Presto! CNN Edits Pelosi's Quote To Make Her Say Dem Congress "Hasn't Done Anything"
(November 9, 2007 -- 6:59 PM EDT // link // )

I'm not sure anyone could outdo this one in terms of, shall we say, "creative" editing of quotes.

CNN ran a report this afternoon with the headline: "Record Anger At Congress." The network quoted Nancy Pelosi agreeing with this thesis, saying:

"I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything."

Woah -- Pelosi, the Dem leader of the House, says of the Dem Congress that "we haven't done anything?"

Well...take a look:

As you can see, CNN clipped Pelosi's quote so that she was saying of the Dem Congress: "We haven't done anything." Anything at all. But Pelosi actually said that she was unhappy with Congress because we haven't done anything to end the Iraq War. Her full quote:

"I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything to end, we haven't been effective in ending the war in Iraq."

But CNN's magic wand turned this into: "We haven't done anything." That's pretty impressive.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Memo To Pundits: Kerik Indictment Cuts At Core Rationale Of Rudy Candidacy
(November 9, 2007 -- 4:21 PM EDT // link // )

In light of the questions I asked yesterday about what today's coverage of the indictment of Bernie Kerik would be like, I took a quick lap through the news stories and punditry about Kerik and was actually surprised: A lot of it was pretty on point in some ways.

The New York Times devoted a whole piece to the political problem Kerik has become for Rudy, prominently mentioning that Rudy had pushed Kerik as Homeland Security chief high in the piece. The Associated Press had a similar piece focused on the same thing. CNN's analysts were pretty tough on Rudy: Gloria Borger said that it "calls into question his judgment," and even Wolf Blitzer got a little bit feisty, pointing out that it was kind of problematic that Rudy had pushed Kerik as DHS chief.

But for all that, a critical, fundamental point is still being missed in the commentary on this story.

The Kerik indictment isn't merely news because it calls into question Rudy's judgment or vetting skills on one appointment or even on his recommending him for DHS. Rather, its real importance lies in the fact that it undercuts the core rationale of his entire candidacy. It perfectly captures the fraudulent nature of Rudy's entire Presidential quest.

Rudy's argument to voters is simple: He's the candidate best equipped to protect us from what he likes to call the "terrorists' war on us." To justify this he likes to say that as Mayor he shouldered the burden of maintaining the "safety and security of 8 million people," and that as Mayor of New York on 9/11 he alone understands just how frightful the terrorist menace really is and hence would be most effective in countering it. This is Rudy's central message: I alone am the best equipped to keep the country safe from Islamofascisterror.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that the post of Homeland Security chief is kind of important when it comes to doing this. Despite this, Rudy is the primary reason that a cartoonish joke like Kerik was ever considered for the all-important post of defending the nation in the first place. Remember, Rudy privately vouched for Kerik to Bush. If somehow Kerik's various shenanigans and misdeeds hadn't come to light in time, it's not inconceivable that he could have ended up as DHS chief, with potentially catastrophic results that would have been primarily Rudy's fault. Now Rudy is telling us he's the guy to keep us safe?

Pundits are awfully quick to take the most minor gaffe committed by Dems and use it as a cudgel to beat their central rationale to death. John Edwards got a $400 haircut? That proves his poverty candidacy is a ruse. Al Gore uses lots of electricity? Hah -- his environmental crusade's a sham. And so on.

Your pundits are much more circumspect when it comes to Republicans. But in the case of Rudy and Kerik you have something incomparably worse: The candidate who is telling us that he will best defend us from terrorism cavalierly pushed a crooked crony, a complete buffoon, for one of the positions that is most central to the accomplishment of that goal. That is why the Kerik story is important and strikes what should be a lethal blow to Rudy's candidacy. And it would be cool to hear pundits close the circle and discuss this in terms just as stark as these.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

How Will Media Play Kerik's Indictment?
(November 8, 2007 -- 6:34 PM EDT // link // )

ABC News is reporting that Rudy top cop Bernie Kerik has been indicted on charges stemming from tax evasion and corruption allegations.

