For Dems only.

[southsider2k5]

Go back and read it, eagle-eye. I mentioned Newt's hypocrisy when comparing his to Al. Nice try.

Or read the GOP thread, where I posted this before anyone else did...

[Balta1701]

Paul Krugman's column this mornin', stuck behind the infamous NYT subscription wall, made an interesting point. If the DOJ is firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons, what does that say about the people they're holding onto? Here's the largest excerpt i've been able to find.

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

 

The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.

 

Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.

 

In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

Mr. Krugman also cites a most interesting study of who the U.S. attorneys are successfully prosecuting on corruption charges.

We presented the preliminary data through August 2004 at the Southern Speech Communication Annual meeting in April 2005 in Baton Rouge and as a refereed panel paper with data through December 2004 at the November 2005 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.

 

We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).

 

Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.

Here's the relevant data on investigations undertaken:

In statewide and federal cases they found a total of 66 investigations. Here's the breakdown:

 

* Democrats: 36

* Republicans: 30

 

This is roughly what you'd expect. Democrats are slightly overrepresented compared to their actual numbers, but only by a bit. There's nothing fishy. But the numbers for local cases paint a very different story. They found 309 investigations, broken down as follows:

 

* Democrats: 262

* Republicans: 37

* Independents: 10

It's certainly possible that the Democrats at the state levels are 700% more corrupt than the Republicans, despite the fact that the Republicans had majorities in an awful lot of area of hte country until the last election or two. But that certainly does seem to be an interesting set of things to think about when considering their prosecutor purge.

[jackie hayes]

It's certainly possible that the Democrats at the state levels are 700% more corrupt than the Republicans, despite the fact that the Republicans had majorities in an awful lot of area of hte country until the last election or two. But that certainly does seem to be an interesting set of things to think about when considering their prosecutor purge.

I'd bet Dems would be investigated significantly more at the local level, simply because cities are often controlled by Dems and a political machine is more likely to exist at city level. It's probably the leakiest sort of corruption, too. (Because it involves so many people in the know.) Whether the difference would be that large is a whole 'nother story. Does Krugman present any data on past investigations?

[Balta1701]

I'd bet Dems would be investigated significantly more at the local level, simply because cities are often controlled by Dems and a political machine is more likely to exist at city level. It's probably the leakiest sort of corruption, too. (Because it involves so many people in the know.) Whether the difference would be that large is a whole 'nother story. Does Krugman present any data on past investigations?

Honeslty, I don't have a clue...the column is behind the NYT subscription wall. As far as I can tell, that study is only partially released, but at least in the data online they don't seem to give tables to allow for comparison with investigations during the Clinton years. If I can log into that site, I'm going to leave that as a comment.

[Rex Kickass]

Nevada Democratic Party pulls out of scheduled primary presidential debate with Fox News in Reno, Aug 14.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html

[jackie hayes]

Honeslty, I don't have a clue...the column is behind the NYT subscription wall. As far as I can tell, that study is only partially released, but at least in the data online they don't seem to give tables to allow for comparison with investigations during the Clinton years. If I can log into that site, I'm going to leave that as a comment.

The previous GOP administrations would be interesting, too. (Not that I'm asking you for those data, I'm just saying, in principle.) It's a better control group than Clinton's administration.

[Balta1701]

Nevada Democratic Party pulls out of scheduled primary presidential debate with Fox News in Reno, Aug 14.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html

If that debate is dead, it died a death it deserved. Even if the treatment of the Dems after their debate on Fox in 03 doesn't sell you on that, even all of the other pro-Bush messages don't, even if keeping Ann Coulter on the air doesn't convince you, even if the Obama-Madrassa made up story doesn't give you a reason, here are some excerpts from the Head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, at a speech LAST NIGHT:

A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. Ok, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever....

 

[Laughter]

 

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. and I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

 

[Laughter/ooohs]

 

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

 

[Laughter]

 

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

France is weak, Bill Clinton is a cheater, and Obama is a terrorist. Man, that's the guy who I want hosting my debate! And this is at the same speech where he said how bad it would be if those extremist interest groups were to get the debate canceled or forced-balanced, as they wanted.

[Balta1701]

March 9, 2007

 

Marty Ryan

Executive Producer

Fox News Political Programs

XXX-XXX-XXXX (fax)

400 N Capitol Street NW, Suite 550

Washington DC 20001

 

DELIVERED VIA FAX AND EMAIL

 

Dear Marty,

 

A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August. This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people.

 

To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by. However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments.

 

In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.

 

Sincerely,

Tom Collins, Chairman, Nevada State Democratic Party

Harry Reid, U.S. Senator (D-NV)

Looks like the higher-ups in Nevada are even smart enough to use the Dem-bashing by Ailes as an excuse to do what they should have done anyway.

[EvilMonkey]

Looks like the higher-ups in Nevada are even smart enough to use the Dem-bashing by Ailes as an excuse to do what they should have done anyway.

