about it.

There is so much more able talent on the web then in professional media. What's the point of J-school again?

What I think, is that it depends very much on what really is going on behind the scenes at the WH. Either this attorney thing is just more mind-numbing incompetence or it is the tip of a scandal as big as Watergate.

If it turns out to be the former, then Stengel is right, the Democrats do look petty and vengeful. If it turns out the latter, they look like hero's.

It's a big gamble and they need to be very sure of their facts.

Destroying Karl Rove and everything he represents, and everyone like him, and every reason they exist, is the future.

chaunceyatrest on March 28, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Props to you. I see that you referred to the USAToday poll as well.

Do not read this comment. I wrote it in the past, so it is irrelevant.

"As a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future."

The absolutely most precious part of that pinhead's explanation is how bad it would be for the Dems to be perceived as focusing on the past. Not that he'll actually say they are doing that, just that they'll be percieved that way. Yeah, wherever would people get such a idea?!? Maybe from watching, say, a Managing Editor from Time magazine chortling away at the issue, calling it "business as usual" and "not what the voters want to see"? (Well, 21% of voters don't want to see, actually).

$%@#^ disengenous weasel....

In the post linked to, the sentence immediately following the one Kevin quotes--which no one above seems either to have read or acknowledged as having read--says:

"If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country."

I don't know why Kevin left this out, but it puts a finer point on the meaning of the sentence that he does quote. As TPM has been very good about reminding its readers, it's crucial that the US Attorney scandal not be seen as political gotcha but as a serious erosion of the presumption that the judicial branch is not partisan in the exercise of its duties and powers: something that should concern every citizen, period.

Anyway, Stengel's point is exactly right, it seems to me, and Democrats and their allies would do well to frame this debate in the most non-partisan fashion possible, lest we end up behaving in the very way we had so despised the Republicans for behaving when they had congressional majorities. What Rove et al. hath wrought is clearly destructive and must be made right--but not just because they are Republicans.

Yep,

Just another case of your liberal media at work.

TT

I... Anna Nicole Smith!..am so... Janet Jackson's tit! Janet Jackson's tit!..uninterested... Monica! Monica! Monica!.. in the Democrats... Gary Condit! wanting Karl Rove... William Jefferson!... because... Purple fingers! Purple fingers!...it is so... Britney Spears in rehab!... bad... Paris! Hilton! Sex scenes! ... for them...

Time... focusing on what interests Rick Stengel and should interest you.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I thought the WHOLE POINT of the scandal was the DOJ being turned into political attack dogs. We shouldn't let these scumbags rewrite the narrative.

It is kind of a duh, that if a republic political attack dog is being unleashed, Rove isn't far behind. Going after Rove and shutting down the dogs is the same thing.

If the Dems don't prosecute this bunch then the Dems are toast, that much is sure. They need to actually demonstrate that they care more about the Republic than the Republican machine. I hope they can. I hope their party can make some inroads against the rot that the Bush Administration has represented in this country.

stengel, if you ever happen to read this, you are pathetic. re-think how you are living.

Jasper: Er, Kevin, the Democrats surely have wanted to "get" Rove a lot longer than eight weeks.

Anybody concerned about national security would want Rove dismissed for his role in leaking a CIA operative's identity to the press. Was it just loose-lipped stupidity on his part or malicious retaliation against Joe Wilson? Regardless of Karl's motive, he leaked and that's part of the public record. If Repubs are such hot shots on national security, how come there isn't an outcry from the Right for Rove to go?

Puzzling still is why Rove has a security clearance. Bush promised that anyone found to have been involved in the leak would be fired so it was a reasonable expectation that Rove would have gotten the boot. However, Bush amended his initial promise to one in which he would fire anyone "found guilty of a criminal act." What a man of his word Bush is. Flippity-floppity.

Using their power to set perjury traps and stage confrontations is something the public will see through, just as they did when the Republicans tried to do it to Bill Clinton. Sure, the GOP may have done it. but apparently the Dems are no better than the GOP.

But apparently you haven't provided any facts to support your assertion that Dems are no better than when Republicans tried to set perjury traps. Where, when, how, who? Gotta link or transcript to share?

So far, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had the backing of Repubs in authorizing subpoenas. Grassley asked to go on the record with his "yea" vote. The Dems aren't alone in the USA purge investigation.

arteclectic >"...Either this attorney thing is just more mind-numbing incompetence or it is the tip of a scandal as big as Watergate..."

Wake up hot shot. This is MUCH MUCH bigger than Watergate.

In part because it is the result of Watergate not being completely investigated to the end. Nor was Iran-Contra. Same actors, same game but later innings. The rot goes deeper and is more corrosive at this late stage.

I`ll say it again.

This is MUCH MUCH bigger than Watergate.

Bet on it.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - Thomas Jefferson

And while we are dancing around about the ReThuglican culture of corruption I`m curious if any of you folks noticed the following in the news.

"About a month before his company filed for bankruptcy protection, the chief executive of Collins & Aikman, a maker of vehicle instrument panels and floor mats, made a last-ditch attempt for a loan.

The chief, David A. Stockman, the former Michigan congressman and budget director for President Ronald Reagan, got on the phone in early April 2005 with bankers from Credit Suisse. The parts supplier had about $110 million in liquidity, he told the bankers, according to court papers. He reassured them that his forecasts were sound.

But according to an eight-count indictment unsealed in court yesterday, that was not true: the company had already borrowed so much that it could not take on new debt without violating existing loan agreements. It had exhausted its credit..." - Full Story Link

Sound familiar ?

