• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Petty moves from a petty man.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

T R E 4 5 O N

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Anne Laurie is a fucking hero in so many ways. ~ Betty Cracker

Innocent people do not delay justice.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / The Scandal That Wasn’t

The Scandal That Wasn’t

by Tim F|  November 29, 200610:01 am| 127 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Until now I have passed on the apparently scintillating question of who Nancy Pelosi would pick to chair the Defense Committee for two reasons. First, the idea that she could only pick Jane Harman or Alcee Hastings seemed silly. Second, I don’t understand getting worked up about something that Pelosi hasn’t done yet. Well, I guess I was right. Alcee Hastings won’t be picked for reasons that should be obvious to everybody and, via two excellent posts by Glenn Greenwald, Jane Harman has already met the post’s limit of four terms.

Look at it this way – the GOP’s work output demonstrates that they never liked the act of governing very much. Despite their rhetoric about the “party of no” and whatnot, Republicans really thrive on ginned-up scandals and phony outrage. Those slow or new enough to disagree can kindly revisit how many hours of testimony the Republican Congress spent determining whether the Clinton White House used its Christmas card list for fundraising. FOX News, the Goldberg clan, Drudge and most of our luminaries in the rightwing New Media made their name by throwing a three-year epileptic fit over a blowjob in the Oval Office. Casting wild aspersions at powerful Democrats is their comfort zone.

With Democrats back in the driver’s seat the GOP and its trained pets will get back to doing what they do best. This fabricated flap over the Defense Committee seat will be only the first of many, many, many Drudge-fueled scandals that amount to less than nothing once the smoke grenades have run out of fuel. I guess one could ask whether the clenis years taught the major news outlets anything about playing the sap, if one wanted to get a reputation for not paying attention. In reality the stupidity hasn’t even warmed up yet.

Postscript: Those scandals which don’t amount to nothing, e.g. which have some meat on their bones, will and should be taken seriously. For example William Jefferson, who bloggers across the lib spectrum are working their ass off to unseat. But count on acres and acres of flak for every one that matters.

***

In other news the pace has picked up here in the salt mines of my academic research lab, which will probably cut into my time to troll the internet for good material and blog it. In the meantime I recommend giving John the usual hard time as well as Steve Benen’s excellent work at the Carpetbagger Report. More than anyone else I usually check there before fleshing out a post because odds are that Steve already has it up. Thus my posts tend to have a lot of Carpetbagger links. I don’t know to what degree his commenters have caught on to our trademarked brand of spoofing (something in the water around here?) but try not to drive them too crazy.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: The Christianist Debate »

Reader Interactions

127Comments

  1. 1.

    Ted

    November 29, 2006 at 10:11 am

    “throwing a three-year epileptic fit over a blowjob in the Oval Office.”

    If I were an epileptic, I’d find this comparison offensive, as anyone should find it offensive to be compared to Drudge and Fox News.

  2. 2.

    Zifnab

    November 29, 2006 at 10:19 am

    I guess one could ask whether the clenis years taught the major news outlets anything about playing the sap, if one wanted to get a reputation for not paying attention. In reality the stupidity hasn’t even warmed up yet.

    Are you kidding? The news media is bankrolled on Clenis. The 24-hour news media absolutely loves the Republicans because they’re constantly digging up inane tidbits of information that look great when set against a big red bar under Wolf Blitzer’s giant fuzzy white head. I mean, the Christmas Card thing was a bit slow. You really need a good set of graphics to sell that. But blowjobs in the Oval Office? You can’t buy that kind of press (unless you pay someone to kidnap a pretty little white girl in the Carribean).

    The only lesson TV has learned from all this is that ‘Pubs pay the bills in the off-season.

  3. 3.

    demimondian

    November 29, 2006 at 11:15 am

    By the way, speaking of spoof, Tim, I loved the “I love me” category. I’m sure that pie — whoever he or she is — will, too.

  4. 4.

    Teak111

    November 29, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Could not agree more, Tim. Balance is restored. The GOP noise machine gets back to what it does best, like pigs in slop. Instead of boot licking its own, it can now savage the opposition party with the abandon not seen since the blue dress and Ken Star. Bring em all back. Secretly, I’m sure Rush and FOX are are sporting major wood now that the GOP is out of power in Congress. I think Rush has as much admitted this on the air, no? Something about carrying water… Of course, the coup de grace would be a democratic president in two years left to untangle eight years of GOP FUBAR. The poor shcleb, he roue the day he ever though about being president. Now THAT would increase audience share…Its amazing what this country will impeach a guy for.

  5. 5.

    Downpuppy

    November 29, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Intelligence Committee, not Defense
    Not that it matters.

  6. 6.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 11:30 am

    Well the fact that hastings is even in the senate, MUCH LESS was being considered for intel chairman is a joke and a mar right out of the gate on the ‘most ethical senate ever’ Pelosi intends to run.

    That said, are there any records of Pelosi actually suggesting that Hastings was being considered? All I can find is media reports of ‘promises’ et al, but no actual quotes of her saying such.

  7. 7.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 11:38 am

    If I were an epileptic, I’d find this comparison offensive, as anyone should find it offensive to be compared to Drudge and Fox News.

    Clearly this proves Tim F hates epileptic soldiers.

  8. 8.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 11:40 am

    Good one, Buddy.

  9. 9.

    Andrew

    November 29, 2006 at 11:43 am

    If I were an epileptic, I’d find this comparison offensive, as anyone should find it offensive to be compared to Drudge and Fox News.

    If I were a blowjob, I’d find this comparison offensive.

  10. 10.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 11:49 am

    are there any records of Pelosi actually suggesting that Hastings was being considered?

    No. Or at least, no one that I’ve seen who has advanced this theory could provide one. But for the moment, I’ll just stick with “No”, maybe it’ll encourage them to do some actual research for once. (Ha!)

  11. 11.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 11:50 am

    To be honest, I’m not a Pelosi fan, much the opposite. But the fact is this seems to be a media snowjob in the same vein as ‘Bush dumb, Bush stupid’ except now Pelosi is the target.

  12. 12.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Pelosi did vote to impeach Hastings way back in the day, for what that’s worth. Byron York, not a Pelosi backer by any stretch, wrote an article which more or less rules out the possibility that Pelosi tipped her hand in advance.

    The idea that Pelosi is backing Hastings seems to have come entirely from Harman backers.

    On the other hand, Time did write “Her preferred nominee has long been Hastings” although they cited an anonymous Democratic aide.

  13. 13.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    Well the fact that hastings is even in the senate, MUCH LESS was being considered for intel chairman is a joke and a mar right out of the gate on the ‘most ethical senate ever’ Pelosi intends to run.

    Cluebat: Pelosi is Speaker of the House

    That said, are there any records of Pelosi actually suggesting that Hastings was being considered? All I can find is media reports of ‘promises’ et al, but no actual quotes of her saying such.

    Well, obviously that’s the right question to be asking.

    Now who do you think would have benefited by presenting these rumors?

  14. 14.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    To be honest, I’m not a Pelosi fan, much the opposite. But the fact is this seems to be a media snowjob in the same vein as ‘Bush dumb, Bush stupid’ except now Pelosi is the target.

    I’m not sure I see the comparison with Bush Dumb.

    The reason people consider Bush to be Dumb is because he sounds like a fucking moron when he speaks. There’s no snowjob there, it’s a point of view most Americans have come to after listening to the fucking idiot for years.

