Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: Say What, Zach!?

Posted by DesertCroneNM

I read Zach Green's rebuttal of his critics with amusement and a little dismay. Asking legitimate questions about Unite Blue hardly qualifies as a smear campaign. In fact, I asked some of those very questions myself and was very irritated with the evasive non-answers I received. I felt many of the answers Zach wrote in his blog post defy common sense. (Previous post: Four Reasons I Broke Up with Twitter . . .)

      

First: Zach claims he supported Buddy Roemer's campaign because "'Buddy Roemer only had one issue: get money out of politics.'" No, Zach, Mr. Roemer had other issues: supporting the Keystone Pipeline, a wall along the border with Mexico, supports a flat tax, things the Tea Party is good for America (which voids his support of the Occupy movement, don't you think?), raising the eligibility age for Social Security, anti-choice, support of DOMA, and the repeal of Obamacare -- which are all anathema to liberals. Some liberals have dismissed Zach's connection with Roemer by saying that they liked Buddy while at the same time excoriating President Obama for even mentioning chained CPI. I find that odd. But like Roemer (once member of the Democratic Party and then the GOP and now Independent), Zach seems to change his associations according to the political winds. For example, Zach also hosted a Tea Party town hall on Twitter.  In fact, S.E. Cupp even tweeted her appreciation:

I'm a loyal, lifelong liberal Democrat. I'm not interested in following an organization that seems to have no political loyalties whatsoever. I have said from the time I became aware of Unite Blue, it is a money-making venture. In fact, Adam Green, Zach's father, writes in his blog:

So does this mean that Twitter development is done, and devs (developers) will just move elsewhere? No way. Devs go where the customers are, and the customers are using Twitter in increasing numbers. I do development as a business and as a businessman, I go where the money is. That is still Twitter.

Show me the money!

Second: In his rebuttal, Zach wants us to believe that he's quite naive about cookies. He writes in response to the question: Are you tracking us across the Internet with cookies?

Before people started asking this I didn’t know it was even possible. Our CTO says it is apparently. We’re not doing it, nor do I understand why we would.

 I have such a difficult time believing that the co-founder of a Twitter consulting company doesn't understand the purpose of collecting information from cookies and IP addresses. Zach's tweet below is why I am very skeptical about his naïveté about cookies. 

Hmmmmm.  What data might that be?  And how do collect that data? Cookies? IP addresses?

Third: Here's what Zach wrote about how one joins Unite Blue.  In reply to Did you steal ConnectTheLeft’s Lists?  Zach says,

No. Every member of UniteBlue has to tweet  'I want to join @UniteBlue' to get on our Lists. It started from scratch. Others can feel free to use our Lists how they like. They are public. 

Come on, Zach. You know that's just not true. I never tweeted I wanted to join Unite Blue, but there I was following Unite Blue and on the list as well. Oh, and that second account you started--We Demand A Vote--I never followed it either. Yet, there I was as a follower.  And many other twitterers have the same complaint. Again, many of us never ever tweeted "I want to join @uniteblue."  We weren't even aware of such a group till around the first of February, when we were deluged with hundreds of followers and DMs from Unite Blue.  During that time I was getting about forty follows a day, and my number of followers jumped from 1730 followers to approximately 2050 in less than a week.  So, no Zach, you didn't start your list from scratch. And this reminds me of another question. Why, if you started Unite Blue in September 2012, did we just start seeing Unite Blue follows and hashtags in February 2013? What a coincidence that UB appeared about the time TGDN also appeared on the Twitter scene. 