Corruption top to bottom, day in & day out it seems.

Something about leopards never changing their spots I think.

"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd

I saw that clip....you mean that unctuous, oily little shithead that said that is a top editor at Time magazine? Jesus. I wanted to slap him so hard the goop would fly out of his hair when he said that....

If the general populace starts seeing the Dems as nothing but attack dogs. the Dems won't be so popular.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the public would like the Democrats to be attack dogs, and that maybe that might have something to do with why they were handed the keys to Congress a few months ago? The country is fucking seething right now. Democratic party self-ID has jumped, and Republican ID is plummeting. When you look at partisan breakdowns on damn near every issue you care to name, the independents' position is much, much closer to the that of the Democrats'.

Fuck this silly bullshit. If the Democrats can't do anything about gross, repeated, systemic, widespread violations of countless laws by Republicans, just who the hell is supposed to hold them to account?

The public doesn't just want it, the public demands it.

John B: In the post linked to, the sentence immediately following the one Kevin quotes--which no one above seems either to have read or acknowledged as having read--says: "If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country." ...I don't know why Kevin left this out, but it puts a finer point on the meaning of the sentence that he does quote.

No... Because Stengel's "obsessively concerned with settling scores" is innuendo.

Because Dems and Repubs are outraged at the USA firings including the fired Bush-appointed USAs.

Because Gonzales has yet to answer why the eight USAs were fired.

Because the American public wants justice and this WH investigated.

Anyway, Stengel's point is exactly right, it seems to me, and Democrats and their allies would do well to frame this debate in the most non-partisan fashion possible, lest we end up behaving in the very way we had so despised the Republicans for behaving when they had congressional majorities.

I don't agree that Stengel's point is correct. He is spinning a hypothetical -- If Democrats blah, blah, blah -- rather than sticking with the facts....

Facts that include the cooperation of Repubs on the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate and who also authorized subpoenas...

Facts that demonstrate the USAs' reputations have been smeared and they are mad about it and deserve answers...

Facts that no Kenneth Starr run amok prosecutor has been brought in...

Facts that home states are mad about their USAs being canned for no good reason....

Facts that prominent Repubs -- Hagel, Graham, and Specter -- have criticized Gonzales and some have called for his resignation....

Facts that historically reveal the firing of eight USA holdovers in a single day is unprecedented...

Facts that illustrate the USAs were prosecuting too many Repubs and not enough Dems...

Facts that indicate a top USA, Cummins, was replaced with a Rove crony...

Facts that were uncovered in the DOJ email dump that recommended bypassing Senate confirmation for replacements of the fired USAs...

Facts that have a DOJ aide, Monica Goodling, pleading the fifth for what reason exactly?

Facts that show a majority of Americans want this WH held accountable, investigated, and subpoenaed to find out the truth. (See USAToday poll stats at 1:16 AM).

Why hasn't Stengel reported on what if anything has transpired on the investigations that the fired USAs were engaged in? Rather than float a talking point about how the Dems might be perceived -- What is he? A concern troll? --- Stengel needs to work at being a journalist. We've got too many half-assed opinions and not enough solid facts on this story.

And no matter how forthright and objective the Dems with Repub support are, the Bushie water boys and D.C. cocktail weenies are gonna say Dems are playing gotcha. You think the punditheads are going to be fair? Sure, uh-huh.

daCascadian: This is MUCH MUCH bigger than Watergate.

Yep, and I would not bet against you.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Stengel perceives the Dems as not making serious plans for the future. So do I.

Yeah, but you're a dishonest, delusional neocon toad, "ex-liberal." Who the hell cares what your mendacious and illusory perception is?

I'm waiting for one of these clowns to come up with the "Ambien" defense.....
"I was really stressed and I was taking Ambien and I must have been sleep walking.

Are you kidding? The wingnuts are still foaming at the mouth in rage over Bill Clinton.

There's never a good time to investigate Republicans.

If you do it too early, you're jumping the gun and not letting the justice process run its course.

If you leave it too long, you're dwelling on the past.

So it looks like you've got a six-minute window to nail it.

New name for Time mag: Past

Kevin,

Maybe he means that focusing on Rove is dwelling on the past. Rove is yesterday's villain.

Get Rove!

So that's why Chris Matthews invited Stengel on his show, so they could hear his opinions as a private citizen and not because he is a Time editor? When he's introduced on these shows, why don't they just say under his name, "Private Citizen" instead of Time editor.

Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory.
- John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

Stengle's comments are syptomatic of my problem with the whole premise of Hardball, where nothing can be accepted at face value. Matthews and his guests are so intent on enlightening the auidence with the "true meaning" of the statement or event that it becomes one incredibly cynical exercise. So the committe isn't investigating the politicization of the Justice Department, the Democrats are getting even with Rove. And Hillary isn't explaining her approach to the Iraq War, she's pandering to the left wing of the party. It goes on and on.

'These are not journalists who want to uncover government corruption or act in an adversarial capacity to check government power. Rather, these are members of the royal court who are grateful to the King and his minions for granting them their status. What they want more than anything is to protect and preserve the system that has so rewarded them -- with status and money and fame and access and comfort. They're the ludicrous clowns who entertain the public by belittling any facts which demonstrate pervasive corruption and deceit at the highest levels of our government, and who completely degrade the public discourse with their petty, pompous, shallow, vapid chatter that transforms every important political matter into a stupid gossipy joke.' Glenn Greenwald

"First get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure."
----Mark Twain

Why are people so obsessed with this bin Laden guy? After all, 9/11 was more than five years ago. Can't we just forget the past?