    Some people considered it charming. Much like how the anti-intellectual Khmer Rouge in Cambodia favored Pol Pot because he had done poorly in school.

  15. 15.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Cluebat: Pelosi is Speaker of the House

    It’s like you’ve never even read this blog before.

  16. 16.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Re: senate, duh, was working on something else related to the senate and brainfarted, no ‘cluebat’ needed. I think most people got my point.

    Point is, the media (and the far left) have pushed the ‘Bush dumb’ routine. There is a chasm of difference between ‘Bush is a clumsy speaker’ (many very bright people are) and ‘bush is a fucking idiot.’ Anyone who can fly jet warplanes without ending up in a pile of rubble and gets elected President of the USA can’t be that stupid, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

  17. 17.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    Also, the media doesn’t really go out of their way to push the ‘Bush dumb’ story–quite the opposite, really, although he gives them tons of material. Like this quip:

    “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — George W. Bush, 8/05/2004

    Now if Pelosi had said that, we would have had a story.

  18. 18.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    Anyone who can fly jet warplanes without ending up in a pile of rubble

    Why do you think Bush had to leave the Texas Air National Guard… Then again, if you believe that “the media […] have pushed the ‘Bush dumb’ routine”, you’ll believe anything. By and large, what they’ve practiced hasn’t been journalism for a long time, but stenography, with much of it coming directly from the White House.

  19. 19.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    Because the F102 program was being phased out and Bush found out about it from Daddy and decided it wasn’t worth his time anymore?

  20. 20.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    I think Bush is what one would call “stupid like a fox.” When it comes to preserving his own hide, he’s pretty damn smart. But overall, can we call him an intelligent man? The clumsy speaking could happen to anybody, but has he not also admitted to the fact that he really doesn’t read much? And then there’s his gross ignorance regarding the underpinnings of Middle Eastern conflict. I think, when you take all those things together, you really can’t call him an intelligent fellow.

  21. 21.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    No, I would call him intelligent, especially in regard to things he puts his mind to. He seems more of a slacker than a stupid person, to me. To me there is a difference between ‘ignorance’ and ‘intellectually non-curious’. I’d admit he is the second, to some extent.

  22. 22.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    P.S. while Ive heard the ‘doesnt read much’ quip, much like the Pelosi ‘I’m gonna appoint Hastings’ Ive never seen an actual quote that backed it up.

  23. 23.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    intellectually non-curious’

    It all depends on one’s viewpoint, I suppose. Personally, I think it’s very unintelligent (and a little frightening, frankly) of an aspiring world leader to be intellectually non-curious.

  24. 24.

    Jon H

    November 29, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    “When it comes to preserving his own hide, he’s pretty damn smart. ”

    The kind of smart that requires powerful connections and an Important Name in order to function.

    If Bush were just ‘some guy’, he’d run into dead ends all the time.

    If he were some jerk on Judge Judy, she’d tear him a new one and he’d lose the case.

  25. 25.

    demimondian

    November 29, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    No — at this point, there’s really very little reason to doubt that he is genuinely not very smart. Of course, he suffers by comparison to his predecessor, who was genuinely brilliant, and by the other lights of the Republican Right (e.g. Gingrich). Whether GWB was once bright, and the evidence suggests that he once was, he clearly no longer is.

  26. 26.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    Bush, in fact, does not read his President’s Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. … “I know he doesn’t read,” one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this.

    I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.

    — George W. Bush, September 22, 2003

  27. 27.

    Paul L.

    November 29, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    The Bush Cult? Try The Cult of Greenwald

    The Other Steve is the Senate part of Congress?
    MS. PELOSI & MR. PAYOFF

    “Democrats intend to lead the most open, the most honest and the most ethical Congress in history”

  28. 28.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    This is in context of Briefings or stories, however. I don’t think you can extrapolate that any further. The hold no more weight to me than a ‘democratic staffer saying Pelosi was considering Hastings for Intel Chair’.

  29. 29.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    This is in context of Briefings or news papers, however. I don’t think you can extrapolate that any further. They hold no more weight to me than a ‘democratic staffer saying Pelosi was considering Hastings for Intel Chair’.

  30. 30.

    Paul L.

    November 29, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Or if you do not believe the Or if you do not believe the New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch).
    “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi said yesterday..

  31. 31.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    I dont read newspapers either. I mostly glance at the headlines to get a hint of whats moving. Presumably I’m a flaming, idiotic, unintellectual moron, too.

    Perhaps Bush is an auditory learner? Personally I can’t get jack out of someone else reading to me, but some people get more out of it that way than reading. To an auditory learner the written language doesn’t really ‘connect’ till it is heard out loud.

  32. 32.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Regarding Bush’s intellectual curiosity / desire to read, there’s always this interview:

    HUME: How do you get your news?

    BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you’ve got a beautiful face and everything.

    I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

    HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you’ve…

    BUSH: Practice since day one.

    HUME: Really?

    BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news. And I…

    HUME: I won’t disagree with that, sir.

    BUSH: I appreciate people’s opinions, but I’m more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.

    He glances at the headlines. No wonder the editors write the headlines, and not the journalists. I also wonder what he watches on TV–he obviously doesn’t watch much news, or he’d know by now that it isn’t the imaginary 24/7 ‘look at the violence in Iraq on the TV’ network that he has talked about so much lately…

  33. 33.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    I dont read newspapers either. I mostly glance at the headlines to get a hint of whats moving.

    I don’t read newspapers at all–in print. But if someone asked me “How do you get your news?”, I’d answer “mostly online”, which is where I’d be reading the stories from the newspapers as well. Do you just glance at the headlines on those, too? Because as I mentioned before, the journalists don’t even write the headlines, generally–you might as well try to tell a book by its cover.

    Presumably I’m a flaming, idiotic, unintellectual moron, too.

    Well, perhaps not for that reason, but if the shoe fits… You at least seem quite gullible or at least ‘not intellectually curious’ when it comes to examining George W. Bush, so maybe that apparent blind spot extends to other areas as well.

  34. 34.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,’’ Pelosi said yesterday..

    Well, we’ll see. I’m skeptical of the honesty, openness, and ethics of pretty much every politician out there. I just hope that Democratic voters/pundits/bloggers/etc. will hold the Congress to a high standard, and not be guilty of what was so egregious in the right-wing: forgiving anything in the name of blind partisanship.

  35. 35.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Well the point is he glances at the headlines, but gets his news from what he feels are objective ‘boots on the ground’ sources. Whether we feel that the sources are really ‘boots on the ground’ or ‘objective’ is not really relevant, the fact is that he feels a certain source of news is more trustworthy than another, and instead of reading newspapers, he gets his info from that source.

    Therefore, because he doesn’t read newspapers, and he has his Daily briefings audibly read to him, we can extrapolate that he is an unread moron? That dog don’t hunt. Non sequitur.

  36. 36.

    Jay

    November 29, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Something about carrying water…

    In Rush’s case the appropriate verb is “retaining.”

    Regarding the liberal/conservative (pick one depending on personal preference) media making mountains out of mole-hills, is it any surprise? Writing about plain old politics in a way that will hold the reader’s interest requires a lot of time and skill. It is much easier to stick a multi-column headline (PELOSI IN COMMITTEE RUCKUS) over a bunch of quotes by un-named sources, throw in some analysis and send it off to the copy editor (if this animal still exists).