Also, Zach knows that you can change the name on an account and still keep all the followers, follows, and Tweets from the previous account. He knows this because his father and 140dev.com and140elect.com's CTO, Adam (not the same Adam Green from Bold Progressives), explains it so well in another blog post (which has since been pulled so here's a shot of the cached file):

We recently had a client that paid us to help build up a series of accounts for his political campaign. Most of the effort went into growing a qualified follower list for a single engagement account. This is the account that interacted with supporters and sent out various versions of the campaign messaging to test them for later use in the candidate’s own account. When the campaign finally came to an end, his staff deleted this engagement account. What a waste! Most people don’t realize it, but you can change everything about a Twitter account and still retain all the followers.  We’ve changed the screen name of accounts lots of times, and all the followers were always retained. As long as the account’s new purpose and message is similar to its previous incarnation, this seems completely ethical, and there are no restrictions on this from Twitter. You can change everything about an account, and since it retains the original user id all the links for followers, retweets, etc. still work in Twitter’s database. We’ve never had a complaint from a follower of an account that had this type of conversion.

So the next time you or a client are tempted to erase an account after you no longer need it, don’t do it. Recycle, reuse, repurpose applies to Twitter accounts. Think of all the energy used to power the servers building that account. Save it for another use.

Last, I would urge you to read another post by Adam Green. Basically, Adam discusses how he created a Twitter group, compiled a list of names, and then provided that list to a client.  Sound vaguely familiar?  (Oops! This post has been removed, too. But here's a screen grab)

I find it odd that the two of Adam Green's blog posts that closely describe Zach Green's actions with UniteBlue have been deleted from his father's blog site, 140dev.com.  But then again, I have found many things about Zach Green's venture to be odd.  However, what I find strangest of all is that liberals would so quickly and enthusiastically jump on the UB bandwagon without any curiosity about the owner of the bandwagon or its purpose.

Much grattitude to my niece @jhw2212 and Jennifer on this blog for her research, proofreading, and support.

Four Reasons I Broke Up with Twitter Or How Zach Green Stole My Playground

Posted by DesertCroneNM

Let me start with this disclaimer--I do not follow Shoq, Simon, or Karoli. Based on what some of Twitter pals have told me, dissension has broken out between their factions over who turned the Connect the Left (CTL) twitter account to Unite Blue (UB).  I don't care about that. In fact, I don't care how Unite Blue took control of the Connect the Left Twitter account. What concerns me is that UB did take take over the CTL. On February 6th, I blogged about my concerns about Unite Blue. I still have those concerns and more. Since I wrote that blog, I've taken a hiatus from Twitter.

I love Twitter. I have made some wonderful and lasting friendships there. Although I first got on because I'm a political junkie, I enjoy the nonpolitical chit chat as much as the political discussion. I have access to many interesting links and thoughtful blog posts by @smartypants32, @D_V_E, and @root_e to name just a few of my favorites.  Twitter also brings a social life right into my home, which is what I like the best.

I am a month from being 65, disabled because of severe arthritis, and degenerative spinal disease which leave me in chronic pain. There isn't an hour that goes by that I'm not in pain; therefore, I am stuck at home most of the day.  I don't want anyone's sympathy because I have a wonderful life in spite of that. What I am trying to convey is how important Twitter is to me because I'm not very mobile. On Twitter I can talk politics, mindlessly chit chat with friends, crack a few jokes, even whine and most importantly, I can forget about the pain.

Once you understand my relationship with Twitter, maybe you'll understand how difficult it was for me to leave. Some of my tweeps told me to ignore Unite Blue, and others told me to unfollow or block UB members. Both are difficult for me to do. I have a lot of longtime followers who are now UB members, and when at least every other tweet has to do with UB or has so many hashtags that take up half the 140 characters, those tweets are difficult to ignore. Nor do I want to unfollow tweeps whom I've followed and who have followed me for 2-3 years. I keep hoping they'll come to their senses soon.

I decided to take a break from Twitter. I don't how long I'll be gone--maybe I'll be on tomorrow, next week, or even next month. But as long as these four conditions exist in my time line, I'll be on hiatus.

