Words can't express the profound shock I feel over this.

hey, I tried...

Novakula has arisen from his daytime slumbers to issue another blood-inked screed. The mans charms knows no bounds.

The astounding idiocy of teh neoclowns knows no end.

Bob Novak nauseates me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1964 Goldwater would have been on the side of MLK on a great many issues...

I think it's time to go beyond noticing journalistic bias. The mark of bias is that it creates a slant on the news, the editorializing turns the author into a voice in the story, thereby making himself part of the news. The way around this is to recognize it, to say Novak is a part of the news is to focus on the 5 W's of his role. If he wants to be a part of the news then he can submit himself to the scrutiny afforded all other newsmakers. Turn the spotlight on him, don't just look for the shadow over his words.

"a teenager . . . who never existed" is Novak's snide and maliciously overstated way of saying "a teenager . . . with feelings (attachments) the actual Hillary never had."

So the whole fabrication, converted into slanderous deception by the "invented what never existed" would-be meme, turns on the "attachment" nonsense. In what way did Hillary claim an "attachment" to Dr. King that wasn't actually there in 1963?

Bob "Douchebag for Liberty" Novak said something dishonest?

Well done Mr. Saunders. Research: still the best stupidity and mendacity repellant available.

well, perhaps, but one of the basic missions of this blog is simply to document misinformation and phony reporting...it's one thing for an opinionmaker to spout an opinion, another if he ignores facts that prove that his thesis is full of sh-t...but point taken

wanna bet this isn't this week's hillary storyline on hardball; hell, i bet tweety is slobbering over the column now.

while what greg has done here is laudable (albeit low hanging fruit, in that chasing bob novak's bullshit merely involves following his slow moving shit wagon with your nostrils flared) it doesn't mean much. few read blogs, many read novak. more importantly, novak moves opinions in certain important circles, and the ripples from a novak column will touch upon all kinds of spheres. greg writes for the hardcore who, as seen in the comments above, are well aware that bob novak is a total fucking scumbag.

so, the question is, how can we actually get people to DO something about this? i think coulter's column getting pulled a few places is a tiny start (ensmallened, as it were, by those that replaced her with equally lying and repulsive michelle malkin) as was the dems pulling the FNC debate. baby steps.

Who wants to bet that the Beltway Boys lead with this Novak blockbuster tonight?

Robert Novak... Douchbag of Liberty!

old 33, on the assumption you aren't trying to be funny, you're wrong: goldwater and king would not have been on the "same side" on a lot of issues (of the day, at least; they probably felt the same way about illegal wiretapping, for instance).

Until Novak gets slapped with a libel suit, or is called to testify under oath and is caught lying, he is the same as any other Bush & Co. camp-follower. He will only understand, as they understand, a metaphorical whack to the side of the head with a 2x4. Anything less and he will continue to spew out dark clouds of lies.

I think you all give Novak too much credit.

While he has his moments in "moving opinion" this isn't one of them. Novak's assertions about the girl who doesn't exist are silly on their face. The only ones who will care about it wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the last person on earth.

The independent swing voters who choose Presidents neither read Novak nor this blog. And while Novak can certainly get a story going, it needs to be a direct hit (even if false) not some goofy illusion to a 'girl who never existed'.

When's Novak going to write a piece on a upper class prepster from New England than yearned to be a all-hat-no-cattle Cowboy and "War President" and yearned to invade a Mideast country that was of no threat to the US?

I can understand calling people on twisting, lying, and misrepresenting facts or quotes. What I can't understand is getting worked up over a gopssip columnist. I bet even those that read him religiously know Novak is strictly a hack. And a poor one at that. I bet they all know his son works at Regery(sic) or what it is called that publishes those rightwing bullshit books. Please don't get worked up over this sleazeball or to use Burton's descriptive word, scumbag. I like slimeball too. He can also to paraphrase Cheney, "go fuck yourself."

Sorry guys, but the Novak invention, Machiavellian as it is, Goering-esque as it sounds, will resonate as it gets repeated by the Chris Matthews, Hannity, Brit Hume, O'Reilly crowd.
It will then take on a life of its own and have its effect. The strategy is to continue to manufacture stories that cumulatively will raise doubts about her so as to make her out to be some sort of Lucretia Borgia or Lady MacBeth.

The Novaks are, if nothing else, masterly propagandists and character assassins.

novak making things up?!

Hey, it's important to call this stuff out but I doubt anyone is surprised novak is hack making things up.

