Talking Heads

"1. McCain, whether you agree with him or not, has been entirely consistent about the war."

Really?

Try this;

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-flip/

McCain Flip-Flops In 47 Seconds: Claims Success Is Not Realistic In ‘A Few Months,’ Then Says It Is

---------------
Joe Klein is not even pretending to be objective.

St John McCain a year ago (Dec 2005);

"And I'd also suggest--and again, I'll probably--I'm not in any way concerned about saying this--that we will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year."

He has been consistently wrong, if that's what you mean.

In Broderland being consistently wrong is a sign of being "morally serious".

Joe, please pontificate more on the health care proposals because your beliefs seem counter-intuitive. Medicaid's overhead costs are what 3% and insurers range in the teens typically.

How would keeping the hodge podge of insurance companies, with their $50 billion a year in profits, redundant paper pushers, the people needed to be hired in hospitals and doctors office to submit coding to several different insurers be more efficient than medicaid for all?

Seriously. You put that 50 billion in profit into medicaid, you put the money that is going to private plans into medicaid for all, and you are pretty much getting there to universal coverage without breaking that much of a sweat. Those redundant workers in doctor's offices can go. Some doctors who aren't even in joint practice have 2 people full time just to code for the HMO billing.

The pharmaceuticals are also put on a tighter leash with bulk purchases being allowed.

You could get premium coverage still though. If you want top specialists, you pay insurance in case you need to consult somebody at Mayo or Rodeo Drive.

It's simpler, cheaper, and the benefits to our economy from those uninsured seeing doctors before they get too sick (not working, taxpayers picking up the costs anyways) seems like the logical way to go.

"1. McCain,[...], has been entirely consistent about the war"

Well, if nothing else, this thread will serve as a convenient central place to find all of McCain's flip-flops documented. I give it an hour.

"I disagreed with him about going to war in 2003"

Um... Joe, are you like the only person in the 'tubes who hasn't seen that clip of you on MTP telling Punkinhedd Russert, with the obligatory touch of sage regret, that this war was "the right thing to do"?

Ooops, got the phrasing wrong: Not the "right thing to do", but the "the right decision" and "the right war"

"MR. KLEIN: ...This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is.
RUSSERT: Now that's twice you've said that: 'It's the right war.' You believe it's the wrong time. Why do you think it's the right war?

Mr. KLEIN: Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has--Saddam Hussein has to be taken out."

Trifecta is right on about health care. Joe what you don't seem to realize is not only the paper work, including certification for multitudinous and over-lapping insurance providers is over whelming. The cost to care providers for uninsured-bad debt is passed to those with insurance driving the cost of the whole program up.
Going further, Quality Control needs to be addressed much as HMOs stated as their original goal, but got misplaced in profit structures. As someone who has been in the system much quality control is simply 'chart to CYA, denying professional liability'. I have worked in two states in skilled and long term care. One state has very good inspection and I would say that the most protected patient rights, care cost control is achieved for the Medicaid patient. Not the least is drug cost, denying unneeded procedures, infection control, and over medication while promoting pain control and limiting both physical and chemical constraints.
I'm for universal health, e pluribus unum. All the current talkers are PhRMA, AMA, Insurance Co. and the "Health South" friendly. Not user friendly. The current plans being suggested are just promoting more pork for the folks that already have a barrel full.

Joe - you forgot a point about Hagel's plan. It will be impossible for the Bush administration to mount his diplomatic initiative because...d) of the stunning level of incompetence at all levels of the Bush administration.

I am sure there are several good plans for getting us out of Iraq but I would not trust Bush to competently perform any of them.

"I admire McCain's honorable willingness to take this unpopular position into the 2008 election"

Why does the Beltway media insist on portraying McCain's position as "honorable", "brave"?

McCain is pandering to the GOP base. His position is the popular position among people who will be voting in the GOP primaries. It is popular with Rush Limbaugh and FOX "news". These are the people he will need to win the GOP nomination.

Skippy Edwards has 1 French Plan, and that is HUNKER DOWN AND WAIT FOR THE INCOMING.

Next!

Liberals now consider the defense of freedom and freeing slaves "pandering to the GOP base"?

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

There is no longer any objectivity on the part of the press on order to explain the "man-love" they have for both McCain and Lieberman. It is cult like in it's dimensions now, the way their admirers pay difference to them. Even in the face of the truth, as represented by reality, they still claim McCain is consistent on this war.

It's unbelievable.

Joe, what is with you beltway types and your inability to admit that McCain, far from being "honorable" is the worst sort of pandering politician? Is it his towering foul temper that has all of you quivering in your boots? Thankfully, as Americans take a closer look at his odious pandering to the radical right clerics and his cynical inconsistencies about the conduct of the war and his caving in to the worst forces in the Bush Administration with respect to the Military Commissions Act, his support thus far is dropping like a brick load. Americans aren't ready to forgive his kind of dopey, cynical flip-flopping this time around.

Let's take this one step further. I listened to Feinstein and Lugar on Wolf discuss the pending legislation in the Senate concerning Bush's War Powers. Lugar was questioned about the LAT's accusation that Lugar had been 'lax' to which Lugar responded well, but I've been with Warner to the WH several times to discuss the WAR. Oops, until Nov. 06 even Warner seemed to just talk to the Pres. only to get his Marching Orders with McCain, Lindsay and the rest of the GOP on AS Comm, just giving the Pres. what he wanted while ignoring the decline of readiness of the Military.