Cultish behavior of members: The other morning when I got on Twitter, I saw many disturbing tweets that suggested folks go through their followers and drop anyone not following UB to make room for UB members. Sadly, many of the tweeps who were unfollowed have thousands and thousands of tweets while many UB members I've seen have less than a thousand tweets. UB is clearly about quantity, not quality. For many, loyalty to UB has become more important than loyalty to liberal causes or values or even longtime followers. Many tweets contain gushing endorsements of UB, proclaiming that Unite Blue has changed their lives or that UB is the most important thing that has happened to them. Other tweets brag about UB ratings, whatever that means. Although these tweets irritate me, I don't want to unfollow longtime tweeps. I just want them to get a grip.

Divisive: Since I first blogged about UB, I've received many DMs from tweeps expressing concerns about UB, but, fearful they themselves might be spam blocked by members, they are unwilling to speak out. Several of us who have done nothing more than ask legitimate questions, questions everyone should be asking, have been demonized by some UB members. In fact, I see more loyalty to UB by some than to the Democratic Party and/or liberal causes.  Unite Blue? How about Divide Blue?

Fear-based: I think the TGDN (Twitter Gulag Defense Network) threat has been highly exaggerated.  I have seen one follower spam blocked and others have told me that maybe one or two of their followers have had their accounts suspended, for which there could be a variety of reasons. This frenzy of fear reminds me of the way Bush's  Homeland Security kept anxiety levels high by using the the color-coded terrorist alert.

Inorganic: Unite Blue was not a spontaneous, organic movement. It was started by a Twitter consulting company. It wasn't started from scratch; it co-opted an already existing Twitter account.

Zach Green or @140elect stole my playground. He turned my TL into something unrecognizable--a nonstop stream of praise for Unite Blue, UB hashtags and knee jerk reactions to fear of TGDN.   I'll unite behind the Democratic Party, fellow liberals, and most certainly behind Barack Obama, but I don't see where Zach Green shares my loyalties.  I don't want to be part of the Green Gang on twitter, and  I want them to get off my playground. I miss my "old" buddies, and I want them back, not the zombiefied UB followers I see now.  (Follow up post.  Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: Say What, Zach?)

Jack Welch Can't Stand the Heat

Jack Welch, who knows a thing or two about cooking the books, couldn't stand that his demented, unsubstantiated allegation that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doctored the numbers to help the Obama administration in the upcoming election via the Twitters, was being criticized from all sides* and decided to quit (along with his wife) his position as contributor to Reuters and Fortune Magazine.

Welch said he will no longer contribute to Fortune following critical coverage of the former CEO of General Electric, saying he would get better "traction" elsewhere. On Friday, Welch suggested that the Obama administration, calling them "these Chicago guys," had manipulated the monthly jobs report in order to make the economy look better than it actually is just weeks before the election. Welch has been battered by criticism since making the suggestion on Twitter.

Welch apparently ended up at odds with various journalistic institutions that placed a higher premium on providing readers with objectively rational information about the economy, as opposed to flattering an old executive who sows derangement on the Internet. According to Gandel, Welch did not take kindly to a CNN Money piece that criticized Welch's original tweet, and was further angered by a Fortune piece, "detailing Welch's record as a job destroyer."

That, poor, poor multi-millionaire. My heart bleeds.

____________________________________________
* Except the Fox side, of course. That would be lunacy.


(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Unemployment Drops to 7.8%

This is the lowest unemployment percentage in the last 44 months.

"The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election. 

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work."

We're not nearly out of the woods. It's been a long, hard slog - I'd argue that had it not been for Republican obstructionism for the last three and a half years, we might be under 7% - but this is good news nonetheless.

Purely on a political level, this is also good news for President Obama and his re-election bid, killing one of the GOP's favorite talking points about Obama promising unemployment numbers under 8%.

And now anyone who doesn't like the numbers purely for political purposes (I'm looking at you Jack Welch, you fucking asshole) is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books to help the President. Why is it that these fuckballs point to the numbers when they're in their favor and then dismiss them, or even worse, accuse the very same people of fraud?!