Nevada pussy-Democrats can't take a joke? "I'll take my debate and go home! Waaaaaa!" Pluueeeease. Grow a sack, will ya? If they can't handle some snark from Ailes, how are they gonna handle partisan debate in the house? Or all the garbage that comes up during a campaign? The pussification of America continues.

Recently a man in Iran said that not only should we wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but we must imagine a world without Americans. And I thought to myself, imagine a world without America. And then I thought if that were to happen, God help the world. Thank you.

[Balta1701]

Nevada pussy-Democrats can't take a joke? "I'll take my debate and go home! Waaaaaa!" Pluueeeease. Grow a sack, will ya? If they can't handle some snark from Ailes, how are they gonna handle partisan debate in the house? Or all the garbage that comes up during a campaign? The pussification of America continues.

Did ya read the word "Excuse"? There's no good reason at all for the Dems to have Fox News and only Fox News host one of their debates. They might as well have Hastert moderate. The Nevada folks were pretty desperately searching for a way out of the debate, and Ailes gave them something they could use as an excuse.

[EvilMonkey]

Did ya read the word "Excuse"? There's no good reason at all for the Dems to have Fox News and only Fox News host one of their debates. They might as well have Hastert moderate. The Nevada folks were pretty desperately searching for a way out of the debate, and Ailes gave them something they could use as an excuse.

Yes, there is. The Dem guy himself said it in the original article, that if they were going to succeed in getting elected, they needed to reach a wider audience instead of preaching to the choir. When CNN hosts a debate, isn't it CNN, and not also MSNBC and CSPAN? It is one debate, and they just couldn't stand up to the outcry from the nutroots that they would actually have to turn on Fox to watch a debate. Do you think the moderator would stand up there and throw a few one-liners at the candidates between questions? Should the Republicans now not debate unless it is co-hosted by someone other than CNN or ABC? That is just a lame excuse to cave in to the fringe of the party because, as with all fringe elements, they are the loudest.

[Balta1701]

Yes, there is. The Dem guy himself said it in the original article, that if they were going to succeed in getting elected, they needed to reach a wider audience instead of preaching to the choir. When CNN hosts a debate, isn't it CNN, and not also MSNBC and CSPAN? It is one debate, and they just couldn't stand up to the outcry from the nutroots that they would actually have to turn on Fox to watch a debate. Do you think the moderator would stand up there and throw a few one-liners at the candidates between questions? Should the Republicans now not debate unless it is co-hosted by someone other than CNN or ABC? That is just a lame excuse to cave in to the fringe of the party because, as with all fringe elements, they are the loudest.

The example is not the Republicans and CNN or ABC, they make plenty of effort to find some sort of balance. The comparison would be to the Republicans holding a debate on Air America radio.

 

The Dems will gain a lot more benefit from finally getting the rest of the media to acknowledge that Fox is a partisan outfit that makes no effort to be anything other than a pro-Republican channel than they will by going on Fox and having them bash the Dems like they did when Fox hosted a Dem. debate in 2003.

[C]onsider the September 9, 2003 Democratic debate in Baltimore, Maryland, hosted by Fox News in partnership with the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox News graphics, as well as a banner over the stage, titled the event as the "Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate," a misconstruction of "Democrat" used as an an epithet. Fox News then summarized the debate with a story titled, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America," continuing with such jabs as, "The depiction of the president as the root of all evil began at the top of Tuesday night's debate...." Controversial questions included the accusation that Howard Dean had a racist gun policy by Fox News analyst Juan Williams. There were also multiple interruptions by protesters throughout the debate, leading to four arrests.

random link to blog with summary of that event. Fox also reportedly cut away from the debate before the debate that they were hosting was actually over, giving time to their talking heads to begin dissecting it. The first person they had on, who they had to cut away from the actual debate to hear from, was Bill Bennett. No report on how much Bennett had riding on that debate.

 

We have Fox's record from the last debate of making the Dems look bad every way they could. We have Fox still giving air time to Ann Coulter last week. We have Fox making up a story to try to make Sen. Obama look bad. And that's all just in the last couple weeks. The Republicans wouldn't have given a debate to Air America, and the Dems should treat Fox the same way. It is a partisan outlet that does everything they can to make the Dems look bad, and that is how they should be treated.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

The media is biased!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!

[EvilMonkey]

The example is not the Republicans and CNN or ABC, they make plenty of effort to find some sort of balance. The comparison would be to the Republicans holding a debate on Air America radio.

 

The Dems will gain a lot more benefit from finally getting the rest of the media to acknowledge that Fox is a partisan outfit that makes no effort to be anything other than a pro-Republican channel than they will by going on Fox and having them bash the Dems like they did when Fox hosted a Dem. debate in 2003.

random link to blog with summary of that event. Fox also reportedly cut away from the debate before the debate that they were hosting was actually over, giving time to their talking heads to begin dissecting it. The first person they had on, who they had to cut away from the actual debate to hear from, was Bill Bennett. No report on how much Bennett had riding on that debate.