The issue of filibustering the proposed non-binding resolution in the Senate came up. No names mentioned, but I have to assume that the "F" threat is coming from the GOP. Wasn't the GOP plus the Gang of 14 (including Mc and Leib) deadly opposed to the "F", even wanting to enact anti-"F" legislation? Who are the "F" threateners and what did they say about "F-ing" judicial nominees, including Meirs in the 109th?

The Publicans are threatening to filibuster the symbolic vote on Bush's surge in the Senate I believe. Who can blame them? It's not like the Press will point out their hypocrisy for doing so. In fact, the Press will more likely refer to them as heroic.

  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

QUESTION HILLARY is a smut peddler and hates Traditional American values. As of yet, there's no hard evidence he's involved with beastiality porn. But you have been warned.

Hipplery Clixon will be tossing the coin for tonight's Superbowl.

By halftime, she'll be tossing and turning and asking "Where IS my fat ass SOB of a spousal unit now?!"

Then she'll surrender Long Island to France.

Flem at 11...

Joe, your quibble point with Edwards and the power of Ahmadinejad in Iran has another side. No argument with the Khamenei is the Supreme Leader part, but the Bush-Rice rhetoric and the Axis of Evil labelling (pardon the continual WW II rally the troops slogans) have given the Big A more political capital, nationally and internationally than he is technically entitled, too.

We hear the talk of social unrest in Iran and the economic problems which are probably true, but the we-against them jingoism works both ways. Iranian national pride solidified by the Bush 'axis of evil' and the 'islamofascists' solidifying the religious wars. While Bush was using fear, national pride and religion to build his coalition, he managed to do the same for the opposition.

Hmmm...i'm not so sure that McCain is being anything but stubborn. He has tended to try to keep the language somewhat realistic though.

The real subtext to this war is that teh Arabs and maybe the Persians must pay in blood for 9/11. I think Bush (or the nex one) will stop the war when about 1,000,000 Arabs and Persians have been killed by our hands or a a result of our actions.) sad really. It's still revanchism bu tdressed up as humanitarianism.

Joe Klein, Feb 2007:
"I disagreed with him about going to war in 2003"

Joe Klein, Feb 2003:
"So I think that, you know, the--the message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."

Here is your "honorable" McCain:
````````
John McCain.

"This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there," [McCain] said.
```````````

No it isn't. It is more than anything a vote of no confidence in the incompetent schmucks who have run our military into the ground, and only late in coming to the vote of no confidence in the mission. A "mission" by the way based upon lies, exaggerations, misstatements,misjudgements, and towering incompetence. How dare 72 year old John Sidney McCain question these Senator's committment to the men and women in the military?

It is dishonorable of him to make such a statement.

McCain, like Lieberman, have become extremists. They are the only people as delusional as Bush is about this war. By your reasoning, Bush is consistent and we should all admire his steadfastness. I admire McCain the same way I admire an armadillo for leaping up into the grill of a fast moving pickup. He is commited, but I question the direction he took.

McCain supported a surge because he thought Bush was not stupid enough to ever do it. Bad miscalculation. Now he can't claim, "If only Bush had listened to me." Now it's the Bush/McCain/Lieberman escalation.

It's not honorable consistency to be be wrong and refuse to admit it. McCain was wrong. McCain is still wrong. The only reason you might "admire" him for that is because you were wrong to.

Maybe you should quit fluffing a war monger presidential candidates and start working harder to stop the attack on Iran.

Mr. Klein,

Please consider this idea regarding restrictions on Iraq war funding, which I call the "Iraq Facts for Funds Agreement:"

If the administration volunteers to testify without restriction on Iraq/Iran/War-on-Terror, Congress could authorize funds for the Mideast in such a way that the agreement would be voided if
anyone in the administration refuses to answer questions or testifies untruthfully.

Congress and the public would get the truth, which would indirectly influence the administration toward a realistic policy. The truth would also prevent either side from chosing a position that takes unfair advantage of the other side, or that is optimized for protecting against the other side taking advantage of it. The administration would get bipartisan support, which would help make the policy work.

More details are below, but above is the heart of it.

I apologize for writing anonymously, but I am in a low level government position, and would prefer it not become lower. :)

If you like any part of these ideas, you are welcome to do with these ideas whatever you think wise.

Thanks for your consideration,

Joe

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

----- Iraq "Facts for Funds" Agreement --------

Introduction:

Now that Congress and the Administration are controlled by different parties, fights over Mideast policies and constitutional powers may make polices erratic and incoherent.

There is instead a way for the Administration and the Congress each to get what they want, while choosing an optimum policy and getting public support.

Congress wants:
...................................

Congress wants to voice concerns by voting against surge, but doesn't want vote to limit funds for war,for fear it might harm our troops.
So the vote would be non-binding - ie. have no effect.

Congress is concerned the Administration is lying. They think the Administation knows surge won't work, but this satisfies the public's desire for a change and delays facing the failure of our Iraq policy till a new administration takes over responsibility or an attack on Iran distracts the public.

Congress hears leaks that the administration is planning to trigger an incident with Iran
so it can bomb Iran. The Administration plan is not able to stop Iran's nuclear development,
but it hopes to undermine the government. Congress thinks this plan is dangerously wishful thinking.

Congress fears if it takes action to restrict the war,
the Administration will say its plan would have worked, but Congress' restrictions made it fail.

Congress wants a realistic way to end the war with least harm to U.S., if victory is not possible.

