Won’t Debate You Unless You Apologize For Your Socialism

Dumb as presidential elections can get, I am sure readers know it can get a whole lot dumber in House contests, where there are few true “local issues” to liven things up and candidates are mostly running cookie-cutter partisan ads without the inconvenience of much media strutiny (not because reporters aren’t trying, but more because there just ain’t that many of them left outside the very biggest cities).

A good example is one of the most competitive House races in the country, in the 12th district of Georgia, where ever-embattled John Barrow, the last white Democrat in his state’s delegation, is being challenged by Republican state legislator Lee Anderson.

Now I think even Anderson’s closest friends would admit he’s not rhetorically gifted. Complete sentences, particularly those that involve facts and figures, sometimes seem beyond his ken. Indeed, the likelihood that he would get slaughtered in a debate with the incumbent was one of his Republican runoff opponent’s major talking points.

So instead of the usual challenger’s posture of eagerness to debate, Anderson has met Barrrow’s requests with “preconditions,” of the kind Republicans think you need to set when negotiating with the North Koreans or something. Larry Peterson of the Savannah Morning News has the hilarious details:

In politics, it’s usually the challenger who accuses the incumbent of ducking debates.

But in the 12th Congressional District, Democratic Rep. John Barrow says challenger Lee Anderson is shunning them.

Anderson, a Republican state representative from Grovetown, hasn’t refused outright, but wants Barrow to jump through two hoops.

He’ll “consider” a debate if Barrow first discusses on TV his recent tepid endorsement of President Barack Obama.

And, if spokesman Ryan Mahoney adds, Barrow says on camera who he supports for Speaker of the House.

“Barrow,” Mahoney said, “… is incapable of telling the truth to voters … and doesn’t deserve a platform to further promote his empty campaign promises and tired political rhetoric.”

Although saying he’ll answer questions about Obama and his choice for speaker during a debate, Barrow rejects Anderson’s demands.

And now Anderson’s campaign spokesman has issued this non-sequitur:

“Rather than apologize to seniors … for gutting Medicare, entrenched politician John Barrow issued a debate challenge.”

Wonder what’s next? Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggests:

There is talk that Anderson is ready to heap on more requirements intended to even the debating field: Barrow would be required to shave his eyebrows, wear a clown suit with large red pom-pom buttons, and issue all his responses through a nose whistle.

But we have not been able to confirm this.

Sounds about right.

via Political Animal http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_09/wont_debate_you_unless_you_apo039864.php

Romney’s Chief Ally, Ctd

Joe Klein took Netanyahu to task yesterday on Morning Joe, in a few moments that made Bob Wright’s day:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Money quote:

I don’t think I’ve ever, in the 40 years I’ve been doing this, have
heard of another of an American ally trying to push us into war as
blatantly and trying to influence an American election as blatantly as
Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud party in Israel is doing right now. I think
it’s absolutely outrageous and disgusting. It’s not a way that friends
treat each other. And it is cynical and it is brazen. And by the way, a
little bit of history here: In December of 2006, George W. Bush went
over to the Pentagon, met with the joint chiefs of staff and asked them,
“What do you think about military action in Iran?” They were
unanimously opposed to it. And as far as I know, the United States
military, the leaders of the United States military, are unanimously
opposed to it to this day. This is a fool’s errand. It would be a
ridiculous war with absolutely no good coming of it.

Klein elaborates at his blog:

Netanyahu is doing two things that should be intolerable for any patriotic American: he is a foreigner trying to influence our presidential campaign and he is a foreigner trying to shove us into a war of choice in a region where far too many Americans have already died needlessly. The Romney campaign–as well as AIPAC, the AJC and every other American Jewish organization–should make it clear to Netanyahu that his interventions into our political process and policy-making are not welcome here.

Recent Dish on Netanyahu here and here.

via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/he-wants-us-to-do-his-dirty-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+Daily+Dish%29

That Time When John Kerry Reached Out to Voters on Friendster

Those were the days.

