True or not has Bush lost it? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maximusveritas · 10-11-2005, 11:33 AM

I guess Abbas forgot that he described the meeting almost exactly the same way 2 years ago as I mentioned in my previous post. Luckilly for him, the media is too lazy and stupid to actually call him on this.

roachboy · 10-11-2005, 09:23 PM

what are you talking about?
the story served an obvious and particular purpose: it functioned as a gesture of solidarity on the part of cowboy george with the evangelical base that was alienated by the meier nomination.
when the damage from it got too intense, the denial was dutifully issued.
and there we are: nothing to it from the beginning but reproduced in the press for an appropriate amount of time, then denied: classic karl rove.
we are in the second term of this foul administration and you still havent figured out how the media strategy works?
where have you been?
under some rock?
or worse----a conservative who actually believes this nonsense?
you act as though veracity was an issue with reference to the press: maybe at one point you could have counted on the papers, tv etc to indulge the luxury of independent fact verification--but now, this rarely happens--too expensive, you see---so instead, you have media outlets reproducing what various institutional outlets--the federal govt first of all--- tell them and checking later. if at all. if you could rely on independent fact checking in the press itself, you would not have anything lilke a second bush term, you would not have anything like a karlrove pattern of manipulating the press.

fit this in particular with the general conservative strategy of the past decade or so to deal with critique by undermining the quality of information (check for yourself, the documentation is abundant and easily available to anyone who looks--think about the corporate strategy of hiring pet "scientists" to produce experimental results favroable to corporate interests and go from there) and the function of a story like this should be clear.

the issue is not that the press was chumped.
if you did not see an obvious tactical function to this story from the outset, the chump is you.

maximusveritas · 10-12-2005, 02:51 PM

Are you talking to me roachboy? Maybe I am a chump, but I think it's more likely you're misunderstanding what happened here.

This meeting occurred 2 years ago. Abbas made his comment immediately afterward. Now, 2 years later, another minister who was at the meeting made similar comments while filming an interview for a BBC documentary.
The story was mainly floating in the European newspapers, but was then asked during a White House Press Briefing where it was denied.
Then, a few days later, Abbas issues a denial, presumably to protect the White House from embarassment.
The story never really made it very far into the major news outlets.

So what you're saying is that 2 years ago, Rove hatched a plan with the Palestinians to help the President. It didn't gain any steam when they first tried it with Abbas and Ha'aretz, so they tried it again 2 years later by having another minister and the BBC. This time, it got a bit of play in Europe and the liberal blogosphere, but not anywhere else.
If that's what you're alleging, either Rove is an incompetent idiot or you're dead wrong.

roachboy · 10-12-2005, 03:33 PM

that's not what i am saying, max.
read what i did say above and tell me where you get that interpretation from.
i think you simply made it up.
think about the timing of the story's re-emergence.

maximusveritas · 10-12-2005, 04:22 PM

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant.
Whatever the details, you do seem to be saying that Rove played some role in getting this story fed to the press and that it served some tactical function in deflecting conservative criticism over the Miers nomination.
I don't see how that could be true. It served no such function.

pan6467 · 10-13-2005, 12:45 AM

If this was meant to take the heat off of his nominating Meirs it didn't work very well.

roachboy · 10-13-2005, 05:37 AM

it seems not unreasonable to see the nomination, the series of statements that amount to "her religion is important"--she is a far right evangellical protestant---and this story as linked.

raveneye · 10-13-2005, 07:36 AM

The other possibility is that the god thing was totally unplanned, and the "heat" regarding Miers from other Republicans is mostly faked.

I think she's a complete, unwavering ideologue, and I think just about everybody on the right knows it.

roachboy · 10-13-2005, 08:00 AM

raven: i bit the article below for your amusement.

Quote:

Role of Religion Emerges as Issue

By Peter Baker and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 13, 2005; A08

President Bush said yesterday that it was appropriate for the White House to invoke Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's religion in making the case for her to skeptical conservatives, triggering a debate over what role, if any, her evangelical faith should play in the confirmation battle.

Bush said religion is part of Miers's overall background much like her work as a corporate lawyer in Texas, and that "our outreach program has been just to explain the facts to people." At the same time, his attorney general went on television and described Miers as "pro-life." But the White House said her religious and personal views would not affect her ability to serve as a neutral justice.

"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said in response to a reporter's question at an Oval Office appearance with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

The issue was stoked by James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, who recounted on a radio show taped Tuesday and aired yesterday that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove raised religion in a private conversation to assure him of Miers's conservative bona fides. According to Dobson, Rove told him two days before Bush announced the nomination "that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian [and] that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."

Citing Rove, Dobson also revealed that the president chose Miers after other candidates withdrew. White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed yesterday that "a couple" of potential nominees asked not to be considered because of "the ordeal of going through the confirmation process." McClellan declined to identify those who withdrew. Dobson said Rove told him the president had decided to nominate a woman, which narrowed the list even before the withdrawals.

Liberals jumped on Dobson's comments to accuse the White House of imposing a religious litmus test, or of invoking faith to signal to conservatives that Miers would rule as they wish on such questions as restricting abortion rights. Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, noted that conservatives complained when anyone questioned the influence of faith during the recent confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"It's hypocrisy doubled and quadrupled," Neas said. "What's wrong for John Roberts can't be right for Harriet Miers. . . . The president and his people are using repeated assurances about Miers's religion to send not-so-subtle messages about how she might rule on the court on issues important to the president's political supporters."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, signaled his party may have more questions about the Rove-Dobson communications. "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know," Leahy said of Dobson in a statement. "We don't confirm justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals."