 

We have Fox's record from the last debate of making the Dems look bad every way they could. We have Fox still giving air time to Ann Coulter last week. We have Fox making up a story to try to make Sen. Obama look bad. And that's all just in the last couple weeks. The Republicans wouldn't have given a debate to Air America, and the Dems should treat Fox the same way. It is a partisan outlet that does everything they can to make the Dems look bad, and that is how they should be treated.

Ok, so the banner said Democrat instead of Democratic. oooooh, that cuts deep. As for the cutting away early, that is bull. I will find you the link complete with transcript that i read yesterday, as soon as I can find it. They did not cut away early. As for who Fox has on AFTER the debate, why does that matter? As for Fox maknig Obama look bad, he seems to be doing a bit of that without Fox's help. Yes, so far all his missteps have been minor, but Fox didn't tell him to be pals with rezko, or have his blind trust not-so blind. Face it, this is just poor excuses for dropping out of a debate because of the fringe elements b****ing and moaning. As for 'controversial questions', if they can't stand up to Juan Williams, how are they gonna talk to the Palistinians?

[FlaSoxxJim]

[kapkomet]

Ok, so the banner said Democrat instead of Democratic. oooooh, that cuts deep. As for the cutting away early, that is bull. I will find you the link complete with transcript that i read yesterday, as soon as I can find it. They did not cut away early. As for who Fox has on AFTER the debate, why does that matter? As for Fox maknig Obama look bad, he seems to be doing a bit of that without Fox's help. Yes, so far all his missteps have been minor, but Fox didn't tell him to be pals with rezko, or have his blind trust not-so blind. Face it, this is just poor excuses for dropping out of a debate because of the fringe elements b****ing and moaning. As for 'controversial questions', if they can't stand up to Juan Williams, how are they gonna talk to the Palistinians?

Hey Alpha, I know we all chime in here from time to time, but remember, this is a DEM THREAD ONLY, which means they get to s*** on whatever they want without reprocussion.

 

It's a place to hide!

[EvilMonkey]

Hey Alpha, I know we all chime in here from time to time, but remember, this is a DEM THREAD ONLY, which means they get to s*** on whatever they want without reprocussion.

 

It's a place to hide!

Yeah, I know. I'm done here.

[BigSqwert]

Not sure why this made me laugh:

 

Mayan priests say they will purify the sacred archaeological site to rid it of any "bad spirits" after Bush is there.

 

"That a person like (Bush) with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked is going to walk in our sacred lands is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, director of a Mayan non-governmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, told The Associated Press.

 

ARTICLE

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, I know. I'm done here.

I actually agree with you on this one. While Fox is a bad joke as a news channel, the reality is a certain portion of the population sees them as a significant news source. Therefore, despite their bias, I think for the Dems to back out of this agreement is fairly cowardly. Better to confront them then run away, if you want to show those in the middle (which is who you are trying to win over with something like this) just how bad Fox is, then call their bluff.

[kapkomet]

/bsssssst bssssssssst bssssssssssst

 

Please pardon the interruption for this unrelated to anything post.

 

This might sound strange, but this thread has caused a couple of hangups on the server.

 

I have to optimize the database, but I have to do that at like 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning while people aren't around. Frankly, it's not going to happen for a couple of weeks until I'm done with this MBA.

 

If you could please indulge me and click on the page #'s of the thread instead of the "get new posts" graphic until I can optimize, I'd appreciate it.

 

Sorry about that... now carry on, you blathering Dems.

 

/bsssssssssst bsssssssssst bsssssssssst

[BigSqwert]

I actually agree with you on this one. While Fox is a bad joke as a news channel, the reality is a certain portion of the population sees them as a significant news source.

A certain portion of the population thinks Access Hollywood is a significant news source.

[Rex Kickass]

Thats why the Democrats should clearly team up for the ET/Insider Presidential Gossip Forum in Nashua, NH this October!

[Balta1701]

Thats why the Democrats should clearly team up for the ET/Insider Presidential Gossip Forum in Nashua, NH this October!

That would make a lot more sense than having Fox News host a Dem debate.

[Mplssoxfan]

/bsssssst bssssssssst bssssssssssst

 

Please pardon the interruption for this unrelated to anything post.

 

This might sound strange, but this thread has caused a couple of hangups on the server.

 

I have to optimize the database, but I have to do that at like 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning while people aren't around. Frankly, it's not going to happen for a couple of weeks until I'm done with this MBA.

 

If you could please indulge me and click on the page #'s of the thread instead of the "get new posts" graphic until I can optimize, I'd appreciate it.

 

Sorry about that... now carry on, you blathering Dems.

 

/bsssssssssst bsssssssssst bsssssssssst

Blatant Media Bias.

[jackie hayes]

Peter Pace approves of Don't Ask Don't Tell, because "homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral." Linkage.

 

To be fair, he doesn't say anything about threesomes.