December 28, 2008
The Deciders have Decided about 2010
It turns out the Democrats
will win more seats in the midterm elections (emphasis mine):
Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face
re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once
again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate
majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.
Why? Shut up, that's why.
Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at
03:41 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
dem's will lose seats, ONLY as long as we field real candidates.
No more McCain Manchurians.
Posted by: wickedpinto at December 28, 2008 04:40 AM (ul7te)
2
McCain was as republican as I am muslim.
Posted by: wickedpinto at December 28, 2008 04:41 AM (ul7te)
3
I would gladly swap a Franken win for a Reid loss. I friggin' despise that tool.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 28, 2008 03:19 PM (bsKYG)
4
I love how the reporter fails to offer proof for the claim that 2010 will favor Dems. This is how The Deciders are setting a meme early, ao that it can gain traction.
Besides OH (Voinovich), PA, and maybe MO (depending on Kit Bond's health and if one of the Carnahans run against him), what vulnerable GOP seats are there?
I'm sure I missed some, but also, what vulnerable Dem seats are there?
Posted by: eddiebear at December 28, 2008 06:58 PM (HAPN9)
5
I just love this newfangled "right wing" bias at the WSJ non editorial page sections ever since Rupert Murdoch took over.
*end sarcasm*
Posted by: eddiebear at December 28, 2008 06:59 PM (HAPN9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 24, 2008
Contact KFMB
Yesterday, I mentioned that some douchebag radio host down in San Diego had stolen
one of Iowahawk's posts. Well, maybe we should contact the people
who are in charge of the station's advertising and let them know that having a plagiarist like Rick Roberts on the air isn't such a good idea. Their sponsors might be interested in that kind of information.
Update: You can call them at 858-571-8888 or 1-800-760KFMB. The former is the number for the station, the latter is their on-air number.
Posted by: Sean M. at
05:12 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just posted about this over at Ace's. Don't worry, I credited you for being the guy who brought it to my attention. After all, I'm NOT Rick fucking Roberts. I know how to hat tip and link.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 24, 2008 09:04 AM (cdAdD)
2
They shut down comments on that post and acknowledged the fact that Iowahawk wrote the article. It's a Christmas Miracle!
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 24, 2008 01:33 PM (cdAdD)
Posted by: Tommy Mens Shorts at July 28, 2011 04:39 AM (z/YqB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2008
All you need to know about the media, in two paragraphs
Politico has
a list of the top 10 media blunders of 2008. Coming in at number 6 is....
ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia: Co-moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos faced plenty of blowback
following the Obama-Clinton debate for spending the first half focused
on what many complained were trivial issues — his relationships with
the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and his stance on flag pins.
Response: Gibson and Stephanopoulos weathered the criticism, but also
didn’t get another debate. Little was heard about Wright after that, or
about Ayers until the McCain campaign went hard at the link in the
final weeks of the race.
That's right. The only debate where the media was even mildly rough on Obama is now an official "blunder."
Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at
12:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
I Wonder If Rush Limbaugh Will Want To Gnaw His Arm Off To Get Away Tomorrow Morning When He Wakes Up With This Cat In Bed With Him
Holy shit! The Head of Air America and Rush Limbaugh agree on something. Namely, their dislike of the Fairness Doctrine.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? [...]
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. [...]
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. [...]
When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
Posted by: eddiebear at
11:13 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There's one key reason that Air America failed that no one seems to hit on whenever they cover the topic. Liberal talk-radio political "analysis" only consisted of ripping on conservatives and making fun of Bush. That's it.
I tuned in to Air America here in Chicago almost every day on my drive home. Usually in the winter when the station I listened to in Milwaukee (Mark Belling) had to reduce it's broadcasting power.
I was hoping to hear liberal political analysis and try and understand the left's thinking on foreign policy, taxes, etc. etc. Never once did I hear the radio host discuss and analyze why their ideas were better for the country. Never once did I hear them elaborate on why liberal values would lead to a successful and prosperous America.
Left-wing radio only consists of people who rip on conservative politicians and personalities. They stir up hate towards the current administration, and anyone else who doesn't agree with them. Basically, the same MO you find for anyone with a liberal agenda. Don't try and convince others as to why your ideas make sense, simply bash people over the head and berate your opposition until you get your way (sound familiar Proposition 8 deniers?).
No one wants to tune in and listen to 3 hours of "insult America".