    I wonder if there is a certain gloom in newsrooms around the country. “Aww man, now we have to work!”

  37. 37.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    I dont read newspapers either. I mostly glance at the headlines to get a hint of whats moving. Presumably I’m a flaming, idiotic, unintellectual moron, too.

    Not necessarily. But if you were the leader of the world’s lone remaining superpower, then yes, you would be a flaming moron if you had no intellectual curiousity and didn’t analyze both domestic and international news.

    He’s the president of the fricking United States of America. He’s supposed to be held to a higher intellectual standard than your average Joe.

    It really boggles the mind to realize that there are many voters out there who do not want their president to be at all intellectual. If he or she is going to handle the challenges and difficulties of running your country, shouldn’t they be as mentally equipped to handle it as possible?

    But, I guess the fact that he’s someone you’d want to share a beer with is more important.

    Jim Belushi in 2008!

  38. 38.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Krista: I feel the same. Corruption is not a one party issue.

    Frankly it seems to me that anyone who is willing and able to get themselves elected for national office should be disqualified from the job :-P

    I don’t trust either party and nor do I trust GWB, for that matter. But neither am I ‘gullible’ in not being intellectually non-curious in respect to Bush — I just find all the so called ‘intellectual’ arguments vis a vis ‘Bush Dumb’ to be wanting. He is linguistically incompetent. There are, however, many sides to intelligence, and linguist intelligence is one small facet of the subject. Not wanting to read the national media news sources proves zero about the intelligence of Bush other than he suspects (by his own admission) the national media of inserting too much opinion in the news. Pb: I’ll ignore your feeble attempt at Ad Hominem. It’s not worth responding to.

  39. 39.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Krista: you missed my point. He doesn’t read the national media because he gets his news from (supposedly) more trusted sources, ‘boots on the ground’ reports and more direct channels. You can argue that it is not smart to at least browse the news (which he said he does) but not that he is disinterested in the news.

  40. 40.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    rephrase “You can argue that it is not smart to at least browse the national media (which he said he does) but not that he is disinterested in the news.

  41. 41.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    He started a land war in Asia, what more do you need?

  42. 42.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Krista: Again, I don’t see how being disinterested in the national media has any reflection on the mental capacity of a person, especially if you have other sources of news (that presumably the president of the united states of america does). Would it hurt to browse the national media? No. Evidently thats pretty much what he does, though.

  43. 43.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Jay: good point. It is much easier to create some big bunch of crap (read: opinion) around some gaff some important person made, than it is to critically examine and write about real issues in a critically non-biased manner. You’ve heard the story about opinions and assholes…

  44. 44.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    There is a chasm of difference between ‘Bush is a clumsy speaker’ (many very bright people are) and ‘bush is a fucking idiot.’

    “You’re doing a heck of job, Brownie!”

    Bush not only talks dumb, he *IS* dumb.

    1 veto in 6 years…on STEM CELLS.

    Most people can at least average being 50% right, so far Bush has never been right on anything that matters. A dead pony would have been more effective in the Whitehouse.

  45. 45.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you’ve got a beautiful face and everything.

    I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.

    Now to me, this is yet more evidence of him not being particularly bright. He does not read the papers because there might be opinion mixed in, and yet trusts everything that is spoon-fed to him by his two loyal staffers, while assuming that they have “probably” read the news themselves.

    I don’t know, perhaps I am being too hard on him, as I do have a visceral dislike for the man. But in my opinion, if it is one’s job to run the country, then it probably helps your decision-making abilities if you get your information about world events from multiple sources. Cripes, even if he doesn’t have time to actually read all the papers, could at least read the top stories, instead of “glancing” at the headlines, which as we all know, are written for effect, and don’t always reflect the true content of the story.

  46. 46.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    To recap, a C student who refuses to read newspapers or even memos can be presumed to be a voracious reader? What more evidence do you need? “Well he said he hates to read books, but what about photocopies? I bet he likes to read photocopies a lot.”

    Wait, what am I doing? Have I ever even read this blog before?

  47. 47.

    Jon H

    November 29, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    I hope Pelosi goes with Rush Holt to head the Intel panel. The man’s a physicist, used to run the Princeton Plasma Physics lab, and used to work on WMD-related issues.

    Seems like you could hardly ask for a more qualified person.

  48. 48.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Buddy,

    Well the point is he glances at the headlines, but gets his news from what he feels are objective ‘boots on the ground’ sources.

    Except, of course, that he doesn’t. Andy and Condi are not “objective ‘boots on the ground’ sources” by any definition, unless by “ground” you mean “on the White House grounds”. But this has always been Bush’s management style–he listens to the opinions of his staff, and then he makes a decision, usually in short order. He also values loyalty (to him) highly, so his staff ends up telling him what he wants to hear if they want to get listened to or promoted.

    The really dumb thing here, of course, is that he’s in a self-imposed bubble because he specifically doesn’t listen to many, many other people who might disagree with him and don’t have a motive to suck up to him–and if he actually knew a damned thing about Lincoln, then he’d know how foolish and harmful that really is.

    And really, Buddy, how can you ascertain how much opinion is in the news without actually reading it in the first place, and assessing it for yourself? Bush doesn’t do either one, of course, he just knows it’s there–I suppose when you’re making decisions, it’s a lot quicker to reach a conclusion if you just bypass the entire reasoning process!

  49. 49.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    This argument is lost on people who presume anyone who is not a visual learner is a retard, I guess.

    Bush, a C student, at Yale — just like his buddy John Kerry, who is considered a ‘serious intellectual’. Both of them got in cuz of family connections, likely, and not their own acumen, but I digress, and this conversation has drifted off course…

  50. 50.

    cleek

    November 29, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    just like his buddy John Kerry, who is considered a ‘serious intellectual’

    by who? (other than Kerry himself, of course)

  51. 51.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    This argument is lost on people who presume anyone who is not a visual learner is a retard, I guess.

    And who would these imaginary people be? Look, the question wasn’t “do you read the papers”, the question was, “how do you get your news”. If he’s not a ‘visual learner’ (do you have any evidence that he’s not, by the way?) then he could have said “I listen to the news on the radio”, or “I hear it on the TV”, or any of a number of things. Instead, he glances at the headlines and trusts in his staff, who ‘probably’ read the papers.

    Oh, and nice job bringing John Kerry into this–maybe the people who actually do read or listen to the news a lot (or maybe even think about it too!) actually learn something over time:

    Instead of gathering information himself, Bush said he prefers to “get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves” and “people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.”

    Kerry shook his head in disagreement as Bush’s comments were recounted to him.

    “I can’t imagine being president and not reading as much as I can about what people are saying,” explained Kerry. “I don’t want (information) varnished by staff. I don’t want it filtered by staff. I want it the way it is. And I think you get a much better sense of what’s going in the country (when you gather information yourself). I think one of the reasons we have some problems today is that we have an administration that’s out of touch with the problems of average people. They don’t know how people are struggling. They don’t know what’s happening with health care, employment. They don’t know, or they don’t care, that’s their choice.”

  52. 52.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    I don’t give a fig if Bush learns best via reading, listening, touching, smelling, or via interpretive dance. The point is, he puts too much blind trust in one or two advisors, instead of accessing other viewpoints. It’s been reported by people who work with the man that he refuses to listen to anything that contradicts his existing mindset. And for a president, that is very, very stupid behaviour.

