Just what we need around here, another cockeyed optimist! :)

I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

I just read your non-brief comment and you may be surprised to learn that I agree with the general gist of it ... the scandals that the media love to focus on are often of the non-serious variety at the expense of shedding light on the scandalous behavior and policies of those politicians for whom the status quo is too much of a comfort zone.

I would only take some issue with your suggestion that President Obama takes comfort in maintaining the status quo. His presidency encountered the strongest of head winds from the get go - whether that be the disastrous GWOT, the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, or, most importantly, the absolute and deliberate intransigence on the part of congressional Republicans from the beginning.

Through it all, the Obama/Biden administration has tried valiantly to right the ship of state - domestically and internationally - with some modest degree of success on both fronts, despite the constant attempts by congressional Republicans to derail any progress. A lesser administration would not have fared as well.

And, as important as I think Bernie Sanders's campaign is, many of his solutions are non-serious, especially from a fiscal policy point of view. On the other hand, Hillary is demonstrating a great weakness in not being able to more successfully challenge or even better his proposals and general premise.

Perhaps, Senator Sanders believes he is making progress just by directing the conversation in a way that highlights the fundamental problems in America but he could be such a better change agent - and mitigate his electability deficit among many voters - if his solutions were more feasible.

I think Hillary will win big if and when she is able to seize on Sanders's own general message and make it her own, supporting it with solutions that can actually work in the current political atmosphere.

My back is a bit better, thanks for asking! :)

Awww shucks.
I'm flattered you're having visions about me.
But, you know, sometimes limbs aren't far off the ground, and sometimes there's a big pile of leaves below too.

Don't go assuming anything in comments to the lying wingnut equates to normal, honest folks such as yourself... even Plato or whoever came up with the saying would agree that sometimes silence may mean you're too much of an idiot to deserve a response.
Those who assume that is outside the realm of possibilities are all too numerous though.

Hope your back feels better.

A

Well, I was just trying to avoid visions of you falling out of a tree. Heh.

I will read and consider your post above and let you know my reaction just as soon as I'm not in pain sitting here, typing away ... did something to my back and it is killing me at the moment ...

No thanks.
Careful got us where we are.

So, was I right?

A

politifact has a page for each of many different political personalities, which indicates how many and what percentage of their public statements have been rated in each category. they have six categories: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and pants-on-fire. i thought it would be interesting to compare candidates' truthfulness (as rated by politifact), and see how it lines up with people's "perceptions" of how trustworthy a candidate is. the link to the politifact list of personalities is in one of my above posts [39]. i put two examples of candidate ratings in post [31], and posted a few details about my comparisons in the comments section of FTP 377 (toss of a coin). thanks for taking a look.

JL

"Hypocritical Victorian Gent"

The Right Stuff

The Starr Report ain't the FBI and Ken Starr is certainly no Director Comey...

Apples and alligators.. :D

Well, I have no part in these side bets, but I have to say, that's a pretty specific definition of the terms. The Gamesters of Triskelion would be proud, and I do not say that lightly (as you know).

"Oh, Jafar, you're too kind. I'm embarrassed. I'm blushing."
Yago, ALADDIN

:D

Michale

{munch, munch, munch... burp!}

-CW's filter

Heh. OK, I admit it, this site is the jalopy of blogs, when it comes to filters. I try to keep up, but sometimes I get behind unfiltering things. If you could see all the crap that DOES get fileter out of these comments, you'd understand why it's set towards being extra-cautious, though!

-CW

"The road goes on forever and the party never ends."
-Robert Earl Keen

Heh.

Speak2 [2] -

As for "access and ratings" -- scandals (the juicier the better) always get high ratings. The media fall all over themselves once the story breaks. But some stories never break. Remember the John Edwards love child story? The National Enquirer broke it, I believe. Once it was out there, everyone else jumped on board (I say this as a former Edwards supporter, just to prove my non-bias in this case). The ratings are always there. It's the editorial decision of what to investigate and what rises to the level of "news." And when.

JFC [3] -

I am also having second thoughts about Trump after that ad foofaroo. You're right -- Trump has not learned the lesson that the threat of lawsuits intimidates just about everyone in American life... except politicians. Lawsuits just drag all the details out in the light, and that's great if you want more PR for your position.

