I Love Mickey When He's Picky

Guess all us regular and semi-regular commenters are looking pretty good about now, huh, Joe?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"Mickey Kaus sidles to the defense of Drudge here. What neither Mickey nor Drudge seems to understand is that Clinton wasn't proposing requiring proof of health insurance as a requirement for work, but merely speculating on the sort of details that would be worked out in Congress. "

Joe, anyone with half a brain already understood that by reading the story....

" Mickey's intent is less clear...Is he opposed to the Clinton plan or could this be another case of niggling contrarian snark? "

uh, Joe, you really are the last person to be pointing fingers when it comes to "contrarian snark"....

Kaus is, and for years has consistently been, an absolute idiot. That you are just beginning to realize this now is more evidence of how stuck in the beltway mindset you are...

"Is he opposed to the Clinton plan or could this be another case of niggling contrarian snark?"

Joe, are you like, unaware, that Mickey has moved from niggling contrarian snark to outright mouth-breathing over the past couple of years?

Oh goody, another thread - that last one filled up with Drudge's sycophantic lizard brains awful quick.

Enlisted members of the military questioning Gen Petraeus' honor and veracity? Say it ain't so Joe!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In endorsing Gen. David Petraeus's recommendations on Iraq, President George W. Bush said Thursday night that at least 21,500 U.S. combat forces, plus support troops, could leave Iraq and come home by next July. Curiously, the first military unit designated by Petraeus to return is the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., north of San Diego.

But the 13th MEU, a support unit that has been in Iraq on its current tour for about three months, was already scheduled to return home from Iraq on Nov. 17. Their new date of arrival under the drawdown plan? Still Nov. 17. Other Marine units have been in Iraq as much as three times longer than the 13th MEU, and some active-duty Army soldiers are serving 15-month tours, the longest of the war. Relatives of the 2,000-member 13th MEU, most of whom have known for more than a month that the unit was coming home, are collectively a bit confused by the inclusion of the 13th MEU in the announcement of troop cuts, and some are even angry.

“I think General Petraeus is using normal circumstances and turning them into some kind of big deal,” says Melissa Hurt, 24, wife of a 13th MEU Sgt. Andy Hurt, 24. Originally from Minnesota, the couple has been married for four years and they have a 9-month-old son. “I don’t understand how this can be called a troop reduction since Andy was already scheduled to come home in November and was not scheduled to return to Iraq. There are guys who’ve been in Iraq for more than a year. They should bring them home first. I know my husband agrees with me.”

Wendy Foulis, whose husband, Gunnery Sgt. Gerald Foulis, is a member of the 13th MEU but was with other units previously and is completing his third tour in Iraq, says she has “absolutely no idea” why the general singled out her husband’s unit. “It’s the general’s decision, I won’t presume anything, but we’ve known our guys were coming home for more than a month,” she says.

...

One Marine from the unit, who asked not to be identified for fear or reprisal by his superiors, has a more cynical view. “Seems to me we’re just being used as political pawns by the Pentagon and the White House,” he says. “They’re pleasing the Democrats with this announcement, I guess, but we’ve been here a short time compared to other units. In my personal opinion, the general is playing off our regular deployment schedule and our success here, knowing we’re scheduled to come home anyways. It’s totally political, and I think it’s deceptive.”

Kristy McFarland, 29, who’s married to S/Sgt. John Mundy, 29, a 10-year veteran of the Marines and a member of the 13th MEU, was “dumbfounded” when she heard her husband’s unit named as the first to be sent home as part of the troop reduction. “I was kind of disgusted, to be honest,” says McFarland, a business consultant. “They made it sound so great for this unit. I exchanged an e-mail about this with my husband already, and we both just had a laugh about it. He’s been in the Marines a long time, and he loves his job, but when it comes to the politics of it all, we both just have to roll our eyes and roll with it. It’s just politics.”

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a defense analyst in Ashburn, Va., who supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein but is critical of the current strategy, shares the skepticism about the troop reduction and why the general chose this particular Marine unit. “It’s deceitful and ultimately destructive to the credibility of the military and the Bush administration,” he says. “To pretend that this plan is a product of some real decision-making by General Petraeus is appalling, and I’m sure the Marines in this unit and their families are not happy about being used.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20779987/site/newsweek/

I'm surprised the sockpuppets haven't shown up yet.