  53. 53.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    I thought you were asking for people to back up the assertion that Bush ‘doesn’t read much’ since you thought it was just a rumor. Now you say it’s meaningless that he doesn’t read much. Why did you even ask?

  54. 54.

    nongeophysical Dennis

    November 29, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Bush, a C student, at Yale—just like his buddy John Kerry, who is considered a ‘serious intellectual’. Both of them got in cuz of family connections, likely, and not their own acumen

    Is this a slightly new twist on the ol’ “It’d be worse if Kerry were president”-type of argument?

    Nice try, but the possibility that Kerry might also be dumb in no way makes Bush any more or less intellignet.

    Professing to not read isn’t a good sign for Mr. Bush, but I’d say the truly damning evidence of his (lack of) intelligence is the way he has been objectively wrong on every position he has taken–or are we gonna quibble on the difference between “intelligence” and a truly atrocious decisionmaker?

  55. 55.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    And Buddy still fails to explain how Bush’s actions do not show he’s a complete moron and waste of oxygen.

    Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, War on Terror, No Child Left Behind, Clean Skies Act, Healthy Forest Initiative, Veto on Stem Cell Research which was the only one he ever made in six years…at what point will you acknowledge he’s always been wrong, always is wrong and will certainly always be wrong?

  56. 56.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    Well the evidence points that he is an auditory learner. Can’t say for certain, but he likes auditory reports instead of written reports, and that is a key pointer. Fact is he listens to others tell or read him the news. We have no idea how ‘limited’ the number of people that do that are, again, assumptions are being made that it is ‘one or two’. Two were named, but thats not exclusive necessarily of others, nor other sources of news in the office of the president. Frankly I think the media think too much of themselves anyway, much of it is crap.

    Would it hurt to read the national media? Probably not, as an alternative take on the situation, but it does appear he scans the headlines and maybe reads a few things that interest him (or more likely asks someone to fill him in on it, it seems). Does he have other sources of info that are as accurate as the ‘national media’. Who knows. The idea that the whitehouse has to rely on the national media for information seems a bit silly, to me, though. Actually this whole discussion has digressed into absurdity.

  57. 57.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Intelligence, according to Sternberg, is defined as “the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context”. By that definition, George W. Bush may well be our dumbest President yet.

  58. 58.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Good lord guys, for the record I don’t even like Bush. He’s created more federal government in the last 6 years than the last two presidents combined. I just find it disingenuous to take one quote about him not reading the News and extrapolating that into him being an unread idiot. Being wrong does not make you an idiot, it just makes you wrong. And saying every policy bush has undertaken has been a failure is wrong, too. The economy seems to be doing pretty damn good, as much as nobody wants to admit it. Though that is one of the only bright spots on the whole menu..

  59. 59.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Actually, by Steinbergs definition, since Bush has become POTUS, he must be highly intelligent, since his definition basically hinges on achievement. If we consider achieving the office of POTUS as being one of the highest callings a politician can achieve…. well there we are, Bush is brilliant. Heh. That definition is so wide open a whale could swim through it and be Einstein.

  60. 60.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Frankly I think the media think too much of themselves anyway, much of it is crap.

    It’s often better than nothing, but I agree, as does Sturgeon’s Law. Anyhow, this is why I also seek out blogs and primary sources, and look at who’s saying what where, how stories are disseminated, etc.

    The idea that the whitehouse has to rely on the national media for information seems a bit silly, to me, though.

    Except when they do. See: Hurricane Katrina, and the Dubai Ports Deal — in the first case, they had to rely on the national media for information, and in fact finally did so too late–as Bush was busy doing PR events (eating cake, playing guitar, etc.) around the country, Cheney was busy going mansion shopping, and Condi was living it up in NYC–and in the second case, they found out that it was an issue because some staff member in the White House was listening to Michael Savage (of all people) on the radio.

  61. 61.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    Buddy,

    The economy seems to be doing pretty damn good

    For whom? These past six years have been horrible. Try adjusting the Dow for inflation sometime, or look at wages, debt and interest rates, the real estate market, etc.

    since his definition basically hinges on achievement

    It’s the Peter Principle at work–Bush is a smart campaigner, but a dumb President.

  62. 62.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Pb: which brings us round circle, and the reason I (and I think Bush) have a reason to distrust the national media in re the Pelosi ‘is going to appoint hastings’. It was all conjecture, it seems, unless someone can prove otherwise.

  63. 63.

    Jon H

    November 29, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    Buddy writes: “Bush, a C student, at Yale—just like his buddy John Kerry, who is considered a ‘serious intellectual’. Both of them got in cuz of family connections, likely, and not their own acumen, but I digress, and this conversation has drifted off course…”

    I’m guessing Kerry was not working up to his full potential, wheras Bush was. And while I’m not sure what connections Kerry had to get into Yale, I’m sure they weren’t as good as Bush’s connections. Bush’s were probably good enough to get his grades artificially boosted so that F’s became C’s. I doubt Kerry had that kind of pull.

  64. 64.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Inflation has been falling, and was mostly due to fuel prices. Wages have been doing OK, Debt is high, but not as a percentage of GDP, the real estate market has been at historic highs, although it seems to be (thankfully) edging down a bit, and interest rates have been at historic lows. I’m in a lower middle class, single worker family making lower-mid 5 digit salary with 4 kids and a brand new house mortgage. I’m doing quite ok, financially. When I hear stories of these people making $70k / year with 1.5 kids ‘barely scraping by’ I call bullshit. Sorry. The economy is doing fine, by any normal indicator.

  65. 65.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    Jon H: Surly you jest about the Kerry no connections jive? I mean, really.

  66. 66.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    Buddy,

    The thing is, I knew the “Pelosi ‘is going to appoint hastings’” was BS, and I didn’t have to look into it that much, either. All Pelosi actually said was this:

    BLITZER: What about the Intelligence Committee?

    PELOSI: What about it?

    BLITZER: Do you Jane Harman would be the appropriate chair; Alcee Hastings would be the appropriate chairman.

    PELOSI: What you have to understand about the Intelligence Committee is the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, on the first day of Congress, appoint a whole new Intelligence Committee each term. Sometimes they reappoint the same people. Sometimes they don’t, but there is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee.

    Also, most of the fluff in the news about this was played out over the Opinion columns, painting this as a potential choice between Harman and Hastings that Pelosi would probably have to make lest she upset the CBC. Solution? Don’t just assume that the hacks in the opinion columns know what they’re talking about. Hey, it’s labeled ‘opinion’ for a reason, right? :)

  67. 67.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Being wrong does not make you an idiot, it just makes you wrong.

    Being *consistantly* wrong 24/7 is a good indication of being an idiot. Wrong to the point of denying reality in front of your eyes understates Bush’s stupidty.

    The Economy is a bright spot? Only if you were rich to begin with. Rising Inflation + Stagnant Wages + Limping Job Market (When did under 150,000 a month become good?) = Not a Good Economy.

  68. 68.

    CaseyL

    November 29, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    Hey, it’s great to see an unabashed Bush defender in here.

    You’d think, what with even the MSM having to call what’s going on in Iraq a “civil war,” and Bush saying that he doesn’t ‘believe’ that, and word coming out that Bush has already decided to ignore Jim Baker’s ISG recommendations in favor of his own revival of “Stay the Course; No End but VICTORY!!”…. you’d think it’d be hard to find someone who wants to defend Bush’s intellectual capacity.