So, some questions about the press coverage of this that we'll see tomorrow and in the days ahead:

Will Rudy Giuliani's name be in the headline and lede of tomorrow's stories, given that this is only important really because Rudy is running for President?

Will the stories prominently point out that this is a blow to Rudy's campaign? How many pundits will say this?

Will Kerik's indictment gain anywhere near the amount of political commentary that was lavished on, say, fugitive Norman Hsu, who inspired days and days of chatter from pundits despite his being one of many thousands of donors to the Hillary campaign?

Will any of the stories delicately suggest that this raises questions about Rudy's judgment and vetting skills in picking key cabinet members? Will any pundits say this?

Will the stories prominently feature the fact that Rudy also recommended Kerik to be chief of Homeland Security, in addition to picking him as top cop, or will the stories bury this fact despite its obvious importance in enabling us to judge whether Rudy is fit to be President?

Will any pundits start pointing out that Rudy suggested Kerik as Homeland Security chief despite the fact that his primary campaign message is that he's the candidate who can best keep us safe?

We'll see.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Sorry, Washington Post -- Pollling Data Shows That Global Warming Issue Is Risky For Republicans
(November 8, 2007 -- 10:41 AM EDT // link // )

A few days ago, The Washington Post ran a long front-page story that carried this frightful headline:

Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats

There was zero polling data in the piece to support this claim. As Matthew Yglesias noted, the basis for it appeared to be little more than the "time honored principled Everything is Bad News for Democrats."

Well, as luck would have it, we now have some actual empirical evidence on this question: A new poll that, unsurprisingly, finds that the public wants action on the biggest global problem before us right now and that it's a risky issue for Republicans.

The Politico got an advance look at a poll conducted for an environmental group by Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, that surveyed voter opinion on the green question in the 49 closest House districts:

In a presentation similar to ones provided to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle in recent days, Ayres illustrates how independents — who were responsible for ousting the GOP majority in 2006 — are unmistakably supportive of swift action to cut carbon emissions and require cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by cars, factories and power plants.

Ayres seemed most surprised that independents and, to a lesser extent, Republicans wanted the U.S. to act even if China and India, two big polluters with rapidly growing economies, did not.

The swing district independent voters said they were much more likely to support a candidate who votes to cut carbon emissions.

Republican voters were surprisingly supportive of efforts to combat global warming but also made it clear they were much less likely to hold members of Congress accountable if they failed to act anytime soon...

Republicans are split in three camps: a small but vocal group who think global warming is basically a hoax (26 percent of GOP voters in the Ayres poll said it does not exist); a big group that includes GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani who agree the Earth is warming but are reluctant to embrace plans opposed by business or viewed as burdensome government regulation; and a growing number who are pushing for specific, market-based solutions now.

The latter group is on the rise.

In sum, this pollster found that (a) independents, whom Republicans need to win back, are "unmistakably supportive" of action on global warming; (b) that Republican voters are "surprisingly supportive" of action; and (c) that the number of Republicans who want specific, market-based solutions now is "on the rise." While The Politico doesn't provide the polling numbers, the conclusion is clear, and Politico even spoke to "a lot" of Republicans, including a former top Bush strategist, who are saying that inaction on this issue holds real peril for them.

Yet despite the fact that lots of Republicans have reached this conclusion, somehow The Washington Post was only able to discover that this is a risky issue for Democrats. This illustrates once again that the default setting for many in the political media is still that Dems are always vulnerable; Dems are always at risk of getting too far ahead of public opinion; and Dems are always at risk of provoking a backlash from the same public that strongly agrees with them.

It'll be interesting to see if WaPo revisits this issue, now that we have some actual empirical evidence to shed light on the topic the paper reported so extensively on. Somehow one doubts that WaPo will call up Ayres and ask him what gives.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Did Bill Accuse Hillary's Dem Opponents Of "Swift-Boating" Her?
(November 7, 2007 -- 5:01 PM EDT // link // )

Updated below.

Memo to MSNBC and other media -- have you ever heard of that handy little thing known as a transcript?