Congress does not want Admin. to interpret any war powers funding to implicitly approve
wiretapping, email,privacy, kidnapping, torture, and haebeus corpus improprieties for all
antiterrorism activities - as it interpreted the last war funding vote and the Patriot Act.

Congress has legitimate constitutional power and responsibility to decide if America will go to war.

In general, Congress wants to prevent the Administration from causing more harm, but sees no way to alter policy.
...................................

The Administration wants:
...................................

Administration wants victory, if it is possible.

Administration wants enough public support for its policy that the enemies know it can maintain those policies.

Administration wants some way to counter suspicions that it has been lying to get support for its Mideast policies.

Administration wants to maintain its separation of powers position that the administration not be compelled to testify before Congress.

Administration wants to maintain its war powers, and not allow Congress to restrain its freedom of action in foreign policy.

Adminstration has legitimate need to control diplomacy, strategy, and tactics, for coherent policies.

In general, Adminstration wants to control the path to victory, but finds suspicions and lack of support may reduce its control of the situation.
...................................

All sides can have their needs met by:
...................................

(a) Administration volunteers to have its people testify without restriction on Iraq/Iran/War-on-Terror.

(b) Congress volunteers to pass bill authorizing funds for Mideast, which would be voided if
anyone in the administration refuses to answer questions or testifies untruthfully.

(c) Administration signs the bill.
...................................

Result:
...................................

Administration cedes no powers - actions are voluntary, as when Ford testified re pardon.

Congress doesn't have direct control, but transparency causes public pressure to make admin. face reality.

Documented evidence reduces chances of unfair finger-pointing later.

Public would hear accurate estimates of success for surge from experts in and out of admin.

If surge was just spin, admin. would likely adjust plan to face the true circumstances.

If experts agree surge is likely to work, it will be our policy and will get support.

Transparency in all areas of War-on-Terror prevents secret implied powers allowing adminstration to grab unconstitutional powers.

If any testimony would cover secret material, it can be heard by the relevent committees in closed session.

If Congress judges any testimony untruthful, funding continues two more months before stopping. That
provides enough time to settle truth of the matter and devise alternate compromises for funding/reduced funding.

Administration would be free to take tactical and strategic actions, provided it tells Congress the truth. And that truth would make it less likely to take harmful actions.
................

Hey Joe
Ready to admit you did not, in fact, disagree with John McCain on the war?

And the Colts cheated.

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?

Today's Best Comment Award winner is....

Posted by Memekiller
February 4, 2007

"I admire McCain the same way I admire an armadillo for leaping up into the grill of a fast moving pickup. He is commited, but I question the direction he took."

That deserves repeating...

The punditocracy has given St John so many passes that I don't they will ever have the courage to confront him the way they did Pres Clinton. They have too much invested in the man so they will never hold the Saint's feet to the fire. That is why they come across as hypocrites.

The Straight Talk Express™ has collided with REALITY©, Joe.

Go to the emergency room, there's an urgent message for you.

"I'm also not sure I like the sound of Edwards' universal health care plan."

Dear Joke Line,

No one gives a fuck what you think.

Very truly yours...

Think Progress nails Joke's pathetic ass to the wall:

"...Just because Sen. McCain has called for an increase in troop levels for three years does not mean he has had an “entirely consistent” position on Iraq. Here are just a few recent examples of McCain’s inconsistencies:

– McCain called for sending “another 20,000 troops” to Iraq. He endorsed Bush’s escalation strategy, but later claimed, “I would have liked to have seen more” troops on the ground.

– McCain claimed the Iraq war has been “easy,” except that he also “knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

– McCain claimed he “bitterly disagreed” with the Iraq strategy from the beginning, except that he previously said, “We will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

– McCain was for withdrawing U.S. troops to the border of Iraq if escalation failed, but then later backtracked, saying he would only consider redeployment if “we have the situation under control.”

– McCain wants to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, but “can’t tell you” what they are.

– McCain said that escalation could not bring about results in “a few months,” but then claimed, “I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what’s necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months.”

To Joe Klein, a record like that is entirely consistent."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/klein-entirely-consistent/

Greg Sargent just took your lunch money, Joe.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_34.php

You might want to also check McCain's appearance on the Sunday talk shows yesterday as well, where McCain said that a few months wasn't enough time to judge the troop escalation, then said that we'd know in a few months if the escalation had worked.

"I disagreed with him about going to war in 2003"

It figures that someone too dumb to remember his own position on the war would be completely ignorant of the meaning of the word "consistent". Joke Line apparently has yet to figure out that in the age of the internets, it's really easy for people to prove that you're lying.

Here's some choice Sargent (from the link Florida posted above) on Joe Klein's version of consistency:

First, troop levels. Ever since President Bush unveiled his escalation proposal, McCain has been saying that he's "worried" that the 21,500 troop increase might not be enough and has been saying that he would have preferred to send more. But here's the thing: Before Bush unveiled his proposal, McCain himself actually volunteered that he thought a lower number than that would be enough.

He said very clearly back in October: "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq." Again, McCain himself volunteered that number. He did the same thing on another occasion. You can't volunteer a number that you say you think will work and then turn around and say that you you're worried that a larger number might not work and that you actually wanted to send more than that larger number. That's not consistent at all.

Second, McCain's been quite inconsistent in his assessments of our progress in Iraq. The other day, for instance, McCain "grilled" General George Casey at a Senate hearing, blasting Casey by saying that over the past two and a half years, "things have gotten markedly and progressively worse" in Iraq.