    Go ahead, Buddy. Tell us how Bush is really quite bright, since he has the same tastes in infotainment that you do.

  69. 69.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Buddy,

    Inflation has been falling, and was mostly due to fuel prices.

    Not reporting the M3 money supply numbers probably doesn’t hurt either. But I suppose that trick will only work for so long, as Bernanke has said that inflation is uncomfortably high–it sounds like he’s worried about the housing market too.

    Wages have been doing OK

    Again, for whom–they’ve been pretty stagnant for most people.

    Debt is high, but not as a percentage of GDP

    Debt as a percentage of GDP has been rising for the past four years, though, we certainly aren’t going to grow our way out of it. And the interest payments on the debt aren’t getting any smaller, which is what will really kill us.

    When I hear stories of these people making $70k / year with 1.5 kids ‘barely scraping by’ I call bullshit.

    Well, where do they live? That’s probably just cost of living at work.

  70. 70.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Point is, the media (and the far left) have pushed the ‘Bush dumb’ routine. There is a chasm of difference between ‘Bush is a clumsy speaker’ (many very bright people are) and ‘bush is a fucking idiot.’ Anyone who can fly jet warplanes without ending up in a pile of rubble and gets elected President of the USA can’t be that stupid, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

    I see no rational reason why you would claim the media has pushed a ‘Bush dumb’ routine, given that the media has hardly spent any time addressing his moronic speeches. Rather it’s been a Bush lovefest for the past six years with a reptition of him being a common man, want to have a beer with guy. Not once have they even questioned the wisdom of his moronic statements.

    I would suggest that instead you are responding to the fact that whenever Bush talks he sounds like a fucking idiot, and you are blaming the media for this because they air his speeches.

    I question the claim that he is intelligent, and simply a clumsy speaker given that in six years his speaking has gotten worse not better. Clinton became a better speaker over time. So has every other President. They learn, they are coached, they get better. But not Bush. Why?

  71. 71.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    Inflation has been falling, and was mostly due to fuel prices.

    I call shenanigans. In the real world, Inflation has gone up noticably on everyday things regular people buy. And it’s taking a nasty bite out of our buying power.

    Wages have been doing OK,

    I call shenanigans. Real wage buying power went DOWN after factoring the cost of inflation.

    Debt is high, but not as a percentage of GDP,

    And Debt as what people actually owe is getting out of control, trying to excuse it against GDP doesn’t cut it unless you’re trying to carry water for the idiots in charge. Debt has to be paid off, remember?

  72. 72.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Since Buddy is choosing to argue that by definition, anyone who’s the President is smart, I don’t know why anyone is still bothering. Then again, this is the same crowd that still loves to feed pie to Darrell.

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Inflation has been falling, and was mostly due to fuel prices. Wages have been doing OK, Debt is high, but not as a percentage of GDP, the real estate market has been at historic highs, although it seems to be (thankfully) edging down a bit, and interest rates have been at historic lows.

    Now let’s bring reality into the situation.

    Interest rates are edging up.

    Inflation has been at near historic highs.

    Wage growth has been stagnant, and negative when factored in next to inflation.

    Debt is high especially when factored against GDP.

    And the real estate market is tanking.

    Each of these has postivie and negative aspects. A tanking real estate market is good for a buyer, but a seller loses money. Higher interest is good for savers, but not for borrowers. High debt is bad for everyone. Wage growth… a high wage growth is bad if it’s tied to high inflation. But a low wage growth tied to high inflation is disasterous.

    I can see why you Republicans lost the election. You are afraid to face reality.

  74. 74.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    They learn, they are coached, they get better. But not Bush. Why?

    That’s the sad thing–Bush actually used to be a better speaker. Why, indeed.

  75. 75.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    neil,

    If you think that is the argument I was trying to make.. um, ok. I’ll not attempt to explain sarcasm to you.

  76. 76.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    Casey: If you think I’m an ‘unabashed bush defender’ I will suggest your reading comprehension needs some work.

  77. 77.

    Jay

    November 29, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    You’ve heard the story about opinions and assholes…

    Thus, the popularity of blogs. [/snark]

    I wonder if that’s part of what’s wrong with the liberal/conservative media: They’re trying to mimic blogs. “Here are some facts/conjectures, here’s my/an expert opinion on said facts/conjectures. Here’s a contradictory opinion of the same facts/conjectures thrown in for the sake of fairness.”
    Great for Balloon Juice and The Carpet Bagger Report; Absolute crap for news agencies. I do know blogs cause wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth among journalists but attempting to run a paper like a blog just doesn’t work. I don’t care what the reporter thinks. I don’t want the same sound bite that’s been rattling around CNN for days. I sort of care what the expert thinks, if expert opinion is appropriate to the subject. But hey, what about some facts? If you can’t get facts because government officials are stonewalling, write about that.

    I come to blogs like this because a good blog is often better at presenting the whole story than the press, and it doesn’t pretend that it’s anything other than what it is.

    Plus, we can give our opinions and arseholes an airing.

  78. 78.

    Krista

    November 29, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Plus, we can give our opinions and arseholes an airing

    Hot air, indeed….

  79. 79.

    neil

    November 29, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Maybe Casey just isn’t a visual learner.

  80. 80.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Inflation at historic highs? We are at 19% inflation (1948)? Nope, 10.6% (1974) Nope. 10% (1980) Nope. somewhere around 3-3.5% — a fairly average rate and most of it is in the oil indebtedness that we need to free ourselves from. If we could wean this country off its oil dependency, we’d be in much better shape.

    http://www.neatideas.com/info/inflation.htm
    https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2092.html

    Interest rates are edging up — from HISTORIC LOWs and are still fairly low by comparison to years past, and right in the same range as the ‘glory days’ of the clinton economy.

    Debt is high because people are over-borrowing. This could be caused by overspending (in the current economy, and from personal experience, this is my guess) or a number of other factors. For the record, we are nowhere near the 120% of GDP debt that we were in the ’40s. Not that debt is good, I think the federal government should get out of the debt business, but then I think think the fed should get the hell out of almost every aspect of our lives that it impinges on, and give those rights that were reserved for the states back to the states, where they are better decided and changed as the people see fit, instead of instituting it in some behemoth that seeks to control, tax, and regulate every aspect of our lives, but *shrug*. That’s just me.

    The real estate market isn’t ‘tanking’ but doing much as the tech market did in the late 90s: adjusting downward from some freaking ridiculous price increases in the last 3 or 4 years. I live in one of those silly housing markets, and am glad it’s going down, personally.

  81. 81.

    Zifnab

    November 29, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    That’s the sad thing—Bush actually used to be a better speaker. Why, indeed.

    Personally, I think Bush got picked up from a Governorship in which he was generally left alone and spoon-feed bunk by his neo-con friends. “Here, plan-spoken laid-back beer-guzzling Texas fool, sell these convoluted and ill-conceived plans to wage an ill-planned war, trash our education system, and bankrupt social security. What’s that? Nation’s going down the shitter and you can’t take the heat? Just… um… make something up for the next four years.” After being lead by the hand through the shithole the neo-cons have brought us to, I’d be a bit messed up too as a President.

  82. 82.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    Not sure you can pin the education bill on bush alone, seems uncle teddy was in on that one too, along with some others. Why the Fed is making rules about local education is beyond me, from the outset, though.

  83. 83.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    P.S. for the record education spending went up 56% since bush took office. Did a lot of good, there, too, I’m sure.