You may have heard in recent days that Bill Clinton accused Hillary's Democratic opponents of "swift-boating" her when they criticized her answers to an immigration question during and after the recent Dem debate. This claim has been all over the media of late, in particular, MSNBC, which has repeated this claim ad infinitum.

The other day, for instance, Tucker Carlson wondered whether this showed that "the Clinton campaign was cracking under the pressure." Multiple other MSNBC reporters made similar claims about Bill's alleged "Dems swiftboated my wife" charge. It's become a big issue in the Dem primary right now, with multiple rivals hitting Bill for comparing their criticism of Hillary with the attacks Kerry endured.

But did it actually happen?

Let's take a look at the AP's transcript of the relevant part of Bill's actual speech. Here are the key excerpts:

"The point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff.

"And when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift Boat ad was run against Senator Kerry. When there was an ad that defeated Max Cleland in Georgia, a man that left half his body in Vietnam...

Why am I saying this?

"Because, I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again. Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting a driver's license. So, we then let the Republicans go ahead saying all the Democrats are against the rule of law.

"I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. I believe immigration needs to be discussed. And it's fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer's plan. But not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.

"So do I hope you vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America, and good for the world. But, more than that I came here to tell you today, don't you dare let them take this election away from you...Don't be diverted, don't be divided."

Okay. This is murky stuff. But a fair reading of this shows that Bill is not saying that Dems "swiftboated" Hillary when they criticized her immigration answer. Instead, he's saying that forcing simplistic "raise your hand" answers to complex questions ultimately makes it easier for Republicans to "swiftboat" Dems later by using them as wedges.

In other words, Bill isn't comparing the current Dem attacks on Hillary with the Republican attacks on Kerry, as her Dem rivals have charged. The swiftboat attacks Bill's alluding to here are the inevitable future attacks from Republicans.

Just to be clear, Bill is indeed faulting the other Dems implicitly here, or at least trying to get voters not to listen to them. He seems to be implicitly appealing to Dem voters not to listen to Dem rival criticism of Hillary by telling Dems that a focus on such "trivial" differences between the candidates will make them more vulnerable to Republican tactics later.

I'm not defending that; it's in some ways a problematic argument. I'm just reporting what Bill actually said -- and that he didn't make the loaded accusation that Hillary's Dem rivals had "swiftboated" her.

A full transcript of Bill's remarks after the jump.

Update: It's worth pointing out that Hillary supporter Wes Clark has been sympathetic to the idea that Dem criticism of Hillary is "swiftboating." On MSNBC he suggested that the Dem criticisms of Hillary had a "certain character aspect to them" that had a "swift boating implication."

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled. Continue reading "Did Bill Accuse Hillary's Dem Opponents Of "Swift-Boating" Her?"

CNN Meekly Asks: Did Rudy Get His Facts Straight?
(November 7, 2007 -- 10:46 AM EDT // link // )

To its credit CNN ran a piece late yesterday fact-checking Rudy's blatantly false radio ad claiming that there's a dramatic difference between prostate recovery numbers in America and England. But someone at CNN had to foul the whole thing up by blinking and getting all scared of telling viewers the truth. Take a look at the headline that ran throughout the segment:

"Did he get his facts straight," CNN asks.

But really, this is not a question. This is not open to debate, He did get his facts wrong. What's more, this wasn't a situation where Rudy, acting in good faith, accidentally fumbled his facts, as the hed meekly suggests. As has already been reported, Rudy took his stats from a bogus source and didn't check them against reputable ones. And not only were his assertions completely debunked, but the original source of Rudy's data came out and claimed that Rudy was full of it.

On top of that -- and this is the key -- after Rudy's assertions were widely and conclusively debunked, his campaign openly asserted that they were going to keep running the ad with the false stats, anyway. This wasn't merely an accidental fumble of a few numbers. Rather, the Rudy campaign is willfully and continuously lying about the most important domestic issue facing the country right now.