The David Stockman thing is a sideshow. Part of a larger corporate culture which has raised criminality to the level of a norm. I like this one better:

And Now, for a Completely Different GOP Scandal
Posted by Richard Blair
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49841/#more

[snip]

So, you're forgiven if an interesting little story that caught my attention today doesn't ring the bell for you. It's the tale of Larry Small, an Intelligent Design (and basically, anti-science) guy who has been running the most venerable of U.S. research and antiquity institutions since 2001 - the Smithsonian. How did Larry Small get his job, what kind of GOP skeletons are rattling around in his closet, and what did he do that caused him to lose his latest job? And his previous one, for that matter?

Fair warning: this has nothing to do with Fredo Gonzales, so if that's all you're interested in at the moment, move along, nothing to see here...

Larry Small has been kicking around the halls of power in Washington, DC for quite some time. In the 1990's, he presided over Fannie Mae, the organization which underwrites or owns the majority of home mortgages in the United States. During his tenure at Fannie Mae, Small was at the center of a securities fraud scandal that nearly sank the company:

The report...by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, says the result was a company that engaged in "extensive financial fraud" over six years, doctoring earnings by $10.6 billion so executives could collect tens of millions of dollars in bonuses. Fannie Mae settled civil charges with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission by agreeing to pay a $400 million fine and to make vast changes in how it does business...

It would seem that after a scandal such as this, Small would have worn out his welcome inside the I-495 beltway. Not so. After all, he was a good GOP foot soldier, and a veritable font of money for the RNC. So, after he left Fannie Mae under a cloud of financial chicanery, Small landed on his feet as the head honcho at the venerable Smithsonian Institution - appointed by a GOP controlled Board of Regents - and promptly began to plunder the financial treasury and "fundie-ize" one of America's most revered and socially important public assets.

Fast forward to March, 2007:

The Smithsonian Institution announced Monday that its top official, Secretary Lawrence Small, has resigned amid criticism about his expenses.

Small resigned over the weekend, with the decision unanimously accepted Sunday by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, the Associated Press reported.

Cristian Samper, director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, has been appointed acting secretary while the regents conduct a nationwide search for a permanent replacement. An internal audit in January found that Small had made $90,000 in unauthorized expenses, including private jet travel and expensive gifts.

Mr. Small contributed financially to such GOP congressional luminaries as Tom DeLay and Bob Ney. He knew which palms to grease. (In the interest of fair reporting, he did "seed" other side of the aisle, making a few contributions over the years to influential Democratic Party representatives.)

When Larry Small was run out of Fannie Mae on a rail, that should have been the end of his career. But guys like Small enjoy the finer things in life, no matter what the cost or whose bread has to be buttered to get those fine things.

In the end, Lawrence Small winds up being just another GOP scam artist dipping his beak in the trough, at least as long as the political winds were blowing in the right direction.

I'm too jaded to be surprised anymore.

The fix is in -- parts of the DOJ have been co-opted into a partisan project, the aim of which is to win future elections for the Rethugs by villifying Dems. Concerns about this possibility are obviously about the future.

The left blogosphere should go after this guy the way the right went after Rather.

chaunceyatrest,

Second Apollo 13's kudos to you for that USA Today poll - Now, if only O'Arrogantone could read it, as he said last evening that only 8 per cent of the populace cares about the scandal - or was that only 8% care about his thoughts?

However, let us not dwell in the past when Time Magazine was an honored publication. Once, a mighty vessel on the high seas, Stengel and his ilk have turned it into a broken down Dhow sputtering along the back waters of flotsam and jetsam.

>>However, let us not dwell in the past when Time Magazine was an honored publication.

When was that? When I was in high school debate (60's) you couldn't use any citations from Time because it was considered a bias source.

"Fair enough"? I don't think so. Stengel was there because he was a Time editor, and he was identified as a Time editor. If he wants to speak in some other capacity, he needs to make that explicit.

But anyway, who cares? The guy is full of shit. Matthews' show is a little club of giggling sorority girls.

OK. Fair enough. Except that this scandal only broke open eight weeks ago. Is the new rule that anything older than last week now counts as focusing on the past?

How is this a scandal, really? No laws were broken. The Congress is investigating, but as far as I've heard, they haven't decided what was done wrong and they haven't reached any conclusions.

Much ado about less than nothing, I'm afraid.

Yes, Time was considered to have a bias in those days of yore. US News and World Report was, supposedly, more balanced.

However, as it was an eastern Republican establishment magazin, bias was expected.

This was in a day when there was integrity in the Republican Party - Such as the liberals and moderates helping Johnson to pass Civil Rights legislation - However, as the party has been taken over by Birchers, George Wallace types and Bush Dynasty Imperialists, there is no more integrity in that once proud party - Time Magazine has changed as well. As the Party of Lincoln has become a Jeff Davis and Bush Party of a sewer of sleaze, Time has become a rag.

Stengel is absolutely correct. Any scandal that is older than a week is irrelevant. Unless it involves sexual misconduct. Let's all remember what Clinton did.

Time was Henry Luce. No more, no less. Its views were his views.

And, yes, there were still then a few Republicans who were persons of integrity - they've been driven from the party long since.

Correcto - Congress is investigating as to whether there are any signs of intelligent life in Mr Norman Rogers' neighborhood as well - Subpoenas probably will not work, as he will simply bring the whole case of Fifths.

same vain

'vein'

Moron.