  84. 84.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    First, regarding inflation: there are the government numbers, and then there are other numbers–and breaking it all down can reveal a lot.

    Debt is high because people are over-borrowing. This could be caused by overspending (in the current economy, and from personal experience, this is my guess) or a number of other factors.

    See: stagnant wages…

    The real estate market isn’t ‘tanking’ but doing much as the tech market did in the late 90s

    Bursting the bubble, indeed.

  85. 85.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    Pb: even at 6% we are nowhere near ‘historic highs’.

    Sorry.

  86. 86.

    Tax Analyst

    November 29, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    Opinion – George Bush is an affable con man. He’s a well-heeled one; from a well-to-do and “respected” family, but he’s a con man just the same. He feeds whatever he perceives is your desire or need, or at least he does (well – “did”, I guess I should say) that for the folks he believes he can and needs to con. He does it very well. The “Religious Right”, for instance, turned out to be very handy for him. They ended up getting a whole lot of “word-play” from him and an inflated voice in National affairs, but not much in the way of substance (thankfully), although some of Bush’s judicial appointees that tend in that direction will be a long-term wild-card in that regard. Does that mean Bush is smart? Not necessarily, Does it mean Bush is dumb? Not necessarily either. It DOES mean he is crafty and generally amoral – not to be confused with immoral, although some of his actions certainly have been. I once worked for someone who turned out to be a con artist…he had an eight-grade education yet he charmed and cajoled folks some very intelligent and moneyed people into phoney investments. I worked for him for several months and was really glad to be out of there. A couple things I noticed in that time: Nobody dared tell him anything he didn’t want to hear (sound like anybody we’ve been talking about?), it was a good way to be out on your butt…and not get paid whatever wages or commissions were due you. Another thing was when things went wrong he always had someone else to blame and he always seemed to have at least a small kernel of truth in what he was saying. He “fired” his bookkeeper several times for “failing to write a check a told you to write”…and then hired the guy back a day later. His “kernel” of truth in that? He DID tell the guy to write the check…then when the client left the office told him to void it and tear it up. Well, Bush doesn’t have people tear up checks, but he has promoted issues, like ‘No Child Left Behind’ and then done nothing to get them funded…and I think that’s sort of like tearing up checks, at least in my book.

  87. 87.

    Richard 23

    November 29, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Well the evidence points that he is an auditory learner.

    Hahaha, what evidence, Bud?

    Can’t say for certain, but he likes auditory reports instead of written reports, and that is a key pointer.

    Oh, evidence. But you can’t say for certain. So your evidence has morphed into a key pointer. Nice job.

    …much of it is crap.

    Agreed. That’s why I edited it out.

    Would it hurt to read the national media? Probably not….

    Does he have other sources of info that are as accurate as the ‘national media’. Who knows.

    Who do you think you are? Donald Rumsfeld? Could be.

    Is answering your own questions annoying? You bet!

    Have you made your case that Bush isn’t a moron? No way!

    Welcome to Balloon-Juice!

  88. 88.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    Thats assuming Freebuck is reputable. I mean, for that matters, theres lies, damn lies, and then theres statistics. It’s all a bunch of crap anyway.

  89. 89.

    Bombadil

    November 29, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Not sure you can pin the education bill on bush alone, seems uncle teddy was in on that one too, along with some others. Why the Fed is making rules about local education is beyond me, from the outset, though.

    Ted Kennedy signed on for NCLB when it was a funded bill. After it was passed, the funding was cut by the Bush administration, making it the piece of shit that it is today.

  90. 90.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Not sure you can pin the education bill on bush alone, seems uncle teddy was in on that one too, along with some others.

    Bush backstabbed Kennedy on that one, oh ye of little memory.

  91. 91.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Richard: Hope you don’t ever take it in mind to be a teacher. Desiring to hear a lecture or report read is a key sign that one learns by an auditory means. I was just pointing out that the reason he likes hearing reports being read (instead of reading them himself) could be caused by him being an auditory learner instead of a flaming moron. I was not stating it as a fact, just a possibility. In the realm of logic, if there is are multiple possible explanations for something then you can’t assume that only one of them is valid. I wasn’t ‘proving’ that Bush was an auditory learner, nor did I set out to do so, nor was there any reason to do so. I realize they don’t teach logic in sk00l anymore these days, but really.

  92. 92.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Buddy says: It’s all a bunch of crap anyway.

    Buddy’s Personal Irony of the Day.

  93. 93.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    TenguPhule , et al

    A 50+% increase in education spending wasn’t enough?

  94. 94.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    P.S. for the record education spending went up 56% since bush took office. Did a lot of good, there, too, I’m sure.

    A fe million here for Bush family mandated educational sofrtware, A few million there for redundant testing….pretty soon we’re talking real money here.

  95. 95.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Buddy,

    even at 6% we are nowhere near ‘historic highs’.

    And I never said that we were–peddle your straw elsewhere.

  96. 96.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Buddy,

    A 50+% increase in education spending wasn’t enough?

    Not lately–while education costs are rising, in the last budget the Republicans seriously slashed scholarship funding. As usual, the devil is in the details–something you don’t get from just glancing at the headlines.

  97. 97.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Pb: nor did I say you did, but I should have clarified.

  98. 98.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Buddy,

    Thats assuming Freebuck is reputable.

    Or, you could run the numbers yourself…

    I mean, for that matters, theres lies, damn lies, and then theres statistics.

    Or not… (extra points to anyone who can properly attribute the origin of that quote!)

    It’s all a bunch of crap anyway.

    Anti-intellectualism accomplished!

  99. 99.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    Buddy,

    nor did I say you did

    Then to whom was that “Sorry” intended? It wouldn’t have been to me, except that you were only addressing me. Nice try at weaseling out of that one, but I’m not buying it.

  100. 100.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Darrell officially has a new Buddy.

  101. 101.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    Pb: so let the localities fund education better.

    Realistically that’s bollocks though, as we already spend more than alot of other nations that are doing much more with less money. Canada spends slightly more than we do, with similar result. India less, with much better results. If you believe the numbers (and I think these are as fair as any, probably: http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/images/edpercent.swf) The problem isn’t money (generally, in some areas it may be, but those are local issues, not federal ones) — it’s the thing we try to pass off as an educational system in this country these days, and most of those problems are being caused, IMO, directly because of the federal government and its imposition of rules on local governments (in collaboration with the NEA) in return for money.

    DoE needs to die, and the taxes reduced by the same amount amount, so localities can adjust their taxes AND educational methods accordingly. Heck federal spending on education only amounts to some 7% of the total anyway, but in return for that the fed gets way too much control – the localities have sold their soul for a bit of change. A one size fits all method of education sucks, but that’s what the NEA wants, so that’s what congress passes, and for some reason the localities buy into it.

  102. 102.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    Pb: depends on who you ask, some say twain, but it’s often attributed to a whole host of other dead people so who knows.

    P.S. I didn’t say you were, but you were defending the other point, so make up your mind which side of the argument you were on.

  103. 103.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    TenguPhule:

    Actually ive been around alot longer than darrell, I just usually refused to engage in arguments with mental giants such as yourself. I mean, you really got me with the darrell comment, I’m bleeding here. Sure sign of winning the argument, when all you can do is ad hom.