Thanks. I just read Novak's column this morning, actually, and it reeked of selective use of facts and outright lies. My only concern for Novak is, do any independent voters actually trust him? Other than that, his hack attacks serve a certain purpose as a early-warning system of the latest GOP talking points.

guys, I think I'm with Aeneas here. I've consistently been stunned by the fact that folks with zero credibility can report something that will be repeated endlessly on cable etc....and hence find its way into the msm's storyline...the credibility of the original source matters not at all...our only hope is to knock these falsehoods down as aggressively as possible...

Why this man is not in jail right now is beyond me...

When are America's newspapers getting rid of these hacks like this generations traitor Novak and man hands herself Coulter? sheeesh.

Conservatives think Hillary can win, they don't think Obama can win. It's really that simple to me.

Most of the newspapers and virtually of television belong to the Republicans figuratively and literally. All we have are blogs and if we get lucky LTEs. We have to point out the lies whereever we can and if we are a little short on cash in terms of buying a TV network blogging it is all we've got.

This is a response to suggestions that the original posting was not revealing anything that we would not expect, and that everyone knows that Novak is a Republican hack and that his son works for a hack press, etc. All we can do is pin it all down as accurately we can for as many people as we can.

Good job. I was unaware that Hillary had said this previously and so I bought that part of Novak's BS. One less piece of misinformation in my head.

Here is what Hillary wrote in her book;

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703050005

So, when Don announced one week that he would take us to hear Dr. King speak at Orchestra Hall, I was excited. My parents gave me permission, but some of my friends' parents refused to let them go hear such a "rabble-rouser."

Dr. King's speech was entitled, "Remaining Awake Through a Revolution." Until then, I had been dimly aware of the social revolution occurring in our country, but Dr. King's words illuminated the struggle taking place and challenged our indifference: "We now stand on the border of the Promised Land of integration. The old order is passing away and a new one is coming in. We should all accept this order and learn to live together as brothers in a world society, or we shall perish together."

Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional wisdom of Park Ridge's and my father's politics.
------------------
My ninth-grade history teacher, Paul Carlson, was, and still is, a dedicated educator and very conservative Republican. Mr. Carlson encouraged me to read Senator Barry Goldwater's recently published book, The Conscience of a Conservative. That inspired me to write my term paper on the American conservative movement, which I dedicated "To my parents, who have always taught me to be an individual." I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide.

This is important work. Novak, like David Brooks in the NYT or on PBS, or Jacoby in Boston, and others, have national platforms. No matter if this is rotted or "low hanging fruit", it needs to be picked in order to show how barren is the tree. That pruning has gone undone too long.

For many of us in Senator Clinton's age group raised in Republican families, Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement gave us the first push toward the Democrats. Goldwater -- who seemed personally unprejudiced by the standards of the age -- adhered to a strict states' rights position. Young people who could not reconcile this with the overwhelming and un-American unfairness of de jure racial discrimination found themselves questioning states' rights and other conservative principles as a result. There is no contradiction in a Goldwater girl listening with interest to Dr. King. It's one of the central stories of a generation.

Right, but the problem with the low-hanging fruit is the jadedness and cynicism that precludes seeing it as low-hanging fruit. Also, the criticism can be easily dismissed as partisanship, sour grapes, or rank antagonism.

Think about it, the bias becomes so obvious that pointing out the obvious becomes the whole point. It becomes "enough," rather than looking at the force behind it and the motivations thereof. An investigative report of the kind we are always mad at him for not conducting. That is the key.

Don't investigate the things that those perceived to be mistaken are writing about, investigate those who are doing the writing. Not in a stalker/J. Edgar Hoover way, but just to answer the question, "Why are these people always mistaken in the same way? Is it because of my own bias? Is it because of their bias?" I can't imagine that these influences on Novak writing would be hard to suss out. It sure didn't take Carville long to find an Achilles heel.

This I think is what can provide some insight to making his readers a bit more aware of what they're reading. The 5 W's, pointed at Novak. Journalists tend not to practice self-examination, but the flipside is that they document themselves constantly.

Comments out of thin air from a journalist that never really existed. Good thing he's getting up every day, stumbling in his jammies to the computer and writing whatever comes to his mind and not getting paid for this but calling himself a journalist... wait, um, nevermind.