But even a cursory bit of research shows that this criticism from McCain was completely inconsistent with his own past statements. During the same period that McCain said saw things get "markedly and progressively worse," McCain himself repeatedly offered optimistic assessments and even said several times that things were improving in Iraq. You can't say that things are getting better in Iraq before Election Day and then turn around after the election and say that things got markedly and progressively worse during the same time period. That's not consistent, either.

Look, Klein can go ahead and call McCain "honorable" and say that he's been consistent in that he supported the war before, and still does today. But that's holding the bar way too low. The fact is that on the above questions -- both of which are extremely important ones -- McCain has blatantly contradicted himself and has shown himself to be capable of political opportunism of the rankest sort. Is there no inconsistency or self-contradiction glaring enough to get pundits to stop presuming consistency and integrity on McCain's part?

Consistent?! That old fart has issues, if you know what I mean.

Joe,
Are you trying to be "snarky" with the McCain consistancy schtick?

I was flabbergasted until I realized you meant CONSISTANTLY WRONG.

You are funny! You have a great future in blogging. :)

Joke Line (and Sinker) is absolutely right.

If by "...disagreed ..." he means "acquiesced under the pressure from the Gang of 500 Beltway Wankers to say it was the right decision at the right time" and by consistent you mean "all over the fucking place depending on who asks him and when" and the 'when' can mean "less than a minute later".

If that's what he meant, he is absolutely right.

Are you awake Mr Klein? McCain is about as consistent as the weather. Check out these video clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

Wow. Big improvements in comments. Thanks for listening.

What is it about McCain? Does he share some kind of reality distortion field that Steve Jobs is supposed to possess?

Let's walk through what has happened with McCain. McCain has backed the president's play, claiming things are improving, that the US is going to win, that the course must be stayed, that the troop levels are adequate, that the generals know what they are doing. All the talking points.

Then he decided that he couldn't afford to defend a stay the course position, especially in light of the midterm elections. He also couldn't afford to call for withdrawal, because it would hurt him in the primaries. So, having seen the ISG, and figuring that Bush would just stall his way to the end of his term, using the ISG for cover (he probably made this decision based on Time's not so prescient coverage).

So, too clever by half, he came out for force escalation. This would let him adopt the stab in the back position during the primaries, and the general--that the liberals hadn't allowed the US to win. He wouldn't blame the president. He'd blame the democrats, and ride to the nomination and the presidency by running to the right of Scowcroft, Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Then Bush turned around, dumped the ISG and escalated. He adopted the McCain doctrine. Now, we all know, except maybe Barney and Bush, that this isn't gonna make any positive difference. Even the proponents are talking in terms that make it clear that they don't think this is gonna work, from Boehner's 60 to 90 days to Hadley's statement that it has to work.

So now McCain is utterly tongue-tied. He's lost the stab in the back tactic. He's stuck with an escalation that is making things worse. So it's no wonder he's contradicting himself during interviews. He doesn't have a coherent or consistent position.

But he is, nonetheless, in the eyes of the sputtering pundits, Straight Talk Maverick John McCain. Sheesh.

"Consistent" being, of course, far more important in Mr. Klein's mind than "thoughtful", or "analytical", or "rational".

I realize it isn't exactly the purpose of this post, but in the future, how about a shout out to some folks who have been "consistent" since 2003 in opposition to the war, and for reasons that have turned out actually to be correct?

Joke Line has been entirely consistent in his suckitude.

Have you been asleep for the past year? McCain consistent about the war? He has been as consistent as a weathervane.

The StraightTalk Express derailed a long time ago. Of course, the Washington "pundits" are always a little slow to catch on with the news.

McCain has been consistent is his willingness to say anything to support GWB and his disasterous botched war (in order to ensure that he is the GOP 2008 nominee) ... but this consistency has led to McCain contradicting himself, as others have detailed in excruciating detail above.

Joe K. has been consistent in his deep need to support the warmongers and attack anyone who raised or raises doubts about the 'war' (actually, an occupation that has now percipitated a civil war). But the only time I read him is when he makes incredibly stupid remarks, like this one about McCain, so I can't say whether he has been consistent like McCain or not. But I suspct it's the same. Otherwise, these men would be ashamed of themselves and would not show their faces in public.

Joe, the only consistency I see is your total hackery on display post after agonizing post. You are out of touch and certainly not cut out for blogging as it is usually fact based.

No one has mentioned it yet in the comments, so I suggest viewing McCain's "consistency" at www.therealmccain.com and judge for yourself whether he has been consistent on the issue of prosecuting the Iraqi war. I would argue that he is amongst the most inconsistent of any major public figure on Iraq.

Joe,

You are an idiot. I have always been consistent in that belief. Nothing will ever change that.

How are you liking this blogging thing, Joe? Isn't it refreshing to have lots of people providing you with links and quotes to help you correct your consistent factual errors? I'm waiting to see your update on your McCain observations. Here's how I'd play it: "Never mind".

Seriously, Joe, do you really believe the stuff you write? I ask that in a very civil way.

"McCain, whether you agree with him or not, has been entirely consistent about the war."

Many Marxists, whether you agreed with them or not, were entirely consistent about economics throughout the Cold War.

But they were wrong!

And so is McCain.

Like McCain, Joe Klein has been entirely consistent on Iraq (except of course when he has been entirely inconsistent on Iraq.

JoKline and McCain both have the consistency of grape jelly. Viscous until it gets sticky.