What does it take to be a big media exec these days

Three feet tall, no teeth, and a flat head so you have a place to set your glass of Pinot Noir.

Jay, better get thee and your burro down to the Assayer's office - That "vein" you've been working is coming up Fools Gold.

Shhh, Mr. Jay--once again, you are barking up the wrong tree--

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

This is an outrage. If the United States is planning a war against Iran, it would be because there is a legitimate reason for said war. Fools like Hersh aren't widely read or respected. When our so-called "friends" like the Russians (who just voted WITH us in the Security Council) are sounding false alarms, it is time to act.

Even liberals would have to conclude that we cannot have anyone raining on our parade. It is high time we blinded the Russians and took out their satellites. There are ground based weapons, which are actually "lasers" that can be used to overwhelm the cameras and sensors on spy satellites. I wholeheartedly encourage someone--anyone at the Pentagon to get those weapons up and running and fire them into the Russian satellites immediately.

Who besides a few contrarian cranks dropping flaming rhetoric on left-leaning blogs has accused Valerie Plame of perjury? No one. So Jay - moveon.org.

Wait a minute--why was Mr. Jay's comment deleted?

It was a legitimate comment--please do not delete such things.

Thank you.

What's all this crap about focussing on the past? Attorneygate is all about Rove stacking the deck for the NEXT election. He's thinking way past the time when Junior can retire, dump the "ranch", and moves back to the city.

This is great. I love to watch liberals attack and destroy one of their own.

Stengel, meet your readers.

I'm trying to imagine the look of disdain on the face of Walter Lippman if someone suggested that his duties as an editor were not identical to his duties as a citizen.
I think the child of George MacReady and Ernest Thesinger might manage it.

A note to the moderator - Please do not delete any of Gen Curtis LeMay's channeling. Nuke Russia, what a wonderful day in NR's neighborhood today - Will you be my neighbor, so I can Nuke ya?

I think the child of George MacReady and Ernest Thesinger might manage it.

Pardon me while I file that away in my folder entitled "Who the Hell was THAT?" This folder sits in a circular file entitled "Who the hell cares" and it is emptied once a day by the housekeeper.

I will tell you something for nothing--Lippman was a founder of The New Republic, which gave George Orwell exposure to an American audience. I remember reading those articles in my youth. They made fine toilet paper.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent.”
- Gore Vidal

"Who besides a few contrarian cranks dropping flaming rhetoric...." - BGRS

That actually describes 90% of the posters here.

"Wait a minute--why was Mr. Jay's comment deleted?" - Norman

They can dish it Norman, but they can not take it. Hate speech directed towards GWB and the right is completely acceptable, not so much when directed at their side. And they call themselves "reality" based.

They can dish it Norman, but they can not take it. Hate speech directed towards GWB and the right is completely acceptable, not so much when directed at their side. And they call themselves "reality" based.

No, you're completely wrong. I've watched these liberals tear John Kerry and Joe Lieberman to pieces.

The only "reality" they base their opinions on is found wrapped in blunt wrap and what the kids call "the Chronic."

Not good news for Mr. Small:

`It will be a very comprehensive investigation,'' said Bowsher, a former U.S. comptroller general.

Not good news for several GOP enablers either.

With so many scandals occureing on a regular basis for this inept administration, Tony Blair probably does not find it unusual to call Shrubette and listen to his crooning of Julie Driscoll's "Wheels on fire, going down the road, notify my next of kin"
The Psychedelic age has descended upon 1600 Avenue.

Stengel is now a very high-payed concern troll. Thanks for your advice, Stengel. We'll take it for what it's worth.

Ironic that Karen Tumulty on the exact same blog was asking earlier what a 'concern troll' is. Guess what? You're working with it!

Ironic that Karen Tumulty on the exact same blog was asking earlier what a 'concern troll' is. Guess what? You're working with it!

I am considered an "explainer troll." I explain how things really are. I bring a dash of insouciance, a flair for the use of the written word, and bon mots of wisdom for my many followers. Many of you would probably disdain this statement, but I am told there are literally thousands of regular readers who search out my comments because they express a point-of-view that doesn't get aired very often around here.

I get lots of what I would term "fan mail" and I enjoy a healthy following. Friends often write to say that they read my comments on this blog and follow them up with a "hear, hear!"

FBI Director Robert Mueller has now lied to Congress.

How much more lying can we expect?

A lot.

Jay: >They can dish it Norman, but they can not take it.

See what I mean?

Jasper: Using their power to set perjury traps and stage confrontations is something the public will see through, just as they did when the Republicans tried to do it to Bill Clinton.

Damn those Democrats for forcing George Bush to engage in an unprecedented mid-term firing of eight US Attorneys on false pretexts!

Damn them from forcing Gonzales to lie through his teeth!

Damn them from forcing Domenici to violate senate rules by contacting a US Attorney about an ongoing case!

See what I mean?

No, but thanks for being obtuse and posting a worthless comment. We need more of that around here. Just drop witty little lines like "indeed" and "hardly" so we can all roll our eyes in concert with you and enjoy a little tittering laugh in the background.

Extradite Rumsfeld wrote: Which is it?

Dems are supposed to have spines and fight for their constituency, and not be "effete" and "surrender monkeys"?

Or, they're supposed to be agreeable, and cooperative and civilized?

Which is it ex-lib? We'd really like your advice on which side of this false dilemma we should be picking.