  104. 104.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Buddy,

    I agree with you, more or less, although if any aspect of education really should rise to the federal level, it should probably be college funding, in my opinion. But yes, it’d be nice if we could a) reduce the size of the DoE, b) cut out some / most of the restrictions on the states for what federal education money they would still get, and c) commensurately increase funding for education at the state level. And I think it’d also be nice if the tax base for education depended less on property taxes, or were distributed a bit more evenly. Also, I want a pony. But in the meantime…

  105. 105.

    demimondian

    November 29, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    I disagree TP — Buddy is less abusive than Darrell, not to mention a more creative truthiness source. Also, he seems generally cleverer and more rational than SCS.

  106. 106.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    Buddy,

    depends on who you ask, some say twain

    Twain is the common misattribution, but it’s definitely not Twain–he just quoted it (and cited it!) in his autobiography. Because as Mark Twain might have actually said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”.

    P.S. I didn’t say you were, but you were defending the other point, so make up your mind which side of the argument you were on.

    If I’m on a ‘side’, then I’m on my side–I wasn’t defending “the other point”, I was making a point of my own ‘regarding inflation’, i.e., that it’s probably a good idea to actually examine the numbers themselves, where they come from, and perhaps where they should come from.

  107. 107.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Pb: then perhaps we both should be slightly clearer in our points, and I should be less apt to jump to conclusions.

  108. 108.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    Buddy,

    Probably so. But if I don’t say something, then don’t even try to attribute it to me. FYI.

  109. 109.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I’d always heard ben disraeli, but then recently heard that was incorrect too, so honestly, without wikipedia I couldn’t tell you (and wikipedia is probably wrong, too so who knows :p)

  110. 110.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    Buddy,

    I’d always heard ben disraeli

    That’s close enough for me–points for Buddy!

    ‘Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”‘
    – Autobiography of Mark Twain

    Next… “Figures won’t lie, but liars will figure” :)

  111. 111.

    Jay

    November 29, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    Darrell officially has a new Buddy.

    There’s no way he’d be allowed into the Darrell/stupid cheney sucker/Paul L. coterie. He’s broken too many of their cardinal rules:
    1. Shun the basic rules of logic and debate like they’re made of plutonium.
    2. Providing proof to back up one’s assertions is a sign of weakness. Say many, many to make statements legit or cite other blogs.
    3. When people disagree with your statements, ignore them or call them names.
    4. When the people you’ve been driving up a wall tell you to get stuffed, whine because everyone is being mean.
    5. Death before apology!

  112. 112.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    Oh, and… the far too in-depth analysis of that quote origin… I figure, people misattribute the quote to Twain, but Twain clearly attributed the quote to Disraeli (or noted that others did), so that’s good enough for me. Anything past that is very murky, and it looks like it could have been in common usage (yet not recorded) for quite some time.

  113. 113.

    TenguPhule

    November 29, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    There’s no way he’d be allowed into the Darrell/stupid cheney sucker/Paul L. coterie. He’s broken too many of their cardinal rules

    You have me there. :P

    I apologize, Buddy.

  114. 114.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Pb: agreed on college level funding, because that is a sort of a different animal, and because there is alot of research that comes out of secondary education that is beneficial to the nation on the whole, so it makes sense to support those sorts of things. Maybe the ‘death knell to the DoE’ is a bit extreme. I think mostly local issues up to the localities (primarily at the state level in re: education) is a much better solution in relation to a behemoth national educational system. The fed rarely does anything correctly, so why the heck entrust education to them (plus it eliminates any hope of competition and/or innovation at the local level).

    One size fits all ‘testing’ while a nice idea, just doesn’t fit the real world. Some people don’t perform well on tests — they freeze and can’t perform, while others are good guessers and can breeze through a test in which they are otherwise factually deficit. Testing can be one facet of performance quantification, but there are other variables.

    Anyway, I’ve drawn this conversation off course several directions, so I’ll just stop here, and get back to my major initial point: The media is suspect in factualness. The pelosi/intel chairman crap was just one more pointer in that direction.

  115. 115.

    The Other Steve

    November 29, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Inflation at historic highs?

    I said near historic highs… as in near term… as in inflation is higher than it was for the past 20 years or so.

    I realize you prefer to argue strawmen, but again that’s why you guys lost the election. You kept trying to tell people who knew better “Nothing to see here, everything is fine”

  116. 116.

    Pb

    November 29, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    Buddy,

    Yeah, I’ve always been good at test-taking (on some kinds of tests at least), that’s definitely a separate skill that should be quantified as well; not having timed tests is one answer, although not an ideal one.

    And while I agree that ‘the media’ doesn’t always get it right, it’s also important to draw a bright line between the news coverage and the opinion coverage. A lot of the noise about Hastings was distinctly coming from the opinion side of things–that’s manifestly not news, it’s just a bunch of overpaid geese on the cocktail circuit squawking back and forth to each other.

    Also, it’s possible to more tightly quantify where all the noise was coming from, and possibly why as well–and Glenn Greenwald already did his usual exhaustive and stellar job of looking into all of that.

  117. 117.

    lard lad

    November 29, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    Darrell officially has a new Buddy.

    There’s no way he’d be allowed into the Darrell/stupid cheney sucker/Paul L. coterie. He’s broken too many of their cardinal rules:

    Let’s give credit where credit is due… many if not most of us might disagree with Buddy, but to lump him in with such braincell wasters as Darrell or scs seems rather mean-spirited and inaccurate, for reasons cited above by Jay.

    Buddy debates the issues instead of slinging invective, and he treats those who disagree with a modicum of respect — and that should be good enough for anyone here. I’m sure none of us wants to see BJ turn into a left-wing Red State.

    That said, I must disagree with Buddy on the issue of Bush’s intellect. It’s simply not enough to say “well, Bush is just a bad speaker,” and leave it at that.

    Harry Truman was a lousy public speaker as well, but his mind was sharp as a katana — he was always in command of his facts and knew how to convey ideas, rather than simply rattle off talking points. And this is precisely where Bush falls down. Especially when speaking without his Teleprompter, Bush’s statements are completely lacking in substance.

    His technique comes straight from Debate 101: when you know nothing about the topic to be debated, simply memorize three points connected with the issue, then steer straight to one of them when it’s your turn to speak, no matter what. This is how Bush can get through a press conference without actually answering a single question… and why he’ll employ the same buzzword or catchphrase five or six times during any given appearance. (Monday’s word: “foment.”) Seeing Bush bumble his way through his response to a reporter’s query is very much like paying to watch a tap dancer with a club foot.

    I wouldn’t call the man a literal moron (he can feed himself, after all), but he clearly lacks the intellectual rigor we need in a president. Hopefully, the electorate will get over this idiotic notion of casting ballots for the candidate they’d most like to hoist mugs with at the local honky-tonk.

  118. 118.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Steve:

    Not if you are comparing apples to apples (presumably the Government inflation numbers have been calculated the same way for years, that may be a big presumption, but until someone proves otherwise I think it is at least a fair presumption) inflation is pretty well in the middle of where it has been for the last 20 years (way low if you count the 80’s) The numbers I gave earlier were based both on CPI and GDP, so pick whatever index you wish. That site could be a right-wing propaganda machine, but the numbers look similar to anywhere else I’ve looked.

    You can’t change your calculation method and then make a claim on those numbers vs. the number calculated in the other method. Even if Pb’s example might be more valid (and I can’t say — I’m certainly no economist, but I prefer to use the normal ‘accepted index’ for these sorts of things written by people who are economists) if you want to use that index you’d have to use that methodology to calculate inflation back to the beginning of ‘time’ to make any valid trend comparisons.