Speak2 [6] -

Yeah, people who pay attention online know these stories, but the mainstream media reaches a far wider audience. My main point is when they pick up these online threads, and when they ignore them.

dsws [10] -

That's a good point about the hook of another candidate. Well, it's a good point for television news, at least. Newspapers I expect more of (I know, that dates me). I briefly addressed this point in the article, but I didn't go into it very deeply:

A GOP candidate will not attack another Republican on certain issues. But a Dem will. Sometimes that drives when the story breaks into the MSM. The difference between the primary scandals and the general election scandals.

Michale [13] -

I thought serving members of the miliitary didn't have either a "D" or an "R" after their names? Doesn't the UCMJ have something to say on this matter? Hmmmm?

Heh... couldn't resist.

TheStig [16] -

My point isn't that the Forrestal rumors about McCain (that he was hotdogging while on the flight deck) were true, it's that they NEVER EVEN WERE AIRED in any way whatsoever. I mean, all you have to do is look McCain up on Wikipedia to see a bare-bones version of what happened, and yet even though the man was running for president, nobody in the media even bothered -- even for a "debunking the smear" type of story? Compare that to Kerry and the Swift Boats... sometimes the media cares, and sometimes it shrugs.

TheStig [18] -

OK, I gotta look that Tom Wolfe quote up... heh...

Michale [19] -

Oh really? See: Ken Starr and the Starr Report. How many millions and how many years did that take?

[24] -

Well, I have no part in these side bets, but I have to say, that's a pretty specific definition of the terms. The Gamesters of Triskelion would be proud, and I do not say that lightly (as you know).

nypoet22 [29] -

OMG! I think all of us here would pay good money for a photo of Michale wearing a "Hillary is my hero" T-shirt!

Woot!

Michale [33] -

OK, that seems fair -- just as funny as the other one!

:-)

nypoet22 [42] -

OK, you lost me. What numbers? Point me in a direction, and maybe I can help...

-CW

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you won't like it.

A

Your filter ate another comment...

A

The biggest and most influential scandal, in my opinion of course, is that Obama didn't learn a dang thing from Wright.

He sat through all those sermons and ended up doing the opposite... maintaining the status quo rather the effecting needed changes.

You can claim it may have affected votes if people had learned about it earlier, but you can't claim it would have justifiably affected votes, because unfortunately Obama didn't absorb any of it.

As far as the corporate media and Republicans go as it relates to Hillary, neither is a source that can be counted on to butcher the sacred cows they all hold dear.
A brief review of the scandals the Repubs have wasted their time on shows they have no problems with her warmongering, corporatism or general neolibcon ideology that affects every policy she pursues.

It took a journalist from The Intercept to ask Hillary to release her speech transcripts.
And you aren't hearing anything from Repubs or the corporate media about her ongoing refusal to release them. Coddling bankers is something the corporate media, Repubs and Hillary all have in common.

It is only because of the work of ACTUAL journalists and Bernie's campaign that so many of Hillary's scandalous actions have been exposed and (briefly) debated recently... and all you hear from Repubs is crickets.
Bernie wouldn't be a serious threat to Hillary if people were happy about her heretofore un-discussed actions that the media and Repubs were eager to keep swept under the rug.

And then, of course, we have our ever growing "defense" budget, wars to maintain our empire, campaign finance and the legalized corruption it breeds, anything related to Israel, the fact that the Global War On Terror has caused a 500% increase in the number of terrorists, making us less safe despite the trillions spent, and countless other issues...

... Americans are denied any exposure of these scandals through efforts of partisan advantage or corporate media.

In fact, when they are discussed, such issues are carefully crafted to avoid any hint of their scandalous nature.

If you're going to write a piece on scandals, some mention of the very real way our Establishment limits what can even be classified as a scandal would seem to be in order.

That would be a real service to our country.

A

Nice read.....Although I must admit to some small disappointment that you did not call out the media for caving so easily to the candidates when they start crying liberal media bias on those occasions that they do ask a hardball question.

Since the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the large amount of 30 second sound bites required to provide repetitive looping in the "situation room" to my point of view the media has ridden the downward spiral of fear of being excluded from a candidate if they actually report on subjects not favorable to that candidates point of view.

