Archive for the ‘media’ Category

…is what they are saying on Morning Joe. Yet the AG who came out against it hasn’t even read the law. The question is this:

How many people at the table, Hass, Halperin et/al have actually read the Arizona law?

I’ve got 2 1/4 hours, I’ll wait.

Update: Guess not

not only because of GOP star of the year Scott Brown’s appearance on his behalf but because of a of a new twist.

Pittsburgh TV station WPGH has suspended the latest ad for Democrat Mark Critz for making false claims. The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee falsely claimed that Republican Tim Burns supports a 23 percent national sales tax and wants to ship jobs overseas.

Dave Weigel notes that Democrats stand behind the claim and the ad remains up in other markets:

…they stand by the arguments in their ad, which are based on Burns’s support of the Fair Tax and his signing of Americans for Tax Reform’s taxpayer protection pledge. Democrats tell me the ad will remain on the air on other TV stations in Pittsburgh and Johnstown, which serve Pennsylvania’s 12th District

they are blaming this on the station’s conservative ownership. I wonder if they will claim factcheck.org is another bunch of biased conservatives too?

But this ad is quite misleading because it fails to mention that the FairTax proposal would also repeal the federal income tax entirely and do away with the Internal Revenue Service. It would also eliminate gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare and self-employment taxes. But anyone viewing the DCCC’s ad could easily conclude that Burns favored slapping a 23 percent sales tax on top of all existing taxes, which is not true.

Usually it would be an issue if factcheck disputed the ad but as Robert Stacy points out:

Well, of course, the Democrats aren’t backing down. They’ve got the MSM to cover their asses and pretend that the Fair Tax represents a “national sales tax” over and above current federal taxes. Of course, they don’t want to deal with the facts.

What is even more interesting and something I’ve touched on before is how a race that didn’t get much national attention when the newest polls showed Burns up by as much as 6 points last month in a heavily democratic district has suddenly become a “must win” for Republicans in a district they haven’t won in 38 years UPDATE: The previous sentence originally said 70+ years, that was misleading, the current 12th district is made up of two additional districts that haven’t elected a republican in 70+ years. In the 12th district that last republican to win was John Saylor in 1972, that’s my bad. when the latest poll give Critz an advantage As Sean Trende points out:

there are over sixty districts represented by Democrats with better Republican performances than PA-12. The Republicans’ path to 218 seats doesn’t necessarily run through this district – in fact, I don’t think their path to a 1994-esque 230 seats necessarily runs through this district.

This is basically extending the Morning Joe spin of yesterday to pretend if the democrats win that the tide of opinion has turned. We all know what the real question is: Can Burns manage to pull it off even without the presence of a Sicilian with a fedora?

…Joe Scarborough gives the best summery of the costs changing the intelligence tactics out there. He directly explains the cost of not holding and interrogating suspect and the moves to prosecute those who apprehend them is that we will not get the information needed to protect us from attack. He declares that it is a trade off that will cost American lives. He doesn’t judge it, but says we as a society need to understand this as we make that decision.

The video is not yet available but it should be watched by everyone and anyone who offers an opinion on Gitmo et/al.

That’s why this show is just drives you nuts sometimes.

Maybe it’s because I’ve got a birthday coming, but if you substitute the words “Afghanistan” with “Iraq”, substitute “Karzai” with “Maliki” and turn the clock back to 2006. It would be the very same conversation. The very same, why are we there, we will be there 10 years or more, why are soldiers dying, we can’t win this war, blah blah blah blah.

C’mon guys we’ve seen this show before. Let me explain a few things.

  • This is a war, in a war both sides try to win, just because we are the US that doesn’t mean the other side is going to stop trying.
  • Yes we are losing troops, that’s because unlike World War 2 we aren’t mass bombing their areas since it would kill an awful lot of civilians. If we DID use all our power the argument would suddenly be how we were killing people indiscriminately.
  • The Taliban is operating in Pakistan, we are not going to go to war or invade a nuclear Pakistan. As long as that is the case we need to be killing the Taliban in Afghanistan.
  • The Goal is the same as the “flypaper” strategy in Iraq. Attract the warriors to a place where we can kill them. We have lost nearly 1,000 soldiers in how many years of war? Does anyone here know what those numbers break down per year? Have you ever heard of a war lasting that long with a loss rate like this. How does it compare to the rates in Chicago, or the Mexican border towns?

If you only know one song people are eventually going to get tired of hearing it.