ER and I seem to be on two different wavelengths. An example of what I'm talking about is that the Dems have no policy to deal with the chlorine gas attacks being mounted in Fallujah by al Qaeda in Iraq.

When an affiliate of al Qaeda is using weapons of mass destruction against allies of the US, that's a matter of concern. Bush has a policy to deal with this problem (which may or may not be the right policy); the Dems have no policy. They are ignoring the problem.

I saw the clip, and it was a great example of Airheads on parade.

Karl Rove is the past? Is he, um, gone? Did I sleep through a news cycle?

The Democrats are focused on rooting out systemic corruption after six years of rubberstamping by a Republican congress. If Karl Rove always turns up in the middle of that, it's not the Democrats' fault, it's his. And perhaps if the mainstream media had been a bit more obsessed -- or even passingly interested -- in the rampant corruption of the Bush administration, Karl Rove WOULD be in the past by now; he'd long ago have beaten a path back to Texas.

Dear Ex-liberal....
Let me see, the effort to raise the minimum wage... in the very recent past.. like a few weeks ago..

"ex-liberal" wrote: ER and I seem to be on two different wavelengths.

Yeah -- you're a bullshit-slinging, lying neocon toad, and ER, well, isn't.

Norman "Bates" Rogers: Just drop witty little lines like "indeed" and "hardly" so we can all roll our eyes in concert with you and enjoy a little tittering laugh in the background.

Indeed.

ex-liberal: An example of what I'm talking about is that the Dems have no policy to deal with the chlorine gas attacks being mounted in Fallujah by al Qaeda in Iraq.

The Dems are not supposed to have such a policy.

It is not their duty to come up with countermeasures.

That is the military's duty.

It is Congress's duty, however, to judge whether the military (and administration) have been effective in their countermeasures.

Nice strawman.

ex-liberal: When an affiliate of al Qaeda is using weapons of mass destruction against allies of the US, that's a matter of concern.

I always knew that conservatives had a low threshhold for what constitutes a WMD - just look at Bush's claims that the nothing that Iraq had constituted massive stockpiles of such WMDs.

ex-liberal: Bush has a policy to deal with this problem . . .

Liar.

Bush has a policy for revenge on Saddam and Iran, not for addressing WMDs.

If he had, he would have actually ordered our troops' first order of business to secure the "known" sites of WMDs, which they made no attempt to do (evidence that Bush knew that Iraq had no such weapons), instead of moving directly against Saddam himself.

ex-liberal: the Dems have no policy. They are ignoring the problem.

No, they are addressing the problem through the only political means available to them or required of them - oversight.

The Dems have no obligation to come up with any policy or battle plan.

That is the role of the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon.

It is the role of Congress to review the decisions of the CIC and Pentagon and determine whether they have been effective or will effective and to deny the resources for policies and plans that are clearly intended to move the issue past the president's term, not win the war in Iraq.

sullijan wrote: The Democrats are focused on rooting out systemic corruption after six years of rubberstamping by a Republican congress.

I agree. That's the advantage of Congress changing hands. Similarly, Gingrich rooted out corruption when the Dems had controlled Congress for a long time.

But, when the Dems finish dealing with corruption, what then is their stand on key issues? I believe that's what Stengel was addressing. I think he's concerned that the Dems will focus on investigating Republicans, but little else.

Don't hold your breath. Turns out, the only thing Bush is really interested in sacrificing is reality. - Andrea Batista Schelesinger

faux-liberal wrote: "An example of what I'm talking about is that the Dems have no policy to deal with the chlorine gas attacks being mounted in Fallujah by al Qaeda in Iraq."

ROFL.... Dear heart, why on earth should Congressional Democrats have a "policy" to deal with that particular issue? Of all the dumb things you've written here, that particular comment stands as one of the dumbest.

I'm glad "ex-liberal" isn't on our side anymore. It doesn't even understand the basic roles and responsibilities of our three branches of government.

You can go join Jay and Moron Rogers over at their little dumbshit roundtable.

Oh, and dear heart, you seem to be having some trouble understanding the definition of "weapons of mass destruction." Free clue: what you describe isn't one.

faux-liberal wrote: "I agree. That's the advantage of Congress changing hands. Similarly, Gingrich rooted out corruption when the Dems had controlled Congress for a long time."

Really, dear? Just what "corruption" was that?

"But, when the Dems finish dealing with corruption, what then is their stand on key issues?"

http://www.democrats.org

None of this is a secret, dear. It's amazing what you can see when you actually open your eyes. You should try it sometime.

"I believe that's what Stengel was addressing. I think he's concerned that the Dems will focus on investigating Republicans, but little else."

Since there is no basis for this belief, Stengel just comes across as foolish as you do.

I think he's concerned that the Dems will focus on investigating Republicans, but little else.

ahh, more faux concern from faux liberals. You idiots haven't been paying attention, because this Congress has already passed several key pieces of legislation such as minimum wage and ethics reform.

It's not their fault that the previous Republicon congress abdicated it's oversight responsibilities--so they've got a lot of catching up to do, and the new scandals just keep flowing from this WH. Again, not their fault, but they will do their duty.

What's most amazing to me is just how clueless and out of touch those so-called experts were on the Chris Matthews show. These are the guys who are supposed to be the media elite? And they don't have the foggiest idea what "the people" actually want, based on repeated and reliable poll data? What the hell have they been doing for the past few years?

Stengel's original comment was horribly clueless, particularly given his job title, but his followup, after correctly getting excoriated, was, if anything, worse.