Or perhaps it's because they aren't because they saw the idea about mandatory insurance ameliorating hiring of illegal immigrants. ;)

In any case, I don't like Hillary's plan because it relies far too much on for-profit companies. Quite frankly, for-profit have a tendency to put the health of their stock above the health of their insured.

Edwards's plan is superior. It creates a single-payer plan that then forces competition between it and the for-profit companies. For any of the market-force lovers out there, that means for-profit companies have to compete with a not-for-profit plan. Most likely, people will be happier with a not-for-profit because it will provide the best service (in this case, service means keeping people healthy).

Yes, Edwards plan may require people actually visit their physician for yearly physicals or else receive a penalty of some sort. There's nothing wrong with that. Currently, for-profit plans have all sorts of requirements that the insurees need to meet: physician referrals to specialists, restrictions on care, etc. Moreover, yearly physicals will inject more money into the economy by the mere fact that it will lessen spending on healthcare because preventative medicine saves money!

Whew, a link from Drudge really brings out all the thoughtful insightful commenters. Aren't they allowed to spew their hate directly on Drudge? (I don't plan to look to find out.)

As to Mickey Kaus, he is so wierd that even the lame NPR program Day to Day stopped having him on.

I don't see why showing an insurance card would be a big deal. Joe noted the Mass. example above. I have to include my car insurance number on the form to renew my auto registration.

Joe,
Do you feel comfortable with Hillary even saying having insurance is a pre-requisite for having a job? What if you need the job to be able to afford the health insurance? It might not be part of her plan, but it is scary that she acknowledges that possibility.

**And furthermore: Is Mickey like, unaware, of Drudge's historic role as first-source purveyor of right-wing smears?**

No. Mickey is, like, a childish contrarian who thinks disagreeing with anyone or any opinion he perceives as "liberal" makes a daring and independent thinker.

I think I actually have more respect for Drudge.

"I don't see why showing an insurance card would be a big deal. Joe noted the Mass. example above. I have to include my car insurance number on the form to renew my auto registration."

actually, I do have a problem with the idea of a requirement to show proof of insurance during a job INTERVIEW in a system where employers are required to either provide insurance, or pay additional taxes if they choose not to do so. Suddenly, an individual who doesn't have insurance through his/her spouse or parents winds up being a far less desirable applicant -- so I'd actually pass legislation prohibiting employers from asking about insurance status until AFTER the hiring decisions have been made....

You ask: Is Mickey like, unaware, of Drudge's historic role as first-source purveyor of right-wing smears?

YES. And he likes it that way.

(As Atrios would put it, this has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.)

Joe, Joe, Joe: Hil said what she said and it was a grand gaffe. She has shrilled against secure IDs required for voting. 'It's discriminatory'. Get it? Now, are you going waste a whole lot of bandwidth defending first her worse 'misspeak' and your worser mispost'.

Last week it was 'MoveOn.org'. That 'horrible ad' didn't seem to have the effect you predicted. I would say that the drop of Congress's approval rating to 11% is the lack of leadership to stop this war. [Bush is so far gone it is about down to the profiteers, Laura and Barney] Hil and Obama need to get off the promotion of non-Universal Health Care and stand-up in the Senate. [Webb says he only needs 3 more votes] The only people that must be approving of Congress are those who follow what Waxman is doing. He's now taking on the IG for the Pentagon. Or maybe Webb. Oh, and now even Reid seems to have moved on up to a stand up position.

You might want to check this out after you check the poll numbers:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/155216/595

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698

Drudge is sludge, but why take him and his loyalies on. Could you take on 'Black Water and the Mercenaries' with helicopters from the Embassy roof in Baghdad? Bi$$ions for naught. The cost in life and limb beyond measure.

Or all those that are saying 'scr*w you' to Congressional subpoenas. Oil is up to $81.90.

Joe: I am surprised you take MK seriously. The knee jerk reaction to the Clinton Health Care plan is to be expected. Why bother with the facts when fiction serves so well. I have to give my social security number when I apply for a job. One asked me for proof of car insurance because I would need to drive/travel on company business. So if someone asked me about health insurance why the problem. I either have it or don't. Those who get into a lather about illegal immigration should understand this. In the end the bill will be debated at length before it becomes law. For now all the bloviating only allows irrational people to blow off steam. Noticed something: the irrationals believe they are the only ones being rational. They should put up Drudge for President.