Dear Mr. Klein,

Not only has John McCain been inconsistent on the war itself, he's also been inconsistent on related issues like torture. After taking an initial stance against torture, he then engineered the Republicans' capitulation to the president during the waning days of the GOP dominated Congress.

I am continually gobsmacked by McCain's undeserved reputation in the press as a "maverick" and a "straight talker." He's neither. He's a political hack, through and through, who only cares about his IMAGE as a maverick and a straight talker. How he gets journalists to perpetuate that image, I'll never understand. I guarantee you, despite the fawning of the press, the public listens to McCain's contortions and recognizes them for exactly what they are.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away (circa 2000), I bought the media meme that McCain was an independent thinker. Although too conservative for my tastes, I respected him. That respect was thoroughly unearned, and has long ago been forfeited.

If you want to retain the respect of your readers, Mr. Klein, you should use The Google before you vouch for the consistency of the folks like John McCain.

"McCain is a principled truth-teller" is one of those ideas, like "Clinton was an unpopular president," that Beltway political writers have told each other so many times that they are all quite sure that it is true.

The real McCain: http://therealmccain.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&eurl=

You know, the first time I wandered onto this blog (the Kerry / Frenchy time), I sort of believed that Joe Klein was just new to this kind of thing and needed "some time."

No. Truth is Joe Klein is just as delusional as the rest of the Bush Huggers. (I should have known...)

That said, Joe, your blog sucks.

All you need to know about Jokline and this site can be summed up by the number of conservatives that traffic here in defense of McCain, and in offense of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.

Somehow conservatives in America have been convinced that foreign policy should be conducted with all the subtlety of a five yr old in a McDonald's Playhouse.

Children full of fear and loathing. Preyed upon, not by terrorists, but the very people they have elevated into power.

The joke is on you.

Thinking beyond your years would be nice. That begins with taking a hard look at the choices you have made in the past and the catastrophy that those choices have brought.

Liberals are at fault for nothing that has gone wrong in the prosecution, implementation, or conduct of this government.

This one is on the Republicans. Totally.

Have fun in the minority jackasses.

Clueless Joe actually thinks his "observations" are relevant in some way. He must wonder why we don't just let him pick the next president instead of actually having an election.

Shorter Joe Klein on McCain: White is black and black is white.

Love really is blind, and Republiklein has one serious man-crush on McCain.

My favorite take-down of this joke line on McCain:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_34.php

Um , Joe , I know you don't read the comments which are filled with the ramblings of the uninformed People to whom you claim to write, but You are Becoming a Cartoon. Seriously. You're the only person who thinks any of the things you think .

You're astoundingly wrong and kind of pathetic in your myopic , glaucomic, cataract view of the world . McCain is a clown, a liar and a detestable sycophant. He's as Maverick as Ward Cleaver.

Why do you write things in opposition to the plain facts? Are you trying to be more David Brooks-y?
A lot of informed people have seriously had enough Joe. Please Stop .

I hope McCain is paying you but I fear that as I said earlier, you just can't help yourself. The skinny nerd who got picked on by the project kids in Philly just can't hide his excitement about hanging with a real life macho hero like John McCain. It's pathetic.

Grow up and get over your nagging feelings of inadequacy.

Is this yet another non-example of supposed Iraq war opponent Joe Klein actually, like, opposing the war, and criticizing the inconsistent positions of its adherents??!! McCain's inconsistent statements are, of course, all over the web and anyone who can read and comprehend English would never have said that the flip-flopper was consistent. And how does "We had to take Saddam out" equate to opposition to the never-ending sisastrous war, which was started on naldfaced whoppers about WMD's??!!

Why? Why? Why? I Feel that your post was so poor, and uninformed, and devoid of actual facts, that it must have been written a provocation. I know two things about swampland now. Joe - you've certainly broken rule numero-uno: Blogs are all about intercation - as in, you post, your read, you respond. You don't ever actually read the responses. And two - neither does your editor, or else he would have canned your ass for writing such factually innaccurate crapola.

While I am kind of disappointed with kos and sarge for both succumbing to J. Klein's -- crap on your head, see what falls off and count the people holding their noses in disgust -- gonzo punditry, I'll concede that the "McCain's been entirely consistent" meme is hard to resist.

By the way, Ana Marie's no mole (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/5/134756/7966). She is, however, very smart, quite diplomatic and well recognizes that certain personalities are sure to arrange their own demise.

Oh, please, enough already. Can't we get on with the more important task of making sure Klein is the dictionary--Erin McKean, wake up--definition of a media wanker?

How much further from the mark can you get than to say that McCain is consistent? Consistently waffling, sure, otherwise not so much.

I'm sure this needs some fine tuning but I'd say something like "Klein bottler" should work when referring to self-pleasuring commentators. After all, a Klein bottle is non-orientable surface with no distinction between the "inside" and "outside" surfaces. Lots of nice Kleinian graphics and definitions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle

Does the traditional media (Time Magazine, big media TV news, etc.) seriously think that Americans are so uninformed and so gullible and so ignorant that when they present Colmes and Joke Line as the "liberal" alternative to their overwhelmingly conservative slant, that America will just swallow it without question? Seriously?

As much as it is clear to those of us who follow politics that the Publicans have a chokehold on the traditional media, surely you must recognize that it precisely because of pundits like Joke Line, and Broder, and Fox News that blogging became so popular so quickly? The tens of millions of us who now get our news online instead of from print news (including Time of course) or the traditional TV news, do so precisely because of the blatant pandering and laziness which Mr. Klein so perfectly represents (so too does Mr. Carney, also of Time, I might add).