October surprise, motherfuckers!

Sometimes I Just Shake My Head and Sigh...

...when I think about elected officials as moronic as Sen. Chuck Grassley having a say in how our government works... or doesn't work as the case may be.

One thing in particular that I didn't miss this time around in the GOP Bullshit Memes Edition of 2012 was the blood boiling ridiculousness that is the teleprompter jab. Obama's soooo dumb.... HOW DUMB IS HE?! He's sooo dumb he can't give a speech without a teleprompter. If he can't read it, he doesn't know what to say. HAR! HAR! HAR!! (This insult brought to you by some GOP idiot reading a teleprompter.)

I know it shouldn't bother me because it's obvious crap, but maybe what bugs me the most is that it's been repeated so often, most of the GOP lemmings take it as fact. They believe this while watching their political leaders READ OFF A TELEPROMPTER! So this time around, I was glad they retired this silly notion. Or so I thought.



Seriously?! What. The. FUCK?! This waste of carbon is a sitting fucking senator in Congress who has watched every President since Lyndon Fucking Johnson use a teleprompter, but obviously the reason President Obama uses it is because he's dumb, right?

And the topper is his comparison to the Romneybot-3000 who apparently is so much smarter, he doesn't need a teleprompter. That Mitt's so quick on his feet that he came up with this little gem while defending his omission of our military troops during this speech at the RNC in what was the biggest night of his political life:

Responding to an inquiry from Fox News reporter Brett Baier, Romney claimed, “When you give a speech, you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important.”

Yeah, Mitt wants to talk about the important things. Why waste time giving a little shout out to the troops the GOP always loves to use as a backdrop when you can spend that valuable time letting Clint Eastwood upstage the Republican presidential nominee with an empty fucking chair?

Man, I don't know how President Obama is going to deal with such a razor sharp wit as Mitt Romney during the upcoming debates without a teleprompter.

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Tweeting with The Brain Dead

I had an unusual encounter today in the Twitterverse. Not unusual in the sense that you find people that either A) have no idea what they're talking about,  B) refuse to believe the truth because it doesn't fit their narrative,  or C) know the truth but perpetuate the lie because it fits their agenda. I've been through all of those. The new encounter was D) faced with facts, decided to call me "creepy" and then protected his account so no one else would see his idiocy unless both parties agreed to "follow" each other.

Really. It got to that point.

It all started with Greg Sargent having a back and forth with The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin and her take on Mitt Romney's ad taking President Obama's "You didn't build that" quote out of context. Obviously, she didn't think it was out of context, and her "proof" is Romney's interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow. It wasn't President Obama's full speech. It wasn't nonpartisan fact checkers. It was Romney's explanation on an interview with conservative economist and TV host Larry Kudlow.

A Twitter user named @OrwellForce got in on the act with the following tweet: "Even his ad includes the 'It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working' part. Is that not context?" Well, I couldn't just sit there, could I? I couldn't just shake my head at another lemming and turn my attention to more important things. No, I decided to answer:

@BwayCarl: You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie.

Game on. Here's a copy and paste of the most of the Twitter conversation (and by conversation, I mean making points and getting typical talking point replies and generally banging my head against a wall.)

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce @jrubinblogger You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger Like I asked, how are the "It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working" comments not context? 

@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce That's not the line in question. Romney campaign is laser focused on "you didn't build that." out of context @jrubinblogger

@BwayCarl @OrwellForce & I posit that Obama was right because it seems all sm. bus who disagree conveniently forget Govt grants/loans. @jrubinblogger