    By any normal comparison, Inflation is fairly low, or barely ‘moderate’ at the high end. However as I pointed out, most of that was tied to energy prices which affect everything from production to delivery, plus we had a war and a fairly significant attack on a major trade center in the US, and a hurricane or two which disrupted a major port, plus the housing boom, which has affected inflation/cost of living alot in areas like where I live, where taxes on some properties have gotten outrageous. DC and some areas of CA are really hit hard with people who have lived in houses all their life finding their property values so high they can’t afford the taxes. Personally, I think its amazing we are doing as well as we are.

    Obviously there is some manipulation of these numbers across every administration, and each and every one tends to use whatever index points to the lowest ‘rate’ at the time, so at least if we are comparing CPI numbers we are being somewhat consistent (but then there is manipulation of the CPI, in some cases too). Personally, I think we have more to worry about with the loose lending policies of banks these days. When/if the housing market DOES crash, or we go into a big recession, they are gonna be left holding a lot of baggage.

    Self-sufficiency in energy production would also go a long ways toward shielding us from some of that sort of issue in many different ways, which means, short term, we need more home-grown oil (wherever the source is be it anwar or in the Gulf of Mexico, with the gulf being proven, and anwar probably not having enough oil to make much of a difference) and conservation of what we have. Long term we need a shift off of an oil based economy, (personally I think toward modern nuclear power in the mid-long term as most of Europe has done), and something else yet to be determined further down the road. If we can cut off that money pit in Iraq, that will help considerably, I’d guess.

  119. 119.

    Buddy

    November 29, 2006 at 9:16 pm

    lard lad:

    For what it’s worth I never made the argument he was presidential quality, just that he wasn’t a flaming moron, and that he is probably quite bright when he puts his mind to something. The problem is, he doesn’t tend to put his mind TO anything for too long: i.e. as I said before, I think he’s a slacker. That could be said of a lot of politicians, though, but we keep electing the jackasses.

  120. 120.

    lard lad

    November 29, 2006 at 11:19 pm

    Buddy:

    We are more or less in agreement. I don’t think Bush is a complete idiot, either, in certain areas… unfortunately, the idiocy he possesses seems to completely encompass the demands of his job.

    I think of Bush as a figurehead president, anyhow. I’m convinced that the neocon cabal wanted Dick Cheney in charge, but knew the man was completely unelectable… so they recruited Bush to head the ticket with Cheney in the Number Two slot. Considering a) how many of Cheney’s cronies ended up working for the administration; and b) how the President’s foreign and military policies suddenly seemed to be taken straight from that neocon manifesto Project for a New American Century…

    Well, it’s just one man’s conspiracy theory. Don’t look at me like I’m crazy, damn you!

  121. 121.

    The Other Steve

    November 30, 2006 at 12:58 am

    Not if you are comparing apples to apples (presumably the Government inflation numbers have been calculated the same way for years, that may be a big presumption, but until someone proves otherwise I think it is at least a fair presumption) inflation is pretty well in the middle of where it has been for the last 20 years (way low if you count the 80’s) The numbers I gave earlier were based both on CPI and GDP, so pick whatever index you wish. That site could be a right-wing propaganda machine, but the numbers look similar to anywhere else I’ve looked.

    That’s interesting. So basically the point you are trying to make is that Bush’s inflation is no worse than that under Reagan or Bush the Greater.

    I notice you leave out Clinton years in your comparison.

    Regardless, the inflation is even worse than the Clinton years, as wages have remained stagnant. A point I see you were not interested in addressing.

  122. 122.

    Buddy

    November 30, 2006 at 8:58 am

    Steve: Keep moving the bar. First its ‘near historic highs for the last 20 years’ which was false, now you change your ‘historic highs’ to mean the last 10 or so years. My point was not to exclude anything, but to contradict your claim of ‘historically high’ inflation which is patently false.

    To compare the low inflation rates of the 90’s in a relatively stable period of time during an economic boom (that many regarded as a paper tiger — most of the time not based real VALUE, and there were alot of sock-puppet valuations that made no sense, especially in tech) to the current period of time is slightly disingenuous, regardless of who holds the office of president. The war not withstanding, the fact that we’ve had several fairly significant homeland disasters is completely lost on you I suppose.

    For the record, wage growth during the late 90’s wasn’t all that great in most sectors, either:

    Michael Hudson: There certainly seemed to be a riddle as to why wages were rising so slowly despite historically low unemployment levels. But I don’t think Mr. Greenspan’s explanation focused on technology. In February 1997 he explained to the Senate Banking Committee that the practice of out-sourcing labor and privatizing public services–which in practice meant shifting to non-union labor–was making employees feel so insecure about their jobs that they were afraid to press for higher wages.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/schaefer08302003.html

    Much the same practice of outsourcing and consolidation was happening (and started) during the ‘boom’ of the mid-late 90s. In 2004 we were some 2.5% or so below where we were at the ‘height’ of the 90’s bull economy. Currently the numbers are in the 3.2% range, right in the middle of the mid 90’s numbers. All considering, thats not bad.

  123. 123.

    Buddy

    November 30, 2006 at 9:10 am

    P.S. 3% wage growth, while not the 4.1 or so percent of the height of the 90’s, is not ‘stagnant’.

    P.P.S
    Octobers CPI based inflation rate was 1.31%. Now I’ll posit that might be a fluke, lets wait a few cycles and see if it holds, but find me an inflation number that low in the 90s.

    http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx

    Yes, for the record, Steve, 2005 was bad in regard to inflation. For the 99th time, 2005 was also horrendous for energy prices, and that is irregardless of who would have been holding the office of president. That is unless we elect Superman to turn back the world and re-align the stars so Katrina hits Tampico instead of New Orleans. I doubt even God-Elect Clinton could have fixed that one.

  124. 124.

    Pb

    November 30, 2006 at 9:56 am

    Buddy,

    It’s funny that you mention wage growth…

    But the new data show that, instead of growing at a 7.4% annual rate in the second quarter, employee compensation actually grew just 1.4%. The revisions were reported by the BEA on Wednesday as part of its revision to gross domestic product data, based on updated BLS figures from tax records. Third-quarter compensation was also revised slightly lower.

    Now they tell us…

  125. 125.

    Buddy

    November 30, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Right. I think they overestimated (as they usually do) but the yearly wage growth is on track for a mid 3% range. Of course corporate earnings are in the mid 4% range, and too bad that’s not getting passed down the chain.

  126. 126.

    Jay

    November 30, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Hold everything:

    Yeah, I’ve always been good at test-taking (on some kinds of tests at least)

    I move we take a five minute break to throw spit wads and paper darts at Pb for daring to admit such a thing.

    Ready…aim…

  127. 127.

    Pb

    November 30, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    I move we take a five minute break to throw spit wads and paper darts at Pb for daring to admit such a thing.

    Fire away–I know I’m a dork, I can take it!

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by BillinGlendaleCA (6/24/25)

Recent Comments

  • LAC on Respite Open Thread (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:44pm)
  • They Call Me Noni on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:41pm)
  • Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:38pm)
  • They Call Me Noni on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:37pm)
  • Paul in KY on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:34pm)

Personality Crisis Podcast (Cole, DougJ, mistermix)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!