I would say about 1300 of those posts were -- what's the word I'm looking for? Uncivil. Yes, that's it.

But that can't be true. I've never read anything about conservatives deteriorating our public discourse. That sort of thing was invented when MoveOn was formed to push for censuring Clinton so we could end the impeachment stalemate and "move on" to the business of the country.

Well, I do see one minor flaw in the argument for requiring insurance in order to legally work: most people who have insurance, get it through work. They don't have insurance prior to getting a job, and the insurance doesn't follow them when they leave.

So if you happen to be unemployed, or you're a young person just entering the workforce, you're stuck in a catch-22. Gotta work in order to get enough money to pay for health insurance, but gotta have health insurance in order to work. There's a number of ways this could be addressed, but these sorts of "details" are extremely important.

Mickey used to be a concern troll, now I don't know what he is. I stopped reading him three or four years ago, tired of his constant efforts to shovel right-wing dirt into the general discussion.

Looking for issues that need to be discussed?

This one is surely worth a look-see:
"Welcome Home, Now Scr$w You"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/1577/46826

p_luk hit a home run on the 'why an insurance card' would be discriminatory.

Car Insurance is NOT the same as Health Insurance. A Social Security Card is NOT the same as Proof of Health Insurance.

Hey, Joe as weak as you are on this 'hottie button', CNN has sunk to an all-time low. They even had that 'OJ' puke on CNN International yesterday.

Does the GOP REALLY want to take the position that everyone should have car insurance, but it's communism to expect everyone to have health insurance?

Cue scary attack ad music, a black screen, followed by the ominous voice of the narrator: the liberals want the Federal government to force you to have health insurance.

EEEEEEEKKKK!!!!!

You'll insure me when you rip it from my cold, dead fingers! (because I can't pay my emergency room bill)

More disinformation from Joe

1) Hillary's intent is clear. She wants a command-and-control political system and health care system.

2) Don't use Massachusetts to "prove" anything. Even Romney is running away from that failed experiment.

From NCPA:

Sen. Hillary Clinton's new health reform proposal promises more choice, lower costs and no new government bureaucracies. But the rhetoric doesn't match the reality, says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute.

Under the Clinton's plan:

o Everyone would be required to have health insurance and businesses would be required to pay a significant share of the costs.

o Small businesses would get a tax credit to help pay for worker coverage, but only if they offer government-defined coverage and pay a government-determined share of the premiums.

o Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program would be expanded and a new Medicare-like program would be created.

To her credit, Sen. Clinton includes an idea long-promoted by conservatives to offer refundable tax credits to help those at the lower end of the income scale afford coverage, says Turner. But
she misses an opportunity to allow health insurance to become portable by freeing up the tax subsidy that ties health insurance to the workplace for 175 million Americans.

The United States could be a leader in developing health insurance that is better suited to a mobile and information-savvy 21st century workforce. Allowing greater competition in the health insurance industry would lead to more affordable premiums. Giving consumers a greater incentive to shop for value would put power in the hands of
doctors and patients, not government, says Turner.
Market-oriented reforms, coupled with assistance for those at the lower end of the economic scale, would be a far better solution.

Source: Grace-Marie Turner, "Another view: The market is the answer," USA Today, September 19, 2007.

Mickey is, purely and simply, an idiot.

He's been one for quite awhile now.

Mickey's a joke, Joe. We may mock you and argue with you, but you're really not a joke, just occasionally misguided.

You're an infinitely better reporter that Kaus and I would suggest you ignore him. Kaus is pretty much a snarkier, better-educated, and (of course) shorter version of Drudge.

Paul Krugman's newly minted blog:

****On the political side, you might have expected rising inequality to produce a populist backlash. Instead, however, the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush. (Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.)

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

Why did this happen? Well, that’s a long story – in fact, I’ve written a whole book about it...****

And here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691

I bet Matt Drudge will make an appearance...

The problem with the HRC plan is that it rests on the employer based insurance system which is not sustainable. The number of employers offering health benefits has dropped to around 60%, compared with 69% in 2000.

This solution is sort of like funding education with tobacco taxes while all the while the number of US smokers is declining. The number of US companies offering health insurance is also declining.