Posted by: conservativeinthecity at December 22, 2008 11:27 AM (i3tSP)
2
Liberal radio talk shows will never be successful for one very simple reason: Contrary to leftard propaganda, liberals are quite incapable of just listening to somebody talk because they are fookin' stupid. They need flashy colors and zig-zagging camera action to hold their retard attention. All of the liberals I know are proud to proclaim their "ADD" or what-the-fuck-ever syndrome. Compared to actual observations, the conventional wisdom about liberals being intellectually superior to conservatives is a gotdammed joke.
Posted by: skh.pcola at December 22, 2008 11:48 AM (xzBZb)
3
I have never seen or heard Rush take on an opponent face to face. This leads me to wonder if he does not have serious doubts about his ability to do well in such a situation.
Posted by: snaggletoothie at December 22, 2008 12:15 PM (9m+gW)
4
he did appear on oprah or a similar show and defend himself to ladies who tried to allege he wasn't loved enough as a child.
Posted by: frisky at December 22, 2008 12:32 PM (Fltc2)
5
Leftie talkers weren't always loons. L.A.'s KFI had some prominent lefties on in the early and mid-90s, mixed right in there with Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura. Bill Press and Tammy Bruce had shows (Tammy was always my favorite gun-toting liberal lesbian talk show host, whose post 9/11 hawkishness is a joy to behold.) I think they had Bill HIghtower in Sunday mornings.
I remember thinking they were often wrong and that they had values very different from mine, but I don't remember them being anything like Air America, which I think conservativeinthecity accurately describes above. It's a shame the descended so far into irrelevance.
Anyone wanting to hear liberals defend their views intellectually should find Dennis Prager's syndicated radio show or sign up for his podcasts. He regularly has prominent guests from the left, and has very interesting discussions with them.
Posted by: Deuce Geary at December 22, 2008 01:28 PM (Q285d)
6
The reason you never hear Rush take on someone with an opposing view is because those people never accept invites to come on his show.
It's hard to get into a debate when everyone refuses to debate you.
That is one of the main reasons I sometimes get bored with Rush. I'll agree with him and his analysis is spot on, but I'd still like to hear that analysis being applied in a discussion with someone who disagrees, and it's just hard to find someone willing to do that with Rush.
This is the reason why I like Michael Medved's show. While Medved has turned a bit more center than I like (especially during the election season), I still love the fact that so many liberals and disagreers call the show.
Posted by: conservativeinthecity at December 22, 2008 01:39 PM (i3tSP)
7
Back when I was in college and Rush was just starting to gain traction, he did appear from time to time on shows to debate.
But since he has become the big kahuna, he doesn't anymore. I almost wonder if he is afraid to have some liberal just turn it into a circus sideshow, because we know that is what would happen.
Posted by: eddiebear at December 22, 2008 01:46 PM (wnU1W)
8
You raise a lot of
questions in my mind; you wrote a good post, but this post is also mind
provoking, and I will have to think about it a bit more; I will return
soon.<a href="http://www.designerleather-handbags.com/"
title="designer leather handbags">designer leather
handbags</a>
Posted by: designer leather handbags at August 06, 2011 02:02 AM (l8ow5)
9
I am extremely
impressed thanks for sharing all information. It is a great post for the
people to get the proper information.<a
href="http://www.pradahandbags2011.com/" title="Prada handbags
2011">Prada handbags 2011</a>
Posted by: Prada handbags 2011 at August 11, 2011 09:50 PM (4q+RI)
10
v
I love your
homepage, the way I love air. Ok just kidding but really good explanations
though .<a href="http://www.allbaseballcaps.com/"
title="baseball caps">baseball caps</a>
Posted by: baseball caps at August 15, 2011 02:48 AM (1Vtny)
11
Thanks very much
for this wonderful blog;this is the kind of thing that keeps me going through
the day.<a href="http://www.northfaceoutletcanada.com/"
title="The North Face Canada">The North Face Canada</a>
Posted by: The North Face Canada at August 16, 2011 02:13 AM (4q+RI)
12
This is one of the
best post I have ever read, I would love to read more in future. Keep up the
good work.<a href="http://www.buyguccioutlet.com/"
title="Gucci outlet store">Gucci outlet store</a>
Posted by: Gucci outlet store at August 16, 2011 07:56 PM (O59DI)
13
I am extremely
impressed thanks for sharing all information. It is a great post for the
people to get the proper information.<a
href="http://wwzw.pradahandbags2011.com/" title="Prada
handbags 2011">Prada handbags 2011</a>
Posted by: Prada handbags 2011 at August 17, 2011 08:15 PM (4q+RI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 16, 2008
Gee, ya think?