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger So the context that reinforces Romney's point isn't real context according to you? 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Tell me, what is it that Romney is saying when he says, and his ads say "Obama says you didn't build it"? @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger He's quoting Obama...and he includes context. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce You can't even answer my question in a straightforward manner. Kinda proves my point. @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger You asked me what Romney is saying, and Romney is quoting Obama. But enjoy your imagined victory. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce No, I asked you what Mitt was saying abt Obama quote. He was saying Obama said u didn't build sm. biz. Not true @jrubinblogger 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce What Obama DID say was that sm. biz didn't build the infrastructure that makes it possible for them to thrive. @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl And I pointed to context that reinforces Romney's reading. But you don't like that context. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Not because I don't like it, Mitt's context is wrong. And so far, every opportunistic example he's tried has been wrong.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Mitt quoting Obama is wrong, Mitt quoting Obama more to provide context is wrong. You're not a serious person. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce You still didn't answer my Q: Mitt's interpretation of Obama quote is that Obama said sm biz didn't build their co. You agree? 

@OrwellForce Orwell Force @BwayCarl Yes, it's a collectivist philosophy

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce So you agree with Mitt's false premise. Like I said before, what he DID say was that govt infrastructure helps sm biz thrive. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You must have the memory of an earth worm. We've been over this like 3 times now. You don't like context if it hurts your case.

 @BwayCarl: @OrwellForce And you continue to believe it like the rest of the lemmings. It doesn't hurt my case because it isn't true. Good luck, though. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "Out of context" "The context isn't true" - I hope you like rooms without windows. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce And yet you still haven't proven context other than to say "cuz Romney says so" while multiple fact checkers have debunked it.  

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Hey, at least your [sic] honest about your belief in a government-centered society. I wish more liberals would come out and say it. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Police, firefighters, military, schools, highways, public transit, SS, Medicare, yeah, we're more govt-centered than you'd admit.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I provided context but then you didn't like the context anymore. "the context is out of context"

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You keep repeating yourself. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You're starting to creep me out. 

@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce This is context. Learn the difference. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/  

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I've read the full speech. Fact check is pointless when there's a transcript. You think the context is out of context. Sure thing.  

@BwayCarl:  Here's another for @OrwellForce in the hopes that he'll learn the definition of the word, "context." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-unoriginal-obama-quote-taken-out-of-context/2012/07/20/gJQAdG7hyW_blog.html

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You are one creepy dude. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce A creepy dude who happens to be correct. Good luck. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl According to you, the definition of "context" is "nu uh!"

I'll piece the rest of this together from my timeline and my memory, because it was about this point that the brave Orwell Force decided to protect his feed, thus preventing me access unless we mutually agreed to follow each other.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "the context is out of context" good luck with that. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce I'm actually laughing out loud at your responses cuz you refuse to have a real conversation about it. #IKnowYouAre ButWhatAmI 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Well then I apologize for the sad state of your life.

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Ouch! Ooh, you hurt my feelings. How will I ever recover? 

 @OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Why are you still here? 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Why do you insist on replying? 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl good point

And just like that, a blossoming friendship was not to be. I scared Orwell Force away. Did I come on too strong? ...and that was my day on Twitter.

By the way, Jennifer Rubin never replied to my tweets. Is it because she's too busy and too important, or because she knew she was full of shit?

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Definition of Batshit Crazy Wingnuts

What you are about to see is a video of Congressional Rep. Jean Schmidt, Republican from Ohio, when she (as Fox News and CNN did) initially thought that the individual mandate on the Affordable Care Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hold on to your seats.

 

This is an elected representative acting like a spoiled child with Tourette Syndrome in public based on what she thought was a decision in favor of her ideology. I wish (and I hope someone has video out there) that we could have seen her reaction when she found out she was wrong. Did she run down the street tearing her hair out? Did she repeatedly slam her head against a wall? Did she self-immolate?

And she wasn't the only one. It seems that other Republican and conservative politicians, talking heads, pundits, bloggers and tweeters were apoplectic and hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe their reaction.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to "repeal Obamacare on Day One" of his presidency, as has Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Radio host Michael Savage blamed Chief Justice Roberts' decision on his epilepsy medication.

Rush Limbaugh claimed "a giant, total fraud was perpetrated on this country." I don't remember such a reaction to Citizens United.