I also find that the "4th estate" or the 4th arm of corporate corruption in politics, depending on how you view it, no longer bands together and calls out the odious behavior of politicians when they do scream liberal media bias. It used to be that the media as whole would rise above the naturally competitive nature of the business to call out those politicians caught trying to put lipstick of a pig...Now I guess the advertising dollars are more important than good ethical behavior.

One cant help but wonder if things would be different if more news rooms were run by real journalists vs a businessman in journalists clothing....

JL

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

incorrect.

JL

Donald Trump...

Michale

oh, more extra credit for anyone who can guess which candidate still in the race is rated as the biggest liar (lowest percentage of statements rated true, highest percentage rated false).

Ouch.. THAT is really REALLY low...

But OK...

But if *I* win, then YOU wear:

http://i.imgur.com/h1V4nkY.jpg

:D

Michale

http://rlv.zcache.com/hillary_clinton_is_my_hero_t_shirts-r2fdf904b607d4733904d5505050dcfe6_jf4o6_512.jpg

Whoaa!! Now THAT is playing dirty!!!

OK.. OK...

But if I win, then YOU wear:

http://i.imgur.com/h1V4nkY.jpg

:D

Michale

Candidate #1:
True (1%)(1)
Mostly True (6%)(6)
Half True (16%)(15)
Mostly False (18%)(17)
False (39%)(37)
Pants on Fire (19%)(18)

Candidate #2:
True (25%)(40)
Mostly True (26%)(42)
Half True (21%)(34)
Mostly False (14%)(23)
False (12%)(20)
Pants on Fire (1%)(2)

without looking, would anyone care to guess who the two candidates are?

JL

http://rlv.zcache.com/liar_liar_hillary_clinton_t_shirts-rd6751119b26540cfba90602aa56e1afb_jyrs6_324.jpg

http://rlv.zcache.com/hillary_clinton_is_my_hero_t_shirts-r2fdf904b607d4733904d5505050dcfe6_jf4o6_512.jpg

Someone lower than the list above + Bill and I can agree to that...

Michale

JL

Huma Abedin
Cheryl Mills
Jake Sullivan
James B. Steinberg
Jack Lew
Anne Marie Slaughter

Michale

how do you define senior staff? there's upwards of fifty people who could be considered senior staff. as far as i'm concerned, unless hillary "does the perp walk" herself (or perhaps her TOP assistant, a-la scooter libby), you're out of luck.

JL

John M and Liz have joined in on the wager insofar as accepting Comey's determination, but I don't think they are aware of or party to the monetary/donation aspect of the wager..

Further, the wager expires at the beginning of the 2016 Weigantian Fund Raiser or when the FBI releases it's report.

Whichever comes first...

Michale

How do we know he hasn't?

The fact that the FBI's investigation has widened to include the Clinton Foundation surely indicates that SOMETHING incriminating was found...

As to the wager...

Will the FBI forward to the DOJ the report with a recommendation of indicting Clinton and/or senior staff..

If the FBI forwards the report AND a recommendation of indictment.. I win...

If the FBI forwards the report with a recommendation of NO indictment... ya'all win...

If the FBI simply forwards the report with NO recommendation, it's a push....

In short, we ALL agree that Comey is a man of integrity that has been recognized and validated by the Right *AND* the Left.

If Comey explicitly states that there is nothing illegal here, I will respect that...

Michale

what's the wager? comey gets full marks for due diligence, but if there were something to find, wouldn't he have found it already?

JL

Nor would all these "bright" lawyers be STILL investigating if all there was a snarky comment or a romantic rape or sexual assault..

Michale

Just as I believe that it's wishful thinking on your part that the FBI won't..

Do you HONESTLY believe that a man of Comey's integrity, a cop's cop, a man that WORKS for President Obama would be devoting so many resources and time and manpower and there is nothing there??

I mean, honestly... Forget the Democrat/Republican Left/Right issues..

Just look at things objectively..

Would it take THIS long for almost 200 hundred special agents, who are ALSO "bright" lawyers, if there wasn't anything there..

THAT is the one thing that ya'all simply refuse to accept...

Comey's FBI wouldn't be spinning their wheels for nothing..

That's the entire crux of the issue..

But, hay.. I could be wrong...