Joe Klein,

You are the laughingstock of blogosphere.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_34.php

"Look, Klein can go ahead and call McCain "honorable" and say that he's been consistent in that he supported the war before, and still does today. But that's holding the bar way too low. The fact is that on the above questions -- both of which are extremely important ones -- McCain has blatantly contradicted himself and has shown himself to be capable of political opportunism of the rankest sort. Is there no inconsistency or self-contradiction glaring enough to get pundits to stop presuming consistency and integrity on McCain's part?"

I just have to ask...

What color is the sky for you media insiders?

They cheer when McCain wants to send more of our children to die in Iraq. But they swoon when we write "fuck" on our blogs because it's obscene.
--Arlin Lando, Politics Now

...and the funny thing is Joe, that people who happen to catch you on TV on Sundays and don't even read blogs think the same way.My White haired mother, who doesn't read blogs but rather prefers Print as a jokingly Luddite politico, asks me all the time " Why is Joe Klein on my TV...and why do they call him a Liberal ?"

So it's not just us snarky , media savvy children of your other site DailyKos :

"When people ask why Daily Kos grew so rapidly in its early days, I have a stock response:

"People were hungry for strong, unapologetic liberals, and those where completely absent from the media landscape. I mean, who did progressive have supposedly representing their side? Joe Frickin' Klein. Is it any wonder blogs grew in response?"

In short, my theory is that Daily Kos exists because of Joe Klein." Kos.

And that's why we savvy cynics come and pummel you so hard ,dummy, we panic at the thought people mistake you for us .

Stop.Please.Stop.Now.

Joe, you know, one real service you can do for all of your readers is analyze--honestly-- this strange hold John McCain has on the punditocracy, and how it came to be, and why nothing the guy says can dislodge his rep with you guys as "straight talking" and "consistent" and all that.

What's he got that we don't have, Joe? What I see is a guy who actually has some good instincts-- having been tortured, the guy is instinctively against torture, for example-- and expresses those instincts, but then starts backpedaling as soon as the far less manly and impressive fella in the White House bleats. Bush wants to torture? Okay, uh, maybe waterboarding and stuffing people in trashbags and suffocating them isn't really torture. Bush wants to jettison the Geneva Convention? Oh. Okay. Uh, let me see how I can decide that the Geneva Convention isn't important anymore. Bush wants to stay the course even though I know and everyone else knows that he's incompetent? Oh, right, attack those who disagree! Suddenly Bush decides to escalate? Okay, well, that's good too!

I guess a related question is... what does Bush (or Rove) have that gets McCain to respond so quickly? They are, after all, the men who chose to secretly slander McCain's family in 2000. I have to say, if I were McCain's wife or daughter, I wouldn't think John is all that consistent or heroic... since he is still shaking the hands of the men who did that.

You managed to get Kos and Arianna to post simultaneous links to your errors. Nice work.

When you post your correction, make sure to insult the illiberal leftists. Maybe you'll get almost as many outraged comments as Carney!

I was going to come and join in the derisive hooting, but it looks a little crowded. I do think it would be kind of interesting, just once, to see Joe respond to Greg Sargent's piece. Forget responding to the deluge of comments; just respond to Sargent. Now *that* would be interesting.

Of course, the establishment "left" pundits like Klein, et al would cut off their own arm rather than engage with folks like Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, and the "non-loony" left. Why the hell would this be? I'm guessing that a) they don't want to give them legitimacy; and b) they're more than a little terrified of having to raise their game.

I do know this though: I'm as mainstream liberal as they come, and I *very* often find myself reading Marshall and thinking, "Damn, he is so right on." I *never* think that when reading or watching Klein, Eleanor Clift, etc, etc... Why is that, I wonder?

Beltway Algebra 101:

Inconsistent statements on war effort
+
Inconsistent statements on necessary troop levels
+
Being told that a person is honorable
=
CONSISTENCY

Next semester, we take solve for the following:
Republican demand that every presidential candidate support President Bush on Iraq in every way
+
McCain is running for Republican nomination
=
X

Clearly and unabashedly embracing President Bush in an effort to endear himself to the Republican base:

McCain is a Profile in Cowardice.

Let's see. General Petraeus literally penned the respected Army counterinsurgency field manual.
It noted that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population, to deal with insurgents.

Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops. Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel).

So McCain, knowing this, plays along as if 20,000 additional troops are going to make any discernable difference. McCain knows it won't, but he won't risk a precious iota of his political capital by speaking the truth and possibly alienating a single GOP voter by talking straight.

He couldn't even be bothered to at least ask Petraeus why everything he once believed has now been jettisoned as if it never existed. Political opportunists, one and all. You'd think Klein, of all people, would know the animal when he saw it.

hey Joe, I was consistent since before the Iraq war, that it was unjustified, unjust and will cause great calamity in Iraq and ME.
Am I a hero, can you say this about me and many others?
Or you still prefer to pander to the ones who pay your salary and basically were wrong on everything regarding Iraq, just like McCain.

Are you willfully ignorant of his many many flipflops on Iraq (and most every other topic of i-wanna-be-prez import) or being dishonest or both? The most cursory google will demonstrate how inaccurate your "McCain... has been entirely consistent about the war" is, how breathtaking both in its absolute absurdity and error.

Shorter: that is the most stupid lie I have seen from you to date.