Doesn't it say more about Novak than about Clinton that he can't imagine a Republican thinking highly of King? Is this what psychologists call "projection"?
Not sure where or if you could find it online (I couldn't in a cursory search), but Mike Ditka (an archconservative by his own estimation who considered running for the Senate as a Republican against Obama) did a really nice tribute to MLK during one of the pre-Super Bowl shows, talking about how much King did to advance racial equality in this country, to try to end segregation, etc. You'd really need to be a Novak-type vampire to honestly believe NO REPUBLICAN could possibly think highly of King...

I didn't know this about Hillary's background, but it makes a lot of sense given what she is--a conservative with a social conscience. Novak and his ilk sound like people who've never had a moment of personal reflection in their whole lives. Essentially they have a pre-adolescent mentality. How could someone who has been basically steeped in Goldwater conservatism be influenced by a speech of MLK? To Hillary it was moment of awakening and growth. To Novak, and other such intellectually stunted people who have never had such an experience, it is a contradiction.

You could send a polite request for an explaination from Novak himself:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/

Well, on the one hand I'm no fan of Robert Novak, and on the other I've no idea whether "his column today . . . builds not just an entire column, but a whole theory of Hillary's candidacy, on a falsehood." But assume that it does. There seems a certain symmetry that a candidacy -- an entire career -- built on a edifice of falsehoods and worse should give rise to a theoretical explanaton of itself that is in turn built on a falsehood.

Why is Novak able to find a newspaper who will carry his column? And what does it say about the WA Post that they carry him? I'd think that after the Plame affair, his credibility would be nonexistent.

But, hey, there's a bright side to this: it proves that the our media has no conscience--in case there was any doubt.

Well, jumping in rather late. But great work again Greg. Many readers do seem to be missing the point. Trying to counter these lies has to start somewhere. It does seem to be the point of the blog (and it is what I come here to see). The point about adding in some focus on Novak himself is possibly not a bad idea. I imagine there are journalistic (ethical) considerations. But I think part of the point is that people like Novak have so trashed journalistic ethics that they should not be protected by them.

Why is Novak able to find a newspaper who will carry his column?

Well this fairly simple if you think about it. There is an audience out there who is willing to accept what he says is germane to his chosen topics. That there may be something more behind it is left unsaid throughout his distribution network and will certainly not appear in his own writings, but there's no telling that he would have as large an audience if his (and others, and probably some that I tend to agree with as well) motivations are illustrated with his history and batting average.

Bias is everywhere, where I don't like to see it and where I don't mind. That that bias is dealt with honestly is fairly important to understanding what one is reading and what others are writing.

I watched a bit of Fox News this morning while at the gym and saw an argument similar to Novak's aired there - as though they had somehow caught Sen. Clinton in a serious contradiction. Is this a Republican 'talking point'? It all seems rather pathetic.

The interesting Young Hillary experience that I am waiting to come up is her summer job for Robert Treuhaft, one time member of and lawyer for the Communist Party.

There is a letter of Jessica Mitford Treuhaft in which she asks Hillary whether Chelsea was conceived in Chelsea Station.

So, Novak is stating that no one who supported Goldwater could POSSIBLY have favored civil rights for blacks? That every Goldwater supporter must have been a racist? Who should be more insulted, Hillary, or the conservative movement?

It's 6PM right now, and Tucker Carlson is using the Novak story--and how hypocritical this makes Hillary--as one of his teases. Example #2517 of how the right wing noise machine works. Can't we get Carlson to read TPM? Perhaps he can't read at all.

Tucker started his 1pm (CA time) show with reading Novak's story like it was the truth. Then his 3pm show was a repeat. So it gets more air time. Bill Press didn't refute it either. I couldn't stand to watch any more, so if Press said something later I missed it.
I sent the TPM post to Tucker and MSNBC.

Tucker, Press repeating the Novak lie.
Aeneas above foretold this.
Suggests this canard may have originated at GOP Hq to be carried by GOP stooges like Novak and perpetuated by a compliant MSM.
Novak served to insert it into the MSM until another can arise like flies off of ordure.

As someone who is about a year younger than Hillary, I can relate. I admired Barry Goldwater's idealism and appeal to individualism, and bought into what he said then, that civil rights were not to be solved by (federal) law, but by changes in men's hearts. He was never a racist, and in fact was behind some an early civil rights ordinance as a Phoenix city councilman. None of my idealism got in the way of my admiring Dr. Martin Luther King and the movement of the time. Hillary probably sent through a similar transition. The late 60s helped.