You want to join in the Great Weigantian Hillary Does The Perp Walk Wager?? So far, 3 Weigatians have declared and gone on record....

You want to be the fourth?? :D

Michale

In all fairness, McCain was at the center of the disaster, but in no way contributed to the wartime cut-the-safety-to-improve-sortie-rates mentality that allowed the disaster. He gave aid to the injured and took fragments from exploding stuff. Looking past causation, the damage control effort was one of the US Navy's finest hours. The fire fighting specialists were mostly wiped in the by initial fires and explosions and everybody else had to improvise. In the US Navy, as the slogan went back then, "every sailor is a fire fighter."

The Keating Five Scandal was a fair cop, or would have been if anybody had bothered.

i'm not quite that... "evian" - but she's also a bright enough lawyer that i find it highly unlikely they'll uncover enough hard evidence to indict. that's just wishful thinking on your part, i believe. in my opinion it's much more likely that the investigations uncover something personally embarrassing, like romantic trysts or snarky comments about world leaders.

JL

Husband: "It seems so utterly ridiculous and a complete waste of time.."
Wife: "What?? The Benghazi Hearings??"
Husband: "No. Putting Hillary under oath.."

Baa daa dum... :D

Michale

Yes...

of course, that's only if you actually BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth when she said that all she deleted was "personal" emails....

. it'll be the story of the millenium,

It sure was when it was General Patraeus who was being accused.. I don't recall ANYONE from the Left Wingery claiming that this was all much ado about nothing..

Of course, Patraeus had a '-R' after his name, so...... :D

Michale

yes, soon the FBI and the free world will have access to all the sordid details of hillary clinton's lovers, male and female. it'll be the story of the millenium, and make the 'blue dress' seem quaint by comparison.

JL

good point. the MSM doesn't seem to like doing negative stories about candidates unless there's some entertaining angle on it. as you say, conflict with another candidate is an angle they'll run with. since candidates for the same party won't go after their primary opposition on issues that are too close to criticizing the party base, that conflict angle doesn't show up until the general.

JL

ONCE the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ.......

Michale

OBAMA's FBI is not going to waste so much money, time and effort with over 150 agents investigating a "faux scandal"...

One the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ, the media will cover it like there is no tomorrow... They won't have any choice in the matter...

Michale

A great thing I read earlier today said something to the affect of the base strategy for the GOP is a winner in midterms but a loser in Prez. They've lost 5 of 6 popular votes for prez b/c the base simply isn't large enough to do the Prez turnout. It can work for Dems b/c we're a center-left country (despite the right-wing noise machine's statements to the contrary). But right wing is not a majority, therefore a base strategy is a losing proposition.

Could their revelations hurt their anointed? Depends on the nominee (probably not Trump; Rubio couldn't handle the scrutiny in all probability; Cruz loses in any case; others?) Who knows?

Most of these "scandals" are also BS, as we all know.

However, if we really want to get into the weeds with what we mean by electability on the Dem side, then you've hit the nail on the head.

Sanders will lose popularity with each new revelation from the GOP machine. HRC has already been through that. She'll go up or down by a pct point or two, but everyone has already made their mind up about her. Sanders is more of an unknown and, as such, is capable of being defined by his GenElection opposition.

So you seriously can't see the difference between "Gawd damn America" and "Gawd is going to destroy America for June 26th"? Well, let me explain. That genocidal Gawd thingy never smited any tribes for being exceptional even if they were exceptionally racist. On the other hand, there was that one time long, long ago in a sinister fairy tale when He rained down fire and brimstone on two whole cities full of sodomites. I hope this helps because I think the media has done a fine job of vetting the Cuban Canadian. I used to think that he was eligible to be president, but now I think that is very questionable, OK?

Investigative journalism and a true "fourth estate" role has been dead for quite a while. Sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you.

Access and ratings!!!

Seriously, if the MSM did do the investigative and fourth estate role, your blog and others like you wouldn't exist.

The analogy I have is this. I'm a CC Math Prof. We're not a small school. Somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of our students are in developmental math. That is grade and middle school math. The stronger subgroup is taking HS math content. My line is "If K-12 did a better job with math, I wouldn't have one."

I may say more about the actual content but have a few chores to complete first (this was a self-indulgent break; vote well in CA, legal is good), my friend.

S