Why we don't focus more on the past completely baffles me. For instance, all the yahoos who now support the surge were the same yahoos who said "we would be greeted as liberators" or "the war will only cost $1.5B". Why do we continue to listen to those folks who were 100% wrong about 100% of the issues on Iraq? Everytime a talking head or an Admin official says "we need to do X in Iraq", there should be a graphic on the screen to reflect how correct past pronouncements by this person have been.
Let's talk this a little further...we need to develop an on screen "bullshit" meter. I'm sure some smart programmer could develop an algorithm that calculated what this person said in the past and provide some level of indication how much of what the person was saying was complete crap.

Which is it?
Dems are supposed to have spines and fight for their constituency, and not be "effete" and "surrender monkeys"?
Or, they're supposed to be agreeable, and cooperative and civilized?
Which is it ex-lib? We'd really like your advice on which side of this false dilemma we should be picking.
Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Best response ever. The moral of the story is always fight for what is right.

An example of what I'm talking about is that the Dems have no policy to deal with the chlorine gas attacks being mounted in Fallujah by al Qaeda in Iraq.
When an affiliate of al Qaeda is using weapons of mass destruction against allies of the US, that's a matter of concern. Bush has a policy to deal with this problem (which may or may not be the right policy); the Dems have no policy. They are ignoring the problem.
Posted by: ex-liberal on March 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

The policy is real simple.
Don't invade countries you don't have to.
Fight terrorism on all fronts.
If you make it all about military standoffs you will always lose. The terrorist needs you to put your army on the ground for him to win. Bush has been doing Al Quaeda's work for them since 2003.
The Dem policy is real simple:
1. Redeploy out of Iraq so we can stop the hemmoraging and have the resources to act.
2 Listen to the smart people about fighting terrorism instead of the morons (neo con AEI fellows).

It ain't about Dems telling the public how to assemble a nuclear powered submarine by hand with all 300 000 steps spelled out in detail. It is about getting the wrong people off the bus, the right people on the bus and having a leadership that is listening and reacting with reason and thought to the opportunites that present themselves for crushing the Juhadists.

Republican War on Terror is just trying to smash the same piece of dirt over and over again with the vain hope that we will get our way if we do it long enough. That's stupid. And you don't win wars if you fight them stupid.

The Dem policy: fight smart.
The GOP policy: fight dumb, but real loud so maybe no one will notice.

Norman Rogers:

Just drop witty little lines like "indeed" and "hardly" so we can all roll our eyes in concert with you and enjoy a little tittering laugh in the background.

anonymouse:

Indeed.

Glad I was here to tell you what to say. Pretty creative of you to do what you're told and to fall in lockstep with everyone else and just keep repeating the same nonsense, over and over again.

8 more weeks and another unfunded $80,000,000,000 down the drain.

"It's the privatization of war," [Kucinich] says. The Administration is "linking private war contractor profits with warmaking. So we're giving incentives for the contractors to lobby the Administration and the Congress to create more opportunities for profits, and those opportunities are more war. And that's why the role of private contractors should be sharply limited by Congress."

Bush's Shadow Army/Jeremy Scahill
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill_vid

I suspect he means that going after Rove for his past sins is focusing on the past. That assumes that Rove will sin no more, and also that Dems can ever forget the 2000 election.

Crap.

Chris Matthews didn't have Stengel appear as a private citizen; he was on the show because he is, in fact, Time's managing editor.

ex-liberal: I think he's concerned that the Dems will focus on investigating Republicans, but little else.

It is the job of Congress to engage in oversight of and as a check on the executive.

The GOP failed to do that for 6 straight years, so there is a lot of catching up to do.

If you want to blame someone for all the congressional investigations, blame the crooks and those who aided and abetted the crooks by refusing to engage in oversight.

Quit blaming the victims, something conservatives are very good at, but something which is morally reprehensible.

Gary K: Why we don't focus more on the past completely baffles me.

Those who refuse to focus on the past cannot learn from it or from their mistakes.

Because conservatives have no interest in learning, much less from the past, since the only basis for any conservative policy is values and methodologies rooted in faith, or correcting mistakes, since they don't ever make mistakes (it's all just a perception problem driven by liberals and the MSM, you see), they don't want to look at the past.

And looking at the past might actually prove them wrong or uncover their crimes, so yet another good reason.

Of course, they are all about the past, even the distant past, such as when it comes to Saddam having used WMDs (while conveniently ignoring Republican complicity in such use), when it allows them to focus on the misdeeds or perceived misdeeds of their opponents.

Rule one: Whenever you hear “old news” uttered, expect a trick or a coverup.

Let us imagine there has been a series of robberies in your town. The police chief says, “Why try to find the robber? That’s old news.”

“You answer, incredulously, “Well, at least we need to get him off the streets so he can’t rob again.”

Then you notice the Chief has bought a new Farrari, sports expensive Jewelry and has gambled away vast sums.

And I thought the repuggies believed in justice.

Because conservatives have no interest in learning, much less from the past, since the only basis for any conservative policy is values and methodologies rooted in faith, or correcting mistakes, since they don't ever make mistakes (it's all just a perception problem driven by liberals and the MSM, you see), they don't want to look at the past.

With all due respect, anonymous, I suggest a much more practical reason dishonest conservatives (hi, "ex-liberal"!) don't want to focus attention on the past: They simply want to avoid accountability for their mendacity, incompetence, corruption and general malfeasance.

If Stengel thinks the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, have more to lose from shining a light on the last six years of cockroach-infested (hi again, "ex-liberal"!) Republican corruption, then he's plainly too stupid to be managing editor of Time.

