Horses Mouth March 29, 2007 4:14 PM

Memo To Rick Stengel From Time Magazine's Research Department Obtained!
March 29, 2007 -- 4:14 PM EST // View Comments (24) // Post a Comment

Well, check out what we've just obtained: An internal memo from Time mag's research department to the mag's managing editor, Rick Stengel! How about that?

TO: Richard Stengel Time magazine Managing editor
FROM: Time magazine research department

RE: Your request for information about American attitudes towards Democratic investigations into GOP malfeasance

Dear Mr. Stengel:

Thank you for your request. We recognize, as you suggested in your earlier memo to us, that the many factual rebuttals and criticism of your recent assertion that an aggressive Democratic investigation into Karl Rove would be bad for Dems has produced on your part an urgency for some hard information about this matter. So we've endeavored to get this to you as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, in addition to the earlier polls many have written about, there are now two new polls that support the idea that the American public is broadly supportive of aggressive Democratic investigations into GOP malfeasance, both in a general and specific sense.

First, here's a new CBS poll that finds that there's indeed broad public interest in the U.S. Attorney firings story:

The CBS News poll finds that just half of Americans are following the news about the firing of several U.S. Attorneys but 40% say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, while 25% say he should not and 35% are not sure. Among those who say they are following the story closely, 55% think Gonzales should resign.

In the judgment of our researchers, CBS' use of the "just half" language is misleading. We judge that this is a striking finding giving how technically complicated this story is. Though we can't be entirely conclusive about this, we judge that the fact that sentiment is running strongly in favor of the view that Gonzales should resign -- combined with the high public interest in the story -- strongly suggest public support for aggressive Dem probes into these matters. After all, if large numbers want him to resign and hence think he did something wrong, it's reasonable to assume they'd look favorably on efforts to uncover such wrongdoing.

Here, meanwhile, is a second poll from Pew Research, just out this afternoon, that directly addresses these questions. It says:

The Democrats' stepped-up pace of investigations has not drawn much in the way of negative reaction. Just 31% believe Congress is spending too much time investigating possible government wrongdoing, while slightly more (35%) say they are spending too little time on this, and a quarter believe that the time spent on investigations has been appropriate...
In addition, more independents say Congress is spending too little time on investigations than too much (by 39%-29%). Roughly the same number of Democrats as independents say Congress is devoting too little time to investigations.

Though this poll was highlighted by one of your blogospheric critics, our researchers judge that he was right to draw attention to it. As you can see, it says that while less than a third (31%) think too much time is being spent on investigations, a substantial majority (60%) think either an appropriate amount of time or too little time is being spent on them. Also note that more people think too little time is being spent than think too much is.

In sum, our judgment is that the vast preponderance of evidence suggests that it's difficult to sustain the view that the American people are predisposed towards a negative view of such aggressive Congressional oversight. Incidentally, if you would allow us an observation outside our role for a moment, it is also our judgment that you are nonetheless on fairly safe ground repeating your initial point, even if it's factually unsustainable, since it is unlikely to attract much attention from reporters or commentators at the big news organizations and is unlikely to be rebutted in any serious way beyond the liberal blogosphere. (Though we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that you have come under some criticism from a former Time.com writer, Andrew Sullivan.)

We hope this information has been useful to you; as always, should you choose not to use it, we will keep this memo confidential. Please let us know if we can be of more assistance.

Editor's note: As should be excrutiatingly obvious, this memo isn't real. Whether or not you find it funny, it is a gag -- a fictional invention, nothing more.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

-- Greg Sargent | Comments (24) | Post a Comment

COMMENTS:

Noteworthy that the article is written as a parody, however the facts contained therein are indeed legitimate.

Posted by: Gloria Butterworth
Date: March 29, 2007 4:41 PM

yes -- thank you for noticing! not easy in this day and age...

Posted by: Greg
Date: March 29, 2007 4:45 PM

It's not real? Can you forward it to Stengel, anyway? With a preface in which you channel Katie Couric and say "Some people say you're out to lunch, and your research department agrees. How do you respond?"

Posted by: CT Voter
Date: March 29, 2007 4:47 PM

great idea! of course, then stengel will think I'm more of a nut than he already sees me as...but would certainly be fun and valid. maybe I will do it

Posted by: Greg
Date: March 29, 2007 4:52 PM

Greg,

How do you know that Stengel sees you as a nut?

Posted by: Carneyvore
Date: March 29, 2007 4:57 PM

I don't really...I just reflexively assume at this point that most msm reporters and commentators tune out legit criticism as crazy and partisan...

Posted by: Greg
Date: March 29, 2007 5:00 PM

A lot of people say the 2006 elections were a referendum on Iraq. But wasn't republican corruption the #1 reason people voted democratic so overwhelmingly? I mean, if it was just about Iraq, and I hope I'm not arguing against a strawman here - but if it were just about Iraq, the democrats would have trouble being the party of optimism with their various Liebermans and all. If it were just about Iraq, democrats would have won control probably, but not losing a single seat in the house, senate or governships? With Lieberman, Clinton and Kerry being the most prominent democrats at the time?

Posted by: A different matt
Date: March 29, 2007 5:16 PM

There's only a teeny tiny problem with sending it to Stengel. He may not be able to recognize it as parody.

That's not such a bad thing, though.