Ya know, lister makes a very good suggestion for Joe or any other (mainstream "acceptable") pundit who wants to make a score: Get out in front of the McCain collapse. His prevarications and demagoguery are already well documented. All you have to do is right it up in that more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone that you all seem to cherish so.

Man Joe, this is one of your bolder falsehoods, and again it's something so easily checked with a simple Google search. Can't Time afford to get you someone to do simple fact-checking on your posts before you hit the 'send' key? I mean I'm really trying hard to understand why so many pundits/columnists/whatever get stuff like this so wrong so often. Are you that far inserted into the Washington borg that you can't help yourself? For the love of God Joe, get out! You are the proverbial frog in water turned up to boiling. There is only one Truth, Joe, regardless of how many people conspire to give a different version. Seek the Truth, Joe, seek the Truth.

That's actually a really good point. I got several emails from republicans I work with (most corporate attorneys, even in New York City, dont like to pay taxes and thus find themselves aligning themselves with Republicans for the most part), all which basically called McCain D.O.A.

The message has been sent out from the puppeteers up on high that McCain wont even make it to the ball, let alone leave with the prince, and that the "base" would do well to stay out while they do their due diligence on Giuliani to see if he passes the smell test.

My suggestion to Mssrs. Klein, Carney, etc.: get out in front of the "McCain candidacy is dead" meme, then you'll truly be able to say that America heard it here first (although the truth will of course be known to be otherwise).

The more you talk about the conviction, integrity and consistency of a "dead candidate walking" like McCain, the faster you expedite your fall into irrelevency.

and more, the sad part:
Joe Klein is to journalism what John McCain is to the Presidency...Two-faced phonies with no integrity! Klein is the reason why I dropped my subscription to TIME.

Dammit. I know for a fact I typed "write it up" and some 'tubes gremlin changed it.

I see the "factinistas" are at it again. Don't let them get you down, Joe!

You know as well as I do that in your gut, John McCain is someone to admire, no matter what he does!

John McCain displays a higher form of consistency, by always saying when he thinks pundits want to hear, and allowing to seem hawkish without ever having to endorse an actual policy!

That's beyond consistent, it's "consistentality" -- the art of consistently shifting positions to benefit yourself, which is even better, when you think about it.

"Ya know, lister makes a very good suggestion for Joe or any other (mainstream "acceptable") pundit who wants to make a score: Get out in front of the McCain collapse."

As a follow-up, you can also get out in front of the Giuliani collapse. It's a no-brainer among people who actually know anything about the guy, like New Yorkers. It'll be a no-brainer once the rest of the country gets to know him. The only place Giuliani -- like McCain -- is taken seriously is among the punditocracy.

Get out there right now and call out the McCain and Giuliani collapses. You'll stun your star-struck colleagues on the talk shows.

You know, Joe, you're right. After I picked myself up off the floor from reading your statement about the failed 3rd-generation McCain (first generation makes it, second generation keeps it, third generation loses it)being "consistent" about the war, I then reconsidered.

You're right.

John McCain has consistently been wrong about everything he has ever said about the war in Iraq since 2002, and you do have to give him credit for trying, since he's been on every side of the issue there is over that time. See, I thought it was that last part that made him "inconsistent," but the truth is he is consistent.

He's consistently a talentless moron. Just like you, Joe. No wonder you love going down on him in public like you do.

This is embarrassing, Joe.

Dear Joke Line is Still Dumb,

Who is dumber--Joe Klein or John McCain?

Thanks Joke Line,

Anonymous

Joe Klein today: "I disagreed with [McCain] about going to war in 2003"...

Joe Klein in 2003 (on Meet the Press): "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it-it probably is." Why, Timmeh asks? "Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out... The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."

Joe, Joe, Joe: we have the internets... it's all being recorded... you can't just wish it away.

Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and Joe Klein. You guys are giving me a really bad name. Please Stop.

-Joe C

What a Clown, lies with the best Repugs.

Hey Joe, where you gonna with those lies in your hand.
Thanks to James Marshal Hendrix !!!!

Joe,
Is being a media whore like being high all the time?

Joe, please shut up and find another job.

Joe,

You supported the war, you're a liar, and it's documented here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/joe-klein-seeks-to-master_b_40479.html

You're a big dummy who certainly doesn't deserve his salary. you'll keep getting it, though, because that's how our good old american media works! hurray!

I just read Arianna's response to you.
Wow, for someone who can't stand her, she kicks your ass. Wipes the floor with you.
When a light weight, empty headed ditz like Arianna kicks your butt, its time to retire.
Give it up Joe, because you can't say its so.

BTW: Since your such good buddies with John Kerry, how come he hasn't released all, ALL, his military records?(THATS ALL OF THEM)
Its because people like you,(MSM person), don't ask obvious questions like that is why I haven't looked at a Time magazine, never mind buy, in the 2000's.
If you wondering I got here, its through Instapundit who linked me to Huffington who linked me to you.
Your not going to ask Kerry that question because your pathetic, really pathetic.

Dear Mr. Klein:

Do you know what a "blivit" is? It's ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag! That's what you are on the matter of your original position on Dubya's war on Iraq. In this age of the Internet it's truly funny to watch the scramble of all the effete talking heads, who got themselves left out of being on the right side regarding Iraq. Some like Senator McCain just failed from the git go. Others like you try to rewrite history.

C. J. Cassell
Durham, NC

Joe, lets just say enough is enough, you have had a tough night.

Some honesty is called for - do the right thing and read lister (above post) about McCain..... you may find a story - heaven forbid

John McCain changes his Iraq position within the course of 47 seconds on national TV and that constitutes his being "entirely consistent" in Joe Klein's book.

Joe, it is sad little columns like these of yours that show, time and again, what an irrelevant embarrassment you have become. Just like David Brooks.

It is extremely sad that the only Republican running for the GOP nomination for Pres. who has any honor has no chance of succeeding. Rudy will never be accepted by the crooks in control of his party, or the fundamentalist Christians unwittingly empowering the crooks.

Ich besichtige deinen Aufstellungsort wieder bald fur sicheres!

Ich besichtige deinen Aufstellungsort wieder bald fur sicheres!

luogo interessante, soddisfare interessante, buon!

luogo interessante, soddisfare interessante, buon!

Nice site you have!

Lo trovo piuttosto impressionante. Lavoro grande fatto..)

pagine piuttosto informative, piacevoli =)

L'information interessante que vous avez! I'am allant revenir bientot.

i'am really impressed!!

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

HI good suite can you look on my sites
child defense fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html]child defense fund[/URL]
child defense fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html
fund raising jewelry
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html]fund raising jewelry[/URL]
fund raising jewelry - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html
money market fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html]money market fund[/URL]
and on this
money market fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html
fund raising letter
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html]fund raising letter[/URL]
fund raising letter - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html
index funds
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html]index funds[/URL]
index funds - allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html
college fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html]college fund[/URL]
college fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html
non profit fund raising
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]non profit fund raising[/URL]
non profit fund raising - allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html
easy fund raising idea
and:
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html]easy fund raising idea[/URL]
easy fund raising idea - allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html
state fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html]state fund[/URL]
state fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html

Hi, nice very nice page..!
globe fund
nonprofit fund raising - allfunds.free-site-host.com/provident-fund/index.html
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]high school fund raiser[/URL]
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/church-fund-raising-idea/index.html]elementary school fund raiser[/URL]
nonprofit fund raising

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
globe fund
nonprofit fund raising - allfunds.free-site-host.com/provident-fund/index.html
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]high school fund raiser[/URL]
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/church-fund-raising-idea/index.html]elementary school fund raiser[/URL]
nonprofit fund raising

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte

ضحك,
ليبيا,
شباب ليبيا,
احاديث نبوية,
السيرة النبوية,
برامج اسلامية,
صوتيات اسلامية,
خواطر,
غرائب وعجائب,
الشعر الشعبى,
قصص,
اللغات الاجنبية,
تعلم الفرنسية,
تعلم الانجليزية,
الطب
تقنية الاسنان,
كتب طبية,
طب الاعشاب,
اناقة وجمال,
اناقة الرجال,
الاسرة والمجتمع,
الطبخ,
اثاث وديكور,
مقاطع كورة,
الدوري الليبي,
المصارعة,
الكرة العربية,
الكرة العالمية,
رسائل خيانة
مسجات عادية
منتديات,

الدوري الاسباني,
الدوري الانجليزي,
الدوري الايطالي,
اخبار المشاهير,
افلام اجنبية,
مسلسلات اجنبية,
تحميل افلام,
افلام عربية,
تحميل مسلسلات عربية,
افلام كرتون,
برامج,
برامج الفيديو,
اخبار التكنولوجيا,
شبكات الحاسوب,
تطوير المواقع,
تطوير المنتديات,
محادثة,
صور,
الفوتوشوب,
برامج الفوتوشوب,
التصميم,
برامج الجوال,
كليبات جوال,
نغمات نوكيا,
نغمات عربية,
نغمات اسلامية,
العاب الجوال,
مسجات,
القنوات الفضائية,
مسجات عن الغياب
تحميل برامج
free Download
مسلسلات,
تحميل برامج مجانية
تحميل افلام اجنبية,

شفرات,
كروت الساتلايت,
الرسيفرات,
خلفيات للجوال,
نغمات اجنبية,
برامج الجوال الجيل الثالث,
ترحيب
games
Make Money
مسجات ليبية
مسجات رومانسية
مسجات روعة
مسجات حب
مسجات عتاب
مسجات جديدة
مسجات ليبية
رسائل رومانسية
مسجات مصرية
مسجات سعودية
مسجات اماراتية
مسجات بحرينية
مسجات تونسية
مسجات سورية
مسجات شبابية
مسجات مغربية
مسجات جزائرية
مسجات سودانية
مسجات قطرية
مسجات لبنانية
مسجات عن الامتحانات

رسائل حب
مسجات غزل
رسائل شوق
مسجات شوق
مسجات فراق
مسجات غرام
مسجات صداقة
مسجات حزن
مسجات عشق
مسجات مقالب
مسجات جوال
مسجات وداع
مسجات اسلامية
مسجات مدح
رسائل الوسائط
مسجات عاطفية
مسجات نقال
مسجات صلح
مسجات انجليزية
مسجات تسامح
مسجات الصباح
مسجات نكت
مسجات ضحك
مسجات حلوة
مسجات الحزن
مسجات موبايل
مسجات الجوال
مسجات للموبايل
مسجات للحبيبة
مسجات كبرياء

مسجات عتاب
C.Ronaldo
باب الحارة
سنوات الضياع
نكت
youtubeمسلسل نور
prison break 2 تحميل
messi
Kaka
منتدى الكساد
منتديات الكساد
توم وجيري
عدنان ولينا
Youtube Download