"Our job is to hold him to account...we're going to have to get tougher."
- NBC Washington bureau chief
Mark Whitaker, on Obama.
Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at
02:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A little late, asshole.
Posted by: mare at December 16, 2008 05:47 PM (X1fsj)
2
What, April Fool's Day, came six months earlier, so are they trying to kid?
Posted by: narciso at December 17, 2008 12:25 AM (9EG7Z)
3
#1 beat me to it - but why start now
Posted by: Bandit at December 17, 2008 01:43 PM (/R+6i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Deciders, Instincts Strong They Have
So that is the excuse they are floating today to justify not covering the Obama-Blagojevich connection.
SCARBOROUGH: I know, but why didn't somebody investigate this six months ago when Ryan Lizza wrote it? It's pretty fascinating, because in 2008 we knew he was the most corrupt governor in America.
MIKE BARNICLE: Let me put my newspaper columnist/newspaper editor hat on for you to answer your question about Wasilla, Alaska as opposed to the Blagojevich administration.
SCARBOROUGH: Not Blagojevich--Barack Obama.
BARNICLE: Whatever. She was the next, new face. No one had ever heard of her. So you're going to send as many people as you can afford up to Alaska to explain to the reading public who she is. You're sitting there, you know Obama, you know the governor of Illinois --
SCARBOROUGH: You don't know Obama. You can't even tell me whether he ran the 2002 campaign of the most corrupt governor in America.
BARNICLE: I can tell you this much: he was a state senator then, and he ran that campaign about as much as I did.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh really? How do you know that?
BARNICLE: Just instinct.
SCARBOROUGH: Instinct?
BARNICLE: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH [at moment of screencap]: Newspaper editor: shouldn't we have facts instead of instinct? That's what everybody's working on: instinct! You know what? I like him! So I expect that he's a really good guy. I hope if I ever run for politics again, I am given this much benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: eddiebear at
10:06 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is the same guy who got canned from the Boston Globe for plagarism. He's also been caught making up stories out of whole cloth.
Then, there was this kerfuffle back in May when Barnicle went after bloggers. He's a pathetic hack. When the story of the demise of the newspaper business is written, he could easily be Example A.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at December 16, 2008 11:25 AM (WhFvm)
2
First, of all, Joe,where were three months ago, when this question might have mattered. Second, MSNBC is so bankrupt,ethically and otherwise, that they get someone from Southie, but they end up with the plagiarizing rat from the "Departed"
Posted by: narciso at December 16, 2008 08:37 PM (w7YpG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Maybe he should be more selective about who he represents
That's the real, honest-to-God headline to an actual wire story. Man, I love it when someone else does all the heavy lifting for me. I'm lazy like that.
Posted by: Sean M. at
02:08 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One time someone I knew (not saying who, it wasn't me) got hacked off at someone in a forum and realized that the URL that they were linking as there personal website was an unreserved domain. Said person bought that domain and pointed it at the nastiest porn site he could find, and believe me, he was aware of some nasty porn sites, because that's how he rolled.
Revenge can be sweet.
Posted by: Alice H at December 16, 2008 11:33 AM (jRtPb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2008
So, What State REALLY Is The Most Corrupt?
Almost if by cue, The Deciders have determined via their "Fuzzy Math" that Illinois is not really the most crooked of Obama's 57 States. Which one is?
According to the article, North Dakota has 8.3 public corruption convictions per 100,000 residents. Illinois only has 3.9.
The trick here was to use the phrase ‘per-capita basis' in the analysis. Using the logic presented here by Fritze and his colleagues, they have logically justified that North Dakota's 53 overwhelming public corruption convictions between 1998 and 2007 is solid proof that the state has more of a black eye when it comes to its government, than Illinois, which had a mere 502 convictions during the same period. Why? Because North Dakota is a more sparsely populated state.
Oh, I see. When I think of North Dakota (which is seldom), I ALWAYS think of corruption, and not whatever the hell it is really goes on there.
Posted by: eddiebear at
09:20 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My vote is for New Jersey, but Pennsylvania is quickly gaining ground. Louisiana is showing signs of cleaning up its act, but a few years ago it would have been a contender.
Posted by: Sockless Joe at December 12, 2008 10:26 AM (UazZY)
2
Given: Almost every pol is corrupt.