The lessons of time has proven that Goldwater was wrong on this -- it was not right to expect blacks and other minorities to wait for hearts to change before ending public accommodations discrimination, and he later agreed he was wrong to have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Novak is, as usual, full of it if he uses this to question Hillary's sincerity or worthiness. But someone has to start the echo chamber somehow, right?

I resemble that story: As a teenager in the South, I was a Republican in reaction to the racist Dixiecrats who controlled my state AND marched with MLK, Jr., John Lewis, Ralph Abernathy, et al!

Seems Novak -- and others -- have forgotten that Goldwater was an active supporter of the NAACP in Arizona. And George Wallace and Lester Maddox were Democrats. During that time, it was entirely possible to be a "Goldwater Girl" and a Civil Rights activist without any ideological conflict or cognitive dissonance.

Novak hasn't the ability to craft anything sensible and responsible. Nasty idealogue who is not responsible in any way.

This Hillary story is pathetic and twisted.

Please, please don't spend the next 18 months trying to defend Hillary Clinton's sincerity. It's a lost cause and there are so many tough issues to address.

By suggesting that an authentic Goldwater conservative could never be an admirer of Martin Luther King, Novak is reserving the strongest insult for conservatives as a whole (not that he isn't right about 90% of them loathing MLK).

party-of-one: At least two on this issue.

Hey, get off of Bob's back...that's my job

Several weeks ago, the NY Times coverage of the Selma commemoration included the following paragraph:

“"Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, recalled going with her church youth minister as a teenager in 1963 to hear the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. speak in Chicago. Yet, in her autobiography and elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton has described growing up Republican and being a “Goldwater Girl” in 1964 -- in other words, a supporter of the presidential candidacy of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act."”

This is part of the letter I wrote The Times in response:

"This seems a bit unusual for the Times, examining the truthfulness and accuracy of statements by public figures in your news coverage. If this is a new policy, then I congratulate you and look forward to future articles in which the words of our president and administration officials are subjected to similar scrutiny.

Why am I not holding my breath though!"

Aenas is exactly right. I can almost hear my father-in-law parroting this crap now.

One of our sapient bloggers needs to persuade some major nationally read newspaper to carry a daily "Op-Ed" column to refute just this sort of "making shit up" behavior. Opportunities abound.

F'rinstance, something like "Novak said this, but actually he's wrong. Here's how."

Brief enough for the breakfast table; clear enough to be grasped; without (perhaps the hardest part!) knocking anyone's character.

Had I the choice, I'd call that column "The Gadfly." Too esoteric? Meke it "The Real World."

Thank you thank you thank you...for not being fashionable and handpicking stories that make only Obama look good. Thanks for helping (as much as it helps) patrol the crap that people write about Hillary.

This site is the ONLY one that I have seen that does anything to set the record straight when it comes to her. Warts and all should be revealed, but not fabrications.

Keep up the good work!

Many of these comments seem not to be focused on the salient issue about Novaks column. While it can be picked apart in terms of accuracy, the sum total of the article is simple.

Hillary went to Selma, and before a black audience, implied that she was a great respecter of MLK as a teen, when in truth she was a supporter of Goldwater, who opposed the civil rights movement and all that MLK stood for.

That is the entire point. This is all about black votes. Hilliary cannot have her cake and eat it too. If she wants to talk about how much King mattered to her, she needs to give equal time to the fact that politically she supported Goldwater at that time as well.

Anything less than that is pandering.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1964 Goldwater would have been on the side of MLK on a great many issues...

You're wrong. Civil Rights Act of 1964 being a prime example.

Here's what M.L. King had to say about Goldwater in his autobiography:

t was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

(Of course, this doesn't mean that someone couldn't admire both King and Goldwater -- I'm sure many did.)

Oops, the quote included the "While I had followed..." paragraph. Why doesn't this site have comment preview?

photo
pharmaceutical
xanax
http://carcomparecompa.mybbland.com/ car compare comparison css css new summary
xanax
http://www.iwannaforum.com/555/ xanax
audi
audi
mercedes benz monmouth new jersey
http://mercedes.siteburg.com mercedes benz monmouth new jersey
audi
http://71.freebb.com/audi/ audi
http://www.iwannaforum.com/photo/
photo
audi

debt
mercedes
piercing
toyota
tattoo picture
mesothelioma

Sex
Mortgage
hobby
cheap tickets
Anabolic
Hilton Paris
ritalin

mitsubishi super
orgasm yes
escort cool
toy good
honda rulez
volvo car