But then again, given the shoddy quality of that once-proud magazine (Person of the Year 2006: Everybody!), that's been obvious for some time.

James of DC: And I thought the repuggies believed in justice.

They do.

It's just that they have a special definition of justice, once crafter by the Republican God of Justice, Iokiyar.

James of DC: And I thought the repuggies believed in justice.

They do.

It's just that they have a special definition of justice, one crafted by the Republican God of Justice, Iokiyar.

This is reason #2 why while I'll be cancelling my subscription.

The MAIN reason is the following:

http://thismodernworld.com/3648

I am a news junkie. If I wanted a subscription to People, I'd get a damn subscription to People. Stengle can whipe his a$$ with this rag for all I care; over the last 20 years it has disintegrated faster than you can say corporate conglomerate consolidation.

"Matthews and his guests are so intent on enlightening the auidence with the "true meaning" of the statement or event that it becomes one incredibly cynical exercise. So the committe isn't investigating the politicization of the Justice Department, the Democrats are getting even with Rove. And Hillary isn't explaining her approach to the Iraq War, she's pandering to the left wing of the party." -- Dodger, 8:40 a.m.

This is absolutely right, but Tweety was in full-on swoon mode over the most transparently theatrical stunt the administration pulled -- the Top Gun/Codpiece Incident.

To all those hard-boiled MSM types out there -- and especially for you lickspittle Republicans -- here's a news flash: sometimes it makes political sense to do what's ethical. The administration is using the Department of Justice as an arm of the RNC, and people want to pretend that it's the Democrats who were being cynical. You people are precious.

Rick Stemgel is a cult.

Repuggies!

Stengel's argument is idiotically asymmetrical.

Monica Lewinsky was in the past when Ken Starr chose to focus on her. No major news editors seemed to care about how Republicans were "perceived" at the time.

"Pretty creative of you to do what you're told and to fall in lockstep with everyone else and just keep repeating the same nonsense, over and over again."

That would be a brilliant rejoinder -- if it had come from anyone but a guy who does nothing but repeat Republican talking points.

chaunceyatrest: Tweety was in full-on swoon mode over the most transparently theatrical stunt the administration pulled -- the Top Gun/Codpiece Incident.

Eric Alterman examined The Many Man-Crushes of Chris Matthews:

Matthews's man-crush on Bush continued longer than that of most of the mainstream media, leading him, for instance, to assert that "everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs," at a moment when the percentage of Americans telling New York Times/CBS pollsters that they "liked" Bush had fallen to 37 percent.

You're killing me, Apollo 13... Matthews' Man-Crush... whack-jobs...

Paging Dr. Freud.

I see that A13 and I share some reading on a daily basis. Gee, I knew I liked your tastes for a reason.

Do you read James Wolcott, MsN? And dammit! I miss Billmon.

Do you read James Wolcott, MsN? And dammit! I miss Billmon.
Posted by: Apollo 13

Damn straight I do. Yeah, me, too.

But I have also read his Daddy.

The Man Who Came to Dinner...

The new RNC talking point: Dems not offering the future
Latest Bogus Media Line: Dems Offer Voters Nothing Beyond "Only" Investigating GOP
March 26, 2007 -- 03:19 PM EST

It's getting harder and harder to open your newspaper or turn on your TV without hearing a variation of the claim that the Democratic Congressional majority is offering voters nothing beyond "only" investigating the GOP and the White House….
Expect to read a lot of this in the coming days and months as the Republicans are revealed as the conniving crooks of conservatism. It's purely a defense reflex to attempt to discourage the democrats from their investigations.
What it reveals most clearly, however, are which members of the 'liberal' media who are marching to the RNC drumbeat; or, in other words, who is part of the vast rightwing media machine.

I think it's pretty obvious what happened. The guy was on a show full of yakking hounds, and felt the peer pressure to be just as contemptuous and dismissive as they. He just can't admit that.

The guy was on a show full of yakking hounds, and felt the peer pressure to be just as contemptuous and dismissive as they.

And just happened to parrot the latest bogus GOP talking point? That dog won't hunt.

MsNThorpe: But I have also read his Daddy.

Aleck Woolcott of the New Yorker and member of the Algonquin Round Table? James is related? I didn't know that.

Because conservatives have no interest in learning, much less from the past, since the only basis for any conservative policy is values and methodologies rooted in faith, or correcting mistakes, since they don't ever make mistakes (it's all just a perception problem driven by liberals and the MSM, you see), they don't want to look at the past.

This is not true. I am not here to "learn" or "grow" or any of that nonsense. I am here to tell you how things work and what the truth really is. A failure on your part to figure things out does not constitute a "crisis" of faith on my part.

Aleck Woolcott of the New Yorker and member of the Algonquin Round Table? James is related? I didn't know that.
Posted by: Apollo 13

Yep.

Monica Lewinsky was in the past when Ken Starr chose to focus on her. No major news editors seemed to care about how Republicans were "perceived" at the time.

There really was no other choice, because Democrats are so focused on the past. If they were more focused on the future, the press could spend more time speculating on the Democrat's upcoming sex scandals rather than their prior affairs.

"short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived ..."

Is this guy kidding? He's the one creating the perception! Therefore he is actually criticizing himself and not the Dems at all.

"What a maroon."

George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart's 'The Man Who Came to Dinner' is a masterpiece.

Maybe James is a nephew, given Alexander's rather ambiguous sexuality (It wasn't know that he had any.), but related? Yeah.