Given: Each state has 2 senators and other fixed amounts of politicians, regardless of population.
Given: ND is one of the lowest population states.
Therefore: The equation Pols/Pop = Corruption will be highest for low population states.
Math, is there anything it can't do?
Posted by: Hermit Dave at December 12, 2008 11:16 AM (WhFvm)
3
Could it be that the state with the most convictions could be the least corrupt? Think about it. What if Illinois, for example, has more corruption but has a poor track record for convictions. The crooks are still out there running the government so they appear, by these statistics, to be less corrupt?
Convictions equal corruption? Doesn't stand up.
Posted by: J.Jordan at December 12, 2008 11:40 AM (gdcKm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 06, 2008
December 05, 2008
That's a new one
We've heard various media organizations refer to terrorists as "militants" and "commandos" and such in the past, but, well,
this one leaves me all but speechless...
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?
Gah. I wish I could say that I was surprised, but, well, we can look at all kinds of media outlets' track records over last few years as regards terrorism and terrorists. Especially of the *cough*
Islamic*cough* type. So, yeah, not exactly surprising.
Read the whole thing, especially for the manner in which the BBC and the
New York Times covered the assault on the Jewish community center. Again, not surprising, but they didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.
(
h/t)
Posted by: Sean M. at
05:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
1
i honestly don't understand the payoff; exactly what do people/organizations get by refusing to use the word terrorists to describe terrorists?
Posted by: ShyAsrai at December 05, 2008 07:29 AM (8SMBY)
2
^A sneering and self-righteous feeling that your thoughts are more pure and objective than the audience you regularly look down your nose at with thinly-veiled contempt.
Posted by: ECM at December 05, 2008 10:47 AM (q3V+C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 04, 2008
Apostle snubbed
'Cuda 1, Oprah 0:
Did Sarah Palin snub Oprah Winfrey?
That's what the most popular daytime talk show host and fervent Barack Obama supporter appeared to suggest in a recent interview with the entertainment show Extra.
"I said I would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin when the election was over… I went and tried to talk to Sarah Palin and instead she talked to Greta [Van Susteren]. She talked to Matt [Lauer]. She talked to Larry [King]. But she didn't talk to me.”
I don't think that Oprah would be hard on her or unfair, but I do think that she would have that special 52 to 48 condescention we've all grown so fond of.
Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at
06:11 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If she had gone on she might have mistaken (the other) O! for a moose and that would have ended pretty badly for her (though the ratings would have been great).
Posted by: ECM at December 04, 2008 06:22 PM (q3V+C)
2
That makes me way way too happy.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 04, 2008 06:28 PM (aFyU7)
3
EFF oprah
hey whose ass is bigger- oprah's or michelle's?
Posted by: Jones at December 05, 2008 03:34 AM (KOkrW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 03, 2008
Kathleen Parker has Twitter
I know no one cares what she says, but I will take some pleasure in starting a few of my tweets with a "
@kathleenparker" so that she has some more "I'm such a martyr" shtick.
I'll note that the only person she's following is a Dem who hates Gov. Palin as much as she does.
Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at
02:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
December 02, 2008
December 01, 2008
Greatest American Hero
Well, it seems that CNN has finally come to its senses and decided that we should hold off on
the deification of our president-elect:
Remember, Obama hasn't taken office as president, only glimpsed the Oval Office as a visitor and won't take over until January 20. But already, he's being compared to the most remarkable leaders the United States has ever had.
The article goes on to discuss which of those "most remarkable leaders" Obama is being compared to, including JFK, Lincoln, FDR, and...Bill Clinton. Really? I mean, I'm the kind of guy who believes in the idea of letting the judgment of history define the impact of a presidency, but lumping Clinton in with those guys just seems, well, wrong.
Oh, and you've got to love the way the article ends:
The Americans who are comparing him to those remarkable predecessors are putting a lot of faith in a man they barely know.
Yeah, thanks for all your help there, CNN.
Posted by: Sean M. at
12:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It is the responsibility of every voter to obtain the necessary knowledge to vote responsibly. Blaming CNN misses the point. Not that CNN was not negligent.
Posted by: snaggletoothie at December 01, 2008 12:20 PM (9m+gW)
2
In all honesty, was JFK that great a President?
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 01, 2008 01:22 PM (xQ52y)
3
Only because he died...Wyatt.
Posted by: Robert Woolwine at December 01, 2008 01:26 PM (V+ylD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
59kb generated in 0.1545 seconds; 75 queries returned 209 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.