RTXWCZI-615.jpg

Reuters

The year is 2012, and candidates are all but required to have some sort of “social-media strategy.” The numbers of followers they’ve racked up on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram stand as rough barometers of the campaigns’ health. But just two presidential election cycles ago, Facebook was only available on a handful of campuses and Twitter and Instagram were years away from existing. Online social networking was all quite new.

In those heady days, one candidate, John Kerry, decided early on in the campaign to embrace the social network of the day: Friendster. The other, George W. Bush, took a more conservative approach. As Bloomberg Businessweek reported in March of 2004:

The informally anointed Democratic candidate for President and the North Carolinian who many experts think could wind up as his running mate [John Edwards] recently joined networking Web site Friendster.com, whose visitors create profiles of themselves and connect with various virtual communities of like-minded people. Friendster, whose 5.5 million registrants are 27 years old, on average, is a logical place to find the young voters that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean attracted to his party until his candidacy ended.

The article goes on to describe the candidates’ profiles — Kerry portraying himself as a fun-loving, Hostess-chocolate-cupcake-eating everyman, and Edwards repeating his well-worn autobiography in the About Me section: “I was born 50 years ago and grew up in a tiny mill village named Robbins, N.C. For nearly 20 years I was a lawyer fighting for people like you against big insurance companies and big corporations.”

At least as of the publication of that piece, Bush was yet to create his own Friendster account. Bloomberg Businessweek reported, “President George W. Bush declined an invitation to join. A campaign spokeswoman says Friendster doesn’t fit in with his Internet strategy.” Later on, however, it seems he did finally jump on the social-networking bandwagon — by joining MySpace.

via Technology : The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/that-time-when-john-kerry-reached-out-to-voters-on-friendster/262333/

About the Times Piece

A number of media reporters have now followed up with reports about the Times switcheroo. And the answer from the Times is that it was part of the normal editing process and the preference for on-the-record quotes over blind quotes. The specific response we got from Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the Times, reads as follows …

As reporting went on during the day yesterday, we were able to flesh out the story, add more context and get more sources on the record, which is obviously what we prefer. Having said that, we stand by the reporting in all versions of the story.

Peter Baker, who replaced David Sanger as the lead byline, told Buzzfeed, “It’s just normal journalism — as more reporting comes in, you improve the story. On the record Republican criticism beats anonymous Republican criticism.”

But this is a weak answer which at least dodges what I see as the key question about the piece.

On the record quotes are always to be preferred to blind or background quotes. But the real issue is the utility of the quote in question. One quote in the original Times piece had some former Bush advisor willing to crap on Romney with a good quote. That doesn’t add that much really since lots of people were willing to crap on him yesterday. And it’s always easy to snark behind a blind quote. So there may be some rationale for revising out that quote.

But that’s not the big change in my opinion.

The original piece included a quote from someone the Times called “one of Mr. Romney’s senior advisers” explaining their rationale for their broadside Tuesday night. This wasn’t a critic with a blind quote. It was the Romney campaign itself, seemingly someone very high up in the organization, explaining their actions.

“We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath,” one of Mr. Romney’s senior advisers said on Wednesday. “I think the reality is that while there may be a difference of opinion regarding issues of timing, I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”

The first part of that quote makes the advisor seem callow, frivolous, and shabby. We’ve had the critique out there, “this was a situation that met our critique”, and that was good enough for us. We just let fly.

That sounds like the Romney campaign describing itself pretty much as its critics described it through yesterday. That had a standing critique, a crisis blew up that seemed like it could fit, and well … that was good enough for them, without any sense of whether they should go full-bore attack during an international crisis, get the facts straight or find out what had actually happened.

In other words, in addition to falsifying key facts they appeared to react to the crisis with a purely political calculus.

In the edited version of the Times piece, as Politico’s Dylan Byers notes, that quote is replaced by an on-the-record quote from policy director Lanhee Chen …

Mr. Romney’s camp was surprised by the blowback. “While there may be differences of opinion regarding issues of timing,” Mr. Chen said, “I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”

As you can see, the second portion is identical. So it really sounds like the blind quote was from Chen as well.

Regardless, though, replacing a revealing off-the-record quote from the campaign with a self-serving on-the-record quote does not amount to good journalism.