Posted by: CT Voter
Date: March 29, 2007 5:30 PM

The win by the Democrats wasn't just Iraq. It was the obvious, "in your face America" corruption of the Republican party. And mainline Republicans refusing to speak out about that corruption (and the lies that led up to the Iraq war) until, the Democrats were voted back in to power.

Never before have Americans been so openly educated about how their government and the two political partys really work with such obvious corruption.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Posted by: Dennis
Date: March 29, 2007 5:34 PM

shorter memo:

To Rick Stengel, like other mindless morons who spout gop talking points, you're full of shit. fortunatly for you, most of the media has been corrupted in just the same manner as you have been corrupted, so it is likely that nobody will notice your bullshit in the hurricane of gop bullshit that is the MSM

sincerly, the people who fact check your bullshit

security code: spring

spring is in the air, so that one's kinda obvious

Posted by: freepatriot
Date: March 29, 2007 5:38 PM

Pundits like Stengel (as opposed to journalists) really don't care what the American people think, or what their opinions are.

Stengel, Klein, Casey, Tumulty and others in that crowd are actually arrogant enough to believe it's their role to *tell* the People what their opinions are. Fools.

"Did I.Q.s just suddenly drop while I was away?"
Ellen Ripley / Sigourney Weaver -- 'Aliens' 1986

(Code: Snake)

Posted by: Austin Cooper
Date: March 29, 2007 5:51 PM

You know what would be fucking great? For Stengel's glaringly willful vapidity to continue to metastasize, to the point where he has to quit. Oh sweetness, oh glory, hallelujah...

Posted by: Clancy J.
Date: March 29, 2007 7:20 PM

OT maybe.
The U.S. Attorney Scandal has struck a new victim: the American taxpayer. A judge ruled Wednesday that an epic blunder by federal prosecutors in the largest tax prosecution ever means that the treasury can't recoup at least $100 million in restitution.

Telecommunications entrepreneur Walter Anderson pled guilty to tax evasion, but U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the binding plea agreement listed the wrong statute. This problem could have been overcome had prosecutors not failed to include any discussion of probation as is routine in such deals.

Because of the technicality, Judge Friedman said, "I've come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, that I have no authority to order restitution. . . . This is a very poorly drafted agreement."

The case was prosecuted by the office of the interim U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeffrey A. Taylor. Taylor was appointed directly by Attorney General Gonzales.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/215

Posted by: fairyduster
Date: March 29, 2007 10:00 PM

Maybe a mistake to concoct this letter, pass it as genuine (until the end), and then link to it from the main site. Otherwise keep up the good work.

Posted by: tk
Date: March 29, 2007 10:45 PM

The U.S. Attorney Scandal has struck a new victim: the American taxpayer. A judge ruled Wednesday that an epic blunder by federal prosecutors in the largest tax prosecution ever means that the treasury can't recoup at least $100 million in restitution.

[...]

Because of the technicality, Judge Friedman said, "I've come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, that I have no authority to order restitution. . . . This is a very poorly drafted agreement."

Never put people who hate government in charge of government. I think this lesson may sink in the time Nov 2008 rolls around. Even the 25%ers, the true dead-enders, may wonder why things are as bad as they are.

Posted by: paul
Date: March 30, 2007 2:11 AM

Greg:

When a Repub kicks a Dem he is tough on terror and foreign policy. When a Dem kicks a Repub: Stengel warns: Hey, careful, you'll hurt your foot. Send the post and all comments to Stengel. He should know we think he is a fake.

Posted by: bp
Date: March 30, 2007 5:59 AM

I second bp's suggestion.

Posted by: CT Voter
Date: March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

Straight from Karl's fax machine to Rick Stengel's column.

Posted by: Jackie Puppet
Date: March 30, 2007 10:05 AM

Part of the reason Stengel and others behave like this is that they invest a lot of effort in cultivating sources in the Administration, and investigations threaten the positions of those sources. If the sources are weakened or forced to resign, there goes your investment.

Posted by: SqueakyRat
Date: March 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Democrats investigate! About time.

General Accounting Office published a Report on the dollars spent by the Republican Congress on Hearings and Investigaiions of the Clinton administration.

$110,000,000 was the GAO number.
Whitewater was merely a Platform from which R could smear Clinton.

The R Congress held 13 committtees and sub-committee Hearings on Whitewater.

They knew it was a Zero. They used it.

Their WMD.

In 1994, Newt said this--"If we take Congress we will investigate every decision made by this administration"

Smears non stop.

Crimes = 1

President Clinton had ONE person who was CONVICTED of a FELONY which was committed while WORKING FOR him.

Convictions-ONE(evil criminal took paid trips. oh!)
Reagan-75 (subject to my review)
Bush-1(so far)

Posted by: clarence swinney
Date: April 1, 2007 1:55 PM

One problem -- Time Magazine decimated its research department during company-wide layoffs in January. The magazine lost 50 editorial staffers, including some veteran researchers who helped make sure the publication used accurate, verifiable facts. As those airline flight attendants say, "Buh-Bye!"

Posted by: jerry
Date: April 2, 2007 3:13 PM

http://www.iwannaforum.com/free_porn/ free porn
diet
britney spears
fruit
best body
free porn
fruit
diet
http://www.iwannaforum.com/dietpill/ diet