I'm gonna say it one more time: CNN and other journalists, Rudy and his campaign think you're all a bunch of easily-played chumps. They have total contempt for the truth and for all the things that led you to enter this profession. America's Mayor lied to America. Don't be afraid to say so. This is damn serious stuff.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Media Largely Ignores Rudy's Claim That He Waterboarded Mafia Suspects
(November 6, 2007 -- 6:01 PM EDT // link // )

I really don't know what to make of this. As faithful TPM readers know by now, over the weekend Rudy reacted to a question about extreme torture techniques by saying the following:

"Now, intensive questioning works. If I didn't use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is. Intensive question has to be used. Torture should not be used. The line between the two is a difficult one."

If you watch the video of this you can see that Rudy was perfectly serious. Which means that Rudy either was saying:

(a) He literally used such techniques on mafia suspects; or

(b) He actually thinks that there are similarities between waterboarding/extreme interrogation techniques and the questioning of suspects he conducted as U.S. Attorney, in the sense that he sees extreme interrogation as little more than an extension of lawyerly cross-examination.

In a sane universe, either of these interpretations would be seen far and wide within our journalistic and political establishment as so beyond the pale, so completely whacked and out of touch with reality, that either would make it overwhelmingly obvious that this fellow is completely unfit for the Presidency. Either interpretation should make it startlingly clear how unfit this guy is to be anywhere near the nuke button.

As such, this should be a big story. And indeed, if a Dem had said something even a fraction as ludicrous it would be a big story. So what kind of news coverage has it gotten?

Almost none. It got one paragraph at the end of a Times story that didn't describe the comment as being at all eyebrow-raising. It was covered by The Boston Globe and the New York Daily News and got a mention from Keith Olbermann. It got no mention that I can find from The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, or any of the major networks. The only pundit save Olberman I can find who talked about it at all is Richard Cohen.

This is really, really remarkable. How to explain it?

My view is that many in the media elite still view Rudy as a kind of harmless buffoon who's only being talked about as Presidential material because he hit the political jackpot on 9/11. His lisp, his comically clipped speaking style, his marital history, his history of cross-dressing, and the alleged impossibility of his winning a GOP primary have lulled lots of commentators and pundits into seeing him as little more than a political freak, as a kind of comic book character who will shrink and disappear when the 9/11 spell wears off. Buffoonery like the above just gets slotted into that narrative and hence overlooked.

You'd think that these folks in the media elite, who have the highest regard for Rudy's rival, John McCain, would be listening to what he has to say about this. As he put it: “When someone says waterboarding is similar to harsh interrogation techniques used against the mafia in New York City, they do not have enough experience to lead our military."

Why won't people in the media listen to Saint McCain? As he rightly suggests (though with far too much understatement), this guy is completely unfit for the Presidency. That kind of matters. At the least you'd think someone would ask Rudy or his campaign for clarification of this.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

After Confirming Mukasey, Will Dems Pass Law Making Waterboarding And Other Torture Illegal?
(November 6, 2007 -- 2:10 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, there's a big test looming for Congressional Dems, as well as for several of the Dem Presidential candidates, and it'll be interesting to see how they handle it.

As you know Michael Mukasey is on his way to almost certain confirmation as Attorney General, despite his unwillingness to say whether he thinks waterboarding is torture. Congressional Dem leaders who support him -- such as Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein -- have been careful to declare that in spite of this they really, really do oppose waterboarding and think it's torture.

Well, Dems are now going to have another chance to prove this.

Check out this little nugget buried in an Op ed piece that Schumer published in today's New York Times explaining his support for Mukasey:

Judge Mukasey’s refusal to state that waterboarding is illegal was unsatisfactory to me and many other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Congress is now considering — and I hope we will soon pass — a law that would explicitly ban the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. And I am confident that Judge Mukasey would enforce that law.

Did you know that Congress was considering a law that would "explicitly ban" waterboarding and other extreme techniques? This has flown kind of under the radar, but it turns out that there are two such bills before Congress right now. One is a measure being sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy; the other is being sponsored by Senator Joe Biden. Both unequivocally ban waterboarding and other torture practices.