Indiana  Congressman Mike Pence compared the expansion of health care coverage to millions of Americans to the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Yes, 9/11. Seriously.

Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro likened the ruling to the Dred Scott decision. You know, the 1850s ruling that stated people of African descent were property whether or not they were slaves. And he ended his tweet (yes, he tweeted that) with "This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration." Nope. No exaggeration there!

And you have your usual, standard fare racist tweets; a self avowed Christian asking why they should pay for some "dumb nigger['s]" insurance, and one gem blaming "that nigger Coonance Thomas" for the Supreme Court's decision, even though Thomas was one of four who dissented. Classy.

This is what we find not only from fringe wingnuts, but actual mainstream and in some cases duly elected wingnuts. Is mental health covered under Obamacare?

Welcome to Post-Racial America...

...in the world of Obama, because now that we have a black president, we don't have to worry about racism, right?

While Joel Ward's series-winning overtime goal in Game 7 had Capitals fans celebrating in D.C., it sparked a backlash of racist reactions on Twitter... . 

..a small but vulgar group vented its anger on Twitter, using the N-word to refer to the Caps' hero.

And this is just sports. Can you imagine what they think of our country's leader? But it's just us overdramatic liberals making mountains out of molehills and playing the race card at every turn. ...Yeah. Sure it is.

An Open Letter to Arthur Brisbane

Here is my response to Arthur Brisbane, New York Times' Public Editor after his piece, "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" If you haven't read it yet, although I don't know how you may have missed it with all the hullabaloo about it, please follow the link.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:

"[Our readers] worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true."

This line most struck me in your piece as an interesting take on what you feel is "judgment" as opposed to journalism. I was always under the impression that a reporter's job was not only to report on the facts of what they witnessed or heard, but also to distinguish between what is truth and what isn't.

The Mitt Romney example you put forth regarding his repeated accusation of President Obama "apologizing for America" is a perfect example. But let's take it one step further and ask the following: What if Mitt Romney had said that President Obama goes around the world insisting that the sky is green? Is the reporter bound to play stenographer and simply repeat the quote, or is he obligated to research the truthfulness of that quote in an effort to paint a more accurate picture? Facts are facts, opinions are opinions and lies are lies. The phrase "imposing their judgement" implies the reporter is giving their opinion and facts are secondary and inconvenient.

Maybe there is a difference between journalism and investigative journalism, but there shouldn't be. I would imagine a reporter wants to be as accurate as possible, and if that means researching to prove the subject of their story truthful or not, then in my opinion, that's what the job must entail. Otherwise, anyone can be a reporter simply by recording and transcribing an event.

Thanks,
Broadway Carl

And to me, that's the long and short of it. An entire online industry was born to fact check what journalists don't. Poltifact, Media Matters, FactCheck and others are watch dogs to what politicians, pundits and talking heads pass as news, but even some of them are now afraid to be labeled as biased toward the liberal end of the scale and try to play it down the middle. This was clearly evidenced by Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year, calling the Democrats' accusation that the Paul Ryan economic plan would end Medicare as we know it, a falsehood.

Anyone looking at Ryan's plan would come to that conclusion - simply keeping the "Medicare" name while making the program an inadequate voucher system does not mean Medicare equals Medicare. I could shit in a box and gift wrap it, complete with a "Medicare" label on it. Does that make it Medicare? But I digress.

I agree with Tweeter @Shoq that the conversation is an important one, but I also understand the blowback when such a question need be asked, and that a reporter fact checking someone he/she is covering would be categorized as "truth vigilantism." There are still a majority of the population who rely on the fourth estate for their daily news. They assume what they read in major newspapers is fact. Opinion should be left in the editorial pages, but front page news must deal with the facts and be accurate. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the reporter to research the subject and double check the accuracy of the subject's statements.