Flaming leftie radical Heywood Bruen's (I'm iffy on that spelling) kid becoming a sportswriter was a little strange, too.

Well, MsN,
The roundtable icon that Vanity Fair used gives new meaning to it considering James' family. Thanks for the info. Learn something new everyday.

Learn something new everyday.
Posted by: Apollo 13

I'm devoted to the LL principle, too. Lifelong learner.

But each said they opposed setting a firm timetable on the war and sided with their Republican colleagues. "My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins said in a statement issued after the vote.

Opposition to a firm timetable for withdrawal is the very definition of open-ended.

Why is it that the president and his supporters like Collins continually lie to the American people by first proclaiming that our commitment isn't open-ended followed by a demand that the American people support an open-ended commitment?

"When we win" doesn't render the commitment not open-ended, no matter how many times conservatives lie to the American people by trying to redefine the term "open-ended."

…I am not here to "learn" or "grow" ...Norman Rogers at 1:52 PM

MsN: Lifelong learner.

Avid student here, too.

Here is the questions the president and every single war supporter must be asked:

Will you guarantee victory in Iraq if the president's "plan" is funded?

If so, what do you mean by "victory?"

If you guarantee victory, then when will that victory occur?

If you say we are committed until victory occurs and you can't tell us when victory will occur, are you not asking the American people for an open-ended commitment to the war in Iraq?

If you are asking for an open-ended commitment to the war, why are you and the president lying to the American people by proclaiming that America's commitment is not open-ended?

No need to state the obvious aside from the pathetic need to be a waste of bandwidth

Pardon me for being a complete person.

Gregory,

Fair enough, but why would he do that? Is he secretly a conservative? Bribed? I'm going for more of an Occam's razor kind of explanation myself.

AH: "...this obsession with Karl Rove is a bit unhealthy".

AH, Germany, 1944: "Pay no attention to the Nazis behind the curtain. This is Total War! Can´t we change the subject to something that doesn't effect 100% of the people?"

Rick is only concerned with the past if it involves sexual acts between two consenting adults; and in that case only if at least one of the adults is a democratic politician.

I'm waiting for the weekly coverage of Gingrich's and Rudy's three mariages and how Newt divorced his first wife when she had cancer..., but that would be bad for the Dems...

MsN,

Believe you were referring to Heyward Hale Broun, the sportswriter - Check out his speech at The Coffee House Club (www.coffeehouseclub.com). In addition, peruse the membership over the years. Heyward Broun was also a member - Did not see Wolcott's name.

Fair enough, but why would he do that? Is he secretly a conservative? Bribed? I'm going for more of an Occam's razor kind of explanation myself.

Why? Who cares why? I don't give a toss whether he has internalized GOP talking points so well he can recite them in his sleep, refresh-monkeys Drudge the way "Charlie" and his sock puppets used to obsess over Kevin's blog, believes in the myth of the "liberal media" and feels a need to act against type, is a squishy, wimpy, DLC/accomodationist milquetoast liberal, thinks voicing such opinions is the only way to achieve prominent spots in the media, is repeating insider cocktail party chatter, or is simply an idiot.

(Note, by the by, how similar those reasons really are...)

The point is, anyone who voices such an asinine -- and plainly incorrect -- opinion in a public forum is not to be trusted as managing editor of Time.

Unless, of course, Time wants a GOP-talking-point-spouting idiot running things. After all, that approached worked for the GOP until recently. I think there's your Occam's razor moment.

Parody me for being a complete person.

Rick Stengel, concern troll.

Can't say I've ever heard of him.

Pardon me… Norman

MsN: Lifelong learner. Apollo 13 Avid student here, too.

Two points: Stengel is simply showing his complete lack of empathy with U.S. citizens. He apparently moves in a social set that is so circumscribed that he may not even notice he is not an "average citizen". He obviously makes no attempt to expand his circle of acquaintances or he wouldn't be spouting such crap.
Secondly; this 'Norman Bates' entity - he really should brush up on his trolling skills. Or start back on his meds; he is neither amusing nor inflammatory, merely a waste.

he really should brush up on his trolling skills. Or start back on his meds; he is neither amusing nor inflammatory, merely a waste

You should brush your teeth. I can smell your deranged, halitosis-ridden liberal breath from way, way over here in the beautiful Northeast.

"Except that this scandal only broke open eight weeks ago."

During the Clinton years Rick Stengel, the rest of the MSM and the GOP obsessed over events from decades ago like Whitewater and conducted massive witchunts.

Fair enough?

The situation he created, and the attempts at explaining, wierdly, and the content of the statement itself-- all of it is the opposite of fair. It is a cowardly, disturnbing evasion. Hardly fair enough.

He was caught speaking out alright-- totally unappropriate comments revealing his strong bias- and he just plain split in two!
He apparently has two mental modes-- citizen, and of course, the high performance type chosen by a huge media corporation to head their flagship magazine ( uhh-- they hired only the second one.

But of course, you wrote this post in the past! So I mustn't focus on it. Now let everyone out of prison-- let's not focus of the past-- or even common sense let's say-- make it real simple.

When is everyone going to stop trying to explain the non-existent reasonableness of conservatives, and their pet media? This overall deal is all about taxation, the debt, and most of all, the fiscal train wreck theory, which has tragically been fully implemented. It will soon arrive. You see, the theives know its coming, hence they are in a rather full panic (observed in the form of an ENDLESS series of absurd, unexplainable, faulty, basically worthless media content completely filling all the networks, newpapers, etc.