Schumer says he supports this law. So now the question is, Where are other Dems on it, and will it be allowed to come to a vote? I emailed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, and asked him whether the leadership backed the law and whether he could guarantee that it would come to a vote. Here's his answer:

There is no doubt waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Senator Reid supports reaffirming that important principle in law. I don't know yet where that amendment will be offered, but I expect we will consider it soon.

In other words, Reid supports the law but leadership can't say yet when it will go to a vote. Fine -- there's a lot going on in the Senate today.

This is a real chance for Dems who oppose waterboarding to prove it once and for all -- by calling strongly and unequivocally for one of these measures to go to the floor, and then by voting for it. Doing this amounts to a declaration that waterboarding is in fact torture, is illegal, and must be stopped -- period.

As Atrios and Andrew Sullivan noted today, there's a new CNN poll out that finds that a very solid majority -- 58% -- oppose the waterboarding of terrorists. The question, as always, is: What will Dems do once Mr. Less-Popular-President-Than-Nixon and other conservatives haul out the Dems-fellate-terrorists rhetoric? How will Obama (who at first dragged his feet in opposing Mukasey) and Hillary (who still has stopped short of saying whether she thinks waterboarding is torture) handle this? What about other Congressional Dems?

This one bears watching.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Senior Active-Duty General Says Positive Things About Waterboarding; Will Media Demand Clarification?
(November 5, 2007 -- 4:43 PM EDT // link // )

It'll be very, very interesting indeed to see if this gets any media play.

A senior active-duty U.S. Army general has just come out and made some positive comments about waterboarding that come pretty close to an endorsement of the technique.

Via Editor and Publisher, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has published a surprising interview with three-star Army General Russel Honore in which he responds to questions about waterboarding by saying that "we've got an obligation to do what the hell we've got to do to make sure we get the mission done."

Some of you may have heard Honore's name before. That's because he was widely lauded by the media in 2005 after he took control of the government's sluggish response to Gulf Coast residents after Hurricane Katrina. He's a high-profile military figure.

Should a highly-visible active-duty Army general really be saying anything that even approaches an endorsement of waterboarding? This technique is against Army regulations. The Army field manual on interrogations, which was revised in 2006, explicitly says that waterboarding is forbidden. Indeed, according to Spencer Ackerman, who is TPM's resident expert on such matters, if a soldier or an officer is found to have used an interrogation technique outside the field manual, he or she will have an appointment with a court martial board.

But here's what General Honore has to say about waterboarding in his interview with AJC:

"I don't know much about it, but I know we're dealing with terrorists who do some very awful things to people," he said after Friday morning's speech to about 900 students at Flat Rock Middle School in Tyrone. "I know enough about [waterboarding] that the intent is not to kill anybody. We know that terrorists that we deal with, they have no law that they abide by. They have no code, they kill indiscriminately, like they did on 9/11."

And this:

Honore, however, said the military will always remain within the limits of the law, but warned that stiffer interrogation methods may sometimes be necessary in the war on terror.

"If we picked up a prisoner that could tell us where the next 9/11 plot was, we could sit there and treat him nice, and that may not work," he said. "We could sit there and give him water and we could be politically correct.

"But if we have to use sources and methods that get information that not only save American lives, but save other people's lives or could prevent a major catastrophe from happening, I think the American people can decide [whether to allow waterboarding]."

Then came something that sounded very close to an endorsement of the technique:

"As long as we're responsible for hunting those SOBs down, finding them and preventing them from killing our sons and daughters," Honore said, "I think we've got an obligation to do what the hell we've got to do to make sure we get the mission done."

So a high-profile active-duty U.S. Army general is basically giving a thumbs-up of sorts to a technique that the U.S. Army's own interrogation manual -- which was revised specifically to prevent future abuses similar to Abu Ghraib -- says is forbidden. One that is internationally regarded as a war crime.

That seems like it should be a story. Is any enterprising reporter gonna call up General Honore and seek clarification of his views?

Any takers?

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Beware The Internet Rabble! New York Times Web Site Opens Itself Up For Reader Comments
(November 5, 2007 -- 10:30 AM EDT // link // )

In his column yesterday, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt offered his readers a startling revelation: In what is perhaps a milestone for the paper, its editors have ever so carefully edged The Times further into the Internet age by deciding to open up the newspaper's online articles to public comments.