Nothing Says "Presidential" Like a Twitter Fight

[Donald] Trump took to YouTube on Wednesday to criticize [Rosie] O'Donnell's new show on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). Trump called O'Donnell's show a "complete and total disaster." He also attacked MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and said that his show was "failing." Trump then tweeted the video, with the message "#trumpvlog Same last name, same bad ratings- @lawrence and @rosie....."

O'Donnell tweeted back and attacked Trump's self-proclaimed wealth. "How many billionaires sell ties and have crappy non reality shows - none - go back to selling snake oil - #bankruptmuch?" O'Donnell tweeted.

How many presidents or presidential contenders do you suppose would tweet something like this?



And to think this schmuck was actually leading the Republican field in the polls at one point. Oh, and here's why Trump lashed out at Lawrence O'Donnell:

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

Twitter Fight!

It would seem Donald Trump, out of nowhere, decided to take a shot at Lawrence O'Donnell via Twitter today. O'Donnell responded and the two went at it for a bit. Trump then backed away from going on The Last Word when asked to appear. Very funny read.



Also, if you read Trump's Twitter timeline, it reads like the rantings of a raving tinfoil hat lunatic. ...Amazing.

Christie Running For President? FAT CHANCE!

Earlier today, Jonathan Alter reported via the Twitters that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was conducting focus groups for a possible 2012 presidential run. I mean, hell, if know-nothings like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry can get into the act, why not lovable, straight talking, education fund blowing, job killing Chris Christie?

Well it seems to have been a misguided rumor.

A top adviser to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie insists the big name Republican is not exploring the possibility of running for president in the next election cycle despite rumors swirling that he could jump into the GOP primary mix...
"It’s completely untrue -- one hundred percent that is not true,” Christie adviser Mike Duhaime said in response to the suggestion, according to The Hill. “Nothing’s changed. I’m not sure who [Alter’s] source is or what they are saying, but nothing’s changed."

... and Alter concurs.

It's a good thing too, especially considering that it was only seven months ago that Christie said he wasn't ready to be President. But hey, he now has the same amount of gubernatorial experience as half termer Sarah Palin, so anything's possible.

Another Example of Boehner Leadership

Thanks to CBS News Capitol Hill producer, Jill Jackson:



This was John Boehner immediately after giving his rebuttal to President Obama's address on the continuing debate and negotiations of raising the debt ceiling. I'll say it again: John Boehner has proven time and again that he doesn't have what it takes to lead. He won't stand up to Tea Party extremists in his own chamber of Congress. He seeks permission from GOP Leader Rush Limbaugh before showing a plan to his caucus. And now he walks away from a speech he insisted to give after the President spoke, shellshocked and shaking his head about how horrible his whiny, petulant little rant went.

John Boehner? Go "mano-a-mano" with President Obama? You'd have to be willing to lead first. And he's shown he's not willing.

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):

President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.

Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Who Are You Going To Believe?

Day 4 of the debt ceiling talks ended today, with differing acounts.

According to Luke Russert via Twitter:


So did Obama storm out? Who are you going to believe? The guy who's been at the table constantly looking for a deal or the guy who had already walked out of previous meetings and hasn't budged in his ideology?

UPDATE: Jake Tapper weighs in.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 9, 2011

Working Together to Meet our Fiscal Challenges

Quite Possibly The Dumbest Tweet Ever

Very serious Republicans.

Honorable mention to a poor soul who engaged me in a Twitter debate last night.



You can read the entire Twitter thread here for a bowl full of stupid.

He Really Was Dumb Enough

Until New York Representative Anthony Weiner stood behind a podium and admitted his Twitter indiscretions, nothing anyone could have said would have changed my initial thought of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Part of the reason for this is because of who broke the story. Andrew Breitbart, after all, has cried wolf a few too many times (ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Planned Parenthood, etc.) for me to view him as a credible source. For as much as he believes he is non-partisan, you'd have to have shit in your head where your brain should be not to realize that Breitbart has an agenda. Show me where he's gone after a Republican as fiercely and I'll reconsider.