During Roberts's confirmation, the administration and its allies tiptoed around the question of the nominee's religious beliefs. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told reporters that when he asked how faith influences his work, Roberts "said, 'I'm very uncomfortable talking about that.' " Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said during Roberts's confirmation, "We have no religious test for public office in this country."

But religion was clearly on the minds of some Miers supporters yesterday. Television evangelist Pat Robertson warned Republican senators not to vote against Miers, noting that most of them had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- whom Robertson described as a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer -- when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he asked on his show. "Not on your sweet life if they want to stay in office."

The Senate Judiciary Committee sent Miers a questionnaire yesterday that included several items the panel did not ask of Roberts. "Please describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions," the questionnaire asks. The committee, consisting of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats, also asked Miers to "explain how you will resolve any conflicts that may arise by virtue of your service in the Bush Administration, as George W. Bush's personal lawyer, or as the lawyer for George W. Bush's Gubernatorial and Presidential campaigns."

The administration again dispatched top officials to defend the Miers nomination. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said on MSNBC yesterday that he believes Miers personally opposes abortion. "I believe that she is pro-life," Gonzales said. "But the question as to whether or not she's pro-life or not has no bearing and should have no bearing as to . . . how she would rule on a particular case interpreting the right to an abortion."

A Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding the nomination said Gonzales has never talked with Miers about her views on abortion. The official declined to say why Gonzales believes Miers is opposed to the practice.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman stressed that Miers would not be seduced by the liberal establishment like other Republican-appointed justices who "want to curry favor with the Georgetown cocktail set."

raveneye · 10-13-2005, 02:19 PM

I think it would be appropriate to quote George Orwell during the confirmation hearings.

10-11-2005, 09:23 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what are you talking about? the story served an obvious and particular purpose: it functioned as a gesture of solidarity on the part of cowboy george with the evangelical base that was alienated by the meier nomination. when the damage from it got too intense, the denial was dutifully issued. and there we are: nothing to it from the beginning but reproduced in the press for an appropriate amount of time, then denied: classic karl rove. we are in the second term of this foul administration and you still havent figured out how the media strategy works? where have you been? under some rock? or worse----a conservative who actually believes this nonsense? you act as though veracity was an issue with reference to the press: maybe at one point you could have counted on the papers, tv etc to indulge the luxury of independent fact verification--but now, this rarely happens--too expensive, you see---so instead, you have media outlets reproducing what various institutional outlets--the federal govt first of all--- tell them and checking later. if at all. if you could rely on independent fact checking in the press itself, you would not have anything lilke a second bush term, you would not have anything like a karlrove pattern of manipulating the press. fit this in particular with the general conservative strategy of the past decade or so to deal with critique by undermining the quality of information (check for yourself, the documentation is abundant and easily available to anyone who looks--think about the corporate strategy of hiring pet "scientists" to produce experimental results favroable to corporate interests and go from there) and the function of a story like this should be clear. the issue is not that the press was chumped. if you did not see an obvious tactical function to this story from the outset, the chump is you. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-11-2005 at 09:33 PM..

10-12-2005, 03:33 PM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's not what i am saying, max. read what i did say above and tell me where you get that interpretation from. i think you simply made it up. think about the timing of the story's re-emergence. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-13-2005, 12:45 AM	#46 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	If this was meant to take the heat off of his nominating Meirs it didn't work very well. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-13-2005, 05:37 AM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems not unreasonable to see the nomination, the series of statements that amount to "her religion is important"--she is a far right evangellical protestant---and this story as linked. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-11-2005, 11:33 AM	#41 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I guess Abbas forgot that he described the meeting almost exactly the same way 2 years ago as I mentioned in my previous post. Luckilly for him, the media is too lazy and stupid to actually call him on this.

10-12-2005, 02:51 PM	#43 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Are you talking to me roachboy? Maybe I am a chump, but I think it's more likely you're misunderstanding what happened here. This meeting occurred 2 years ago. Abbas made his comment immediately afterward. Now, 2 years later, another minister who was at the meeting made similar comments while filming an interview for a BBC documentary. The story was mainly floating in the European newspapers, but was then asked during a White House Press Briefing where it was denied. Then, a few days later, Abbas issues a denial, presumably to protect the White House from embarassment. The story never really made it very far into the major news outlets. So what you're saying is that 2 years ago, Rove hatched a plan with the Palestinians to help the President. It didn't gain any steam when they first tried it with Abbas and Ha'aretz, so they tried it again 2 years later by having another minister and the BBC. This time, it got a bit of play in Europe and the liberal blogosphere, but not anywhere else. If that's what you're alleging, either Rove is an incompetent idiot or you're dead wrong.

10-12-2005, 04:22 PM	#45 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Perhaps you could clarify what you meant. Whatever the details, you do seem to be saying that Rove played some role in getting this story fed to the press and that it served some tactical function in deflecting conservative criticism over the Miers nomination. I don't see how that could be true. It served no such function.

10-13-2005, 07:36 AM	#48 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	The other possibility is that the god thing was totally unplanned, and the "heat" regarding Miers from other Republicans is mostly faked. I think she's a complete, unwavering ideologue, and I think just about everybody on the right knows it.

10-13-2005, 02:19 PM	#50 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	I think it would be appropriate to quote George Orwell during the confirmation hearings.