I think the totality of the edit merits that verdict as well. But this particular revision makes that very clear.




via Talking Points Memo http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/about_the_times_piece.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marshall%29

Report: Third Victim of Libyan Attack a Former Navy SEAL

Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty was identified as the third victim in the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, the Boston Globe reports.

Doherty was killed in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi; U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and two others also died. The Winchester, Mass., native was 42.

He served on the security detail for the ambassador, and was killed while helping the wounded, his sister, Katie Quigley, told the Globe. Doherty served in the SEALs for seven years before joining a private security company. While in the Navy, he served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

via Homepage http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/report-third-victim-of-libyan-attack-a-former-navy-seal-20120913

Toronto: Tribeca Film Acquires Docu ‘How To Make Money Selling Drugs’

TORONTO – Sept. 13, 2012 – Tribeca Film has acquired U.S. rights to Bert Marcus Productions’ How to Make Money Selling Drugs, which had its world premiere on Friday night at the Toronto International Film Festival. The provocative documentary offers an in-depth look at the high-stakes world of drug dealing and drug enforcement by blending authentic reportage with pop culture references. Directed by Matthew Cooke, the film reunites producers Bert Marcus of Bert Marcus Productions and Adrian Grenier (HBO’s Entourage), the team that created the breakout hit Teenage Paparazzo. Tribeca Film plans a 2013 theatrical release day and date with on-demand platforms, where it will be available in more than 40 million homes through a variety of video-on-demand offerings, as well as iTunes, Amazon Watch Instantly, VUDU and Xbox.

How To Make Money Selling Drugs offers a captivating glimpse into the lives of those on both sides of the “war on drugs,” delivering a diverse and unique perspective on the controversial subject through interviews with 50 Cent, The Wire producer David Simon, Arianna Huffington, Woody Harrelson, Eminem and Susan Sarandon, as well as infamous drug kingpin “Freeway” Rick Ross. Presenting a shockingly candid examination of how a street dealer can rise to cartel lord with relative ease, the documentary reveals how public policy and government drug enforcement have struggled to creatively adapt to and effectively disincentive Americans from dealing drugs. Bert Marcus Productions was granted unprecedented access from top‐ranking government officials, from the U.S. Drug Czar to the Drug Enforcement Agency, all providing unique and honest viewpoints on this pervasive global topic.

The deal was negotiated for Tribeca Film by Nick Savva, Director of Acquisitions, and by ICM Partners and Lawrence Kopeikin on behalf of the filmmakers.

via Deadline.com http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/how-to-make-money-selling-drugs-documentary-acquistion-tribeca-film-toronto-film-festival/

How to Make Everyone Hate Your Joy: A Lesson in Email Etiquette from Condé Nast [Conde Nast]

How to Make Everyone Hate Your Joy: A Lesson in Email Etiquette from Condé NastThe important thing to remember about out-of-office replies is that no one is ever happy to receive them. An out-of-office reply is your way of saying, to anyone who emails with a request, “You’re out of luck, motherfucker – I’M GONE.” Use them to list the dates you’ll be gone and the name of an alternate contact person. Do not use them to trick people into reading all about your exciting life.

A tipster sent in this out-of-office reply recently received from a Condé Nast employee who is too blessed to be stressed.

Click here to enlarge.

It starts strong: “I am currently out of the office…” and ends strong: “Thanks!” but, in between, gets lost in many magical twists and turns on the Candyland game board that is life:

If you’re emailing on Saturday, I’m marrying my best friend. If you’re emailing on Sunday, I’m enjoying the sandy beaches of the Fijian coast. If you’re emailing on Monday, I’m still enjoying the sandy beaches of the Fijian coast. If you’re emailing between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m. on Monday, I’m getting a couples massage with my best friend/spouse. If you’re emailing at 6 p.m., I’m dressing for dinner in a beautiful gossamer gown. If you’re emailing at 6:45 p.m., I’m walking to dinner with my best friend/spouse. If you’re emailing at 7 p.m., I’m reading my menu. If you’re emailing on Tuesday, I’m climbing the Gumdrop Mountains. If you’re emailing on Wednesday, I’m making love to my best friend under a canopy of trees in the Lollipop Woods.