This is a political solution and does not adress costs.

Here's another thing: if you force me into an insurance pool with high-risk-lifestyle people, forcing me to pay their medical costs, I'll go off the radar and find a way to defeat the system.

You are not aware that Mickey used to date Matt Drudge's beard Fraulein Coulter?

PLEASE, GOD, NO, DON'T INSURE ME!!! PLEASE, DON'T INSURE ME! IT'S MY SACRED RIGHT AZ AN MERICUN TO PAY FOR MY DOCTOR MESELF!!!

HEALTH INSURANTS IS AGAINST MY CHRISTIANITY!!! I CURED MY KORNZ WITH MY SNAKE HANDLIN', AND MY PREEHER AIN'T COVERED ON ANY GOVERNMENT INSURANTS!!! THE TEECHAIRS UNIONS ARE AFEARIN' FAITH HEELERS GITTIN THE CREDABILITY!!!

"The problem with the HRC plan is that it rests on the employer based insurance system which is not sustainable. The number of employers offering health benefits has dropped to around 60%, compared with 69% in 2000. "

actually, this isn't a defect, its a feature.

Pretty much all the Democrats actually favor a "single payer" system.... and all of their proposals are means by which "single payer" is phased in through "consumer choice" -- all the plans allow people to sign up for existing federal health care plans (or variations thereof) and all of these Federal programs provide good care far more cheaply than private insurance plans.

Hillarycare: choose your poison.

Thank God her negatives are too high and she is not going to be the elected dictator.

"Is Mickey like, unaware, of Drudge's historic role as first-source purveyor of right-wing smears?"

Are you dumb or just being sarcastic?

Mickey Kaus is a Coulterized conservative. He has been a full frontal wingnut for years. During the 2004 campaign he was hyping the Kerry intern/botox/swiftboat lies.

Kaus/Drudge/Coulter/Malkin/Hewitt...........they inhabit the same swamp.

I DON'T TRUST 'EM SECULAR DOCTORS EVER SINCE THEY TOLD ME MY BOY WAS A MONGOLOID ON ACCOUNT OF MY MARRYING MY SISTER!!! AND DRUNK WHEN SHE BIRTHED HIM ON ACCOUNT OF HER NOT AFFORDIN' THE EPIDERMAL!!! AND BEING BEDRIDDEN WITH A CASE OF THE OBESITIES!!!! AND ME WITHOUT MY PICKUP TRUCK A CAUSIN' YOU MAKES ME GET THE INSURANTS FOR MY AUTOMOBILE!!!

"...Clinton wasn't proposing proof of health insurance as a requirement for work..."

Baloney.

" Mickey's intent is less clear...Is he opposed to the Clinton plan or could this be another case of niggling contrarian snark? "

Mickey jumped the line from "contrarian snark" to "Coulterized conservative" years ago.

It is obvious to the casual reader. Why can't his friends see what is so obvious? Kaus is just too far gone into lunatic right territory.

Wasn't Kaus trying to implicate Hillary in Diana's death not too long ago?

Honestly Joe, where have you been? Why can't you see what is in front of your nose? Why are you always the last to acknowledge reality, whether it is Bush or Kaus?

THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED MY TEETH, TOO, BUT HERE I AM, TWENTY YEARZ LATER LIVIN' ON DUMPLINS AND MOONSHINE, AND DON'T MISS 'EM ONE BIT!!! NOW YOU WANTZ ME GETTIN' THE INSURANTS????

Well Joe,
I hope you remember this. Look carefully at the difference between a right wing posts and a left wing posts. The guy on the left wants you to change your mind. The guy on the right wants to obliterate you.
Look also at the quantity of mendacity and demonizing on the right. Pretty special isn't it? This is as old as time. The Birchers pioneered this stuff in the 1950s.

Remember who's is the friend of a free press and who is an enemy, Joe. I wish Mikey K would clue in, but I think he is too in love with his contrarian persona to see things clearly.

Why is it that Drudge is constantly attacked for being a right-wing nut, when he only posts links to articles on the internet? Yes, he writes the headlines however, I don't think that particular head line was slanted at all : "She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress." She may not have said that that is what she IS going to do, but nevertheless Drudge's headline WAS correct.

Also, how can someone who