Hoyt reports that the paper began doing this with little fanfare last week, and even has opened up some of its editorials to reader feedback. And in an intriguing detail, he explains the extraordinary lengths that the paper has gone to in order to prevent obscene or vitriolic comments from getting through: The paper has hired "four part-time staffers, to screen all reader submissions before posting them, an investment unheard of in today’s depressed newspaper business environment."

Why such lengths? Hoyt suggests that the move is all about protecting the paper's "dignified" tone from the Internet rabble. And it is amusing to note the degree to which Hoyt and the Times editors he spoke with are wringing their hands as they contemplate the fateful step of throwing open the gates to the hordes beyond.

But it's worth noting that the caution is justified on another level. The paper's editors have to know that right-wing bloggers and talk-show hosts will be relentlessly scouring the Times Web site for nutjob anti-troops or pro-assassination reader comments that they can use to depict the paper as a bastion of fifth columnists who are trying to destroy America from within, just as Bill O'Reilly did to DailyKos recently.

The Times, of course, is already perhaps the highest-profile target in the country for this sort of stuff, a target so reliable for stirring up the right-wing base that even the White House has repeatedly gone after it. Recall that the wingers, with an assist from Republicans in Congress and even the President himself, successfully managed to turn a clerical error made by an ad sales rep selling an ad to MoveOn into national news for days on end. So here's predicting that an attack on the paper's patriotism based on reader comments will erupt before the end of the month.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.

Maureen Dowd Bases Whole "Gender Card" Column On Something That Never Happened
(November 4, 2007 -- 11:28 AM EDT // link // )

People have already started taking their whacks at Maureen Dowd's dismal column today decrying Hillary for playing the "gender card." But I wanted to add one other point: The entire column is based on something that just never happened.

Dowd's whole effort is based on the idea that Camp Hillary's strategy is, as Dowd describes it, a "don’t hit me, I’m a girl" strategy. From there Dowd concludes that Hillary says she should be able to do and say whatever she wants -- or "have it both ways" on a variety of fronts -- because she's a woman.

I'm going to get all boring and earnest on you again, and focus on what the candidate and campaign actually said. And guess what? None of the above stuff ever took place.

Reality to Maureen: Hillary and her campaign did not say...

(a) The male candidates are beating up on me because I'm a woman; or

(b) The male candidates should stop beating up on me because I'm a woman.

As I noted the other day, there's no question that the Hillary camp is in some ways highlighting Campaign 2008's gender dimension for political reasons. Did Camp Hillary push the imagery of men attacking her because they think it will appeal to women and present her as a tough woman? Yep. Did Hillary describe politics as a "boy's club" for a similar reason? Sure -- she did it to appeal to her largely female audience (imagine that) and because it's, you know, basically true. Was this stuff partly motivated by politics? Um, yeah -- this is a political campaign, after all.

But again, Camp Hillary did not say men were attacking her, or that her rivals shouldn't attack her, because she's a woman. She just never tried to use gender as a "shield" in any meaningful sense. If someone can prove otherwise, I'll gladly post it. Without this false point, Dowd's entire column collapses.

It's also worth noting that Dowd defended Tim Russert from criticism of his "gotcha" debate questions. This is instructive. It reminds us of the extent to which Dowd and Russert -- and so many other D.C. insider pundit types -- traffic in the same currency. The "gotchas" Russert generates are the sort of thing that Dowd needs as the hook to spin off those has-been standup comic one-liners and to hang the bogus narratives on.

I think Atrios wrote somewhere that one reason he started blogging was because he had grown sick of the storylines he was being fed by the Beltway journalistic establishment, and wanted to tell the story the right way. This probably is the reason that a lot of lib bloggers geared up -- in reaction to the bogus narratives that the Dowds of the world were spinning in 2000 and 2004. As today's effort reminds us, as long as Dowd and company can keep making the stuff up without taking a hit from social or professional peers, the frolicking and frivolity at the Royal Court just isn't gonna stop. In other words, let's get busy, all.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.