And part of the reason I believed Weiner is because I never thought he would be so dumb as to use social media that's out there in the ether to send "lewd" photos of himself. A guy as sharp as Anthony Weiner could never put his career in jeopardy by doing something so frivolous.

I was wrong. He really was dumb enough.

I'm not one to judge someone's moral integrity, unless they tout themselves as holier than thou and wind up being a hypocrite, so I'm not going to start here. I'm sure more details will be revealed during the ethics investigation called for by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and if Weiner violated ethics rules (using Congressional equipment to send these tweets) then he'll be called to account. But until then, I'm glad that Weiner as of this point has taken the Republican lead and decided not to resign.

What he did was disappointing to me, and reprehensible conduct for a married man, but he did nothing technically illegal. He didn't engage prostitutes like David Vitter or Eliot Spitzer. He didn't have a child in an affair like John Edwards or Arnold Schwarzenegger. He didn't get arrested for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. None of these examples exonerates Weiner's actions, but it helps in putting things in perspective.

If his career is coming to an end, it's a shame because he is a talented, smart politician who really cares about his constituency, regardless of his private failings.

As far as Breitbart is concerned, yeah, he won one. So what? The man is still a scumbag who feeds on gutter news, and his "classiness" was on display for all to see as he hijacked the Weiner press conference before Weiner even spoke. It'll take more that one story for Breitbart to have credibility in my eyes.

Breitbart Busted... AGAIN

Stef at the Daily Kos does a great job with the chronology of the Weiner underwear tweet controversy and how one particular anti-Weiner Twitter user named @PatriotUSA76 (complete with a portrait of St. Ronald Reagan as his icon) was most likely behind it.

Whether the intrepid Andrew Breitbart knew about it ahead of time or reported on it without checking facts and sources is irrelevant. It shows Breitbart to be all too eager to smear anyone not in line with his ideology regardless of facts.

Open your FRICKING EEEEAAARRRSSSSS!!!

POSTED BY JHW22

I heard Congressman Anthony Weiner tell Dana Bash of CNN, "It was a prank." Now to me, a mere layperson, that sounds EXACTLY like an answer to the bizarrely-repeated question of the week: "What happened?"

Someone sent a wiener photo from Weiner's Twitter account to a woman the Congressman follows on Twitter.

And now the press is FREAKING OUT because the member of Congress, who consistently tries to stay ON MESSAGE and knows what's important and what's A PRANK, won't spend resources to find out the who, what, when, why, how of A PRANK! If he says it was a prank, and it makes NO SENSE otherwise, what other answers do we need?

Now, whether they believe him or not is another point. If they think he's covering up some lurid creep show, then fine. After some of the crap members of Congress have pulled, fine. BUT he has answered the question. At least QUIT saying "He's not answering the question."

He answered it. You just don't like the answer. Now it's YOUR job to do more than waste a Congressman's time who has made it clear he doesn't want to waste time on this crap that he says was created by a jerk playing a prank.

We need to STOP allowing rabble-rousers to dictate our news coverage. When a jerk-wad plays a prank, don't give it any coverage UNTIL you've done the due-diligence of investigating -- OFF CAMERA. Quit wasting the American people's time while you bumble and warp and suppose and ASSume and feign shocked.

James O'Keefe, the girl with the "B" carved in her face, Shirley Sherrod, Balloon Boy WASTED OUR TIME. GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU WASTE OUR TIME and don't force a member of Congress to do YOUR job for you while he's trying to do his.

He says it was a prank. I don't want him wasting a second proving it to satisfy the fucking lazy-ass press!

And sorry, but no time for links at the moment. :) Just had to vent my RAGE at the press and their inability to LISTEN, report properly and know that they are part of the problem of American's inability to focus on important issues and wait until facts are in before we shape a damn story.


EDITOR'S NOTE: Some links have been added after publishing.