Without a doubt, the most absurd part of the email is the section where the author implies that, if left to her own devices, she would gladly spend her honeymoon answering work correspondence. Unfortunately, her coworkers insisted she “just have fun” instead. She’d love to send you the files you urgently need. It’s out of her hands. They’re making her have fun.

If you hadn’t guessed it, our tipster also notes that the signature “[blank] or [blank] (again, depends on the day)” contains both the sender’s maiden and married names.

If you know the happy bride who sent this email, don’t bother emailing to tell her you saw it on Gawker (or to notify her of the small “beckon call” typo) – she’s out of the office either marrying her best friend or enjoying the sandy beaches of the Fijian Coast until September 18th.

Image via Shutterstock

via Gawker http://gawker.com/5942924/how-to-make-everyone-hate-your-joy-a-lesson-in-email-etiquette-from-conde-nast

The Man Romney Used

VileRatSeanSmith

Sean Smith, one of the Americans murdered in Benghazi was a huge force in the online multiplayer game EVE Online. He was on Jabber when
the attack happened. His last words there, one reader tells us, were “FUCK”, “GUNFIRE”. This is an obituary from his “alliance leader”. A reader writes:

I am a player in EVE Online, part of the coalition where Sean (aka Vile Rat) was such an important player. Here’s an excerpt of the coalition’s jabber announcement channel (which on a normal day is mostly filled up by fleet operation announcements), after his death was made public:

(11:08:36 PM) directorbot@goonfleet.com/directorbot: My people, we have been dealt a grevious blow tonight, as people and as players. I, and all of us who knew Sean, are still reeling. And yet, to my horror, already Vile Rat’s death has become a machination in Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. I do not speak of politics often because American politics do not matter in an international game of internet spaceships. But this sickens me, and Vile Rat would not have wanted to become a tool for the Romney campaign. Just this morning, he said this in Illum regarding the RNC:

(12:41:07 PM) kismeteer: vile_rat: Was there anyone in that group that you even partially respected?
(12:41:14 PM) vile_rat: on the republican side?
(12:41:17 PM) kismeteer: yeah
(12:41:20 PM) vile_rat: nope. not a one.

And now we see this: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said in the statement. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

My fury is boundless. Our friend should not be used in this way. We have only so many ways to make our voices heard, but if enough of us shout loudly enough we can – as we have seen – force the media to notice. Retweet this. ALL OF YOU. I will not have Sean’s memory desecrated by American presidential politics.

(Photos from Eve Online and Facebook, via Russell Jones)

via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/a-diplomat-in-the-real-and-virtual-world.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+Daily+Dish%29

Anna Wintour Is Obama’s Fourth Biggest Fund-raiser

In addition to single-handedly dictating what the world pulls out of its closet each morning, Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour is the fourth most effective person at getting rich people to throw their money at President Obama’s reelection campaign.

Wintour’s $40,000-a-plate fund-raising dinner parties have helped her bundle some $2,682,001 dollars this election cycle, according to documents obtained by the New York Times, putting her miles ahead of fellow boldface fund-raisers like Dreamworks founder Jeffrey Katzenberg ($2,064,280), actress Eva Longoria ($271,300), and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer ($112,400).

The list was reportedly used to decide who got what perks at the DNC in Charlotte, like “briefings with senior Obama officials, invitations to post-speech parties, along with ‘priority booking’ at the city’s finest hotels.” Watchdog groups wagged their fingers at the apparent pay for play, but somehow we suspect Wintour’s ceased to be impressed by special treatment.

Read more posts by

Filed Under:
anna wintour
,obama
,fundraising
,love and war
,politics
,vogue
,

via Daily Intel http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/09/anna-wintour-is-obamas-fourth-biggest-bundler.html

But But But … It Was Cool At The Time!

We’ve got proof right here that the hip, sleek, edgy Apple product you adore will one day be laughably clunky and obsolete.




via Talking Points Memo http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/but_but_but_it_was_cool_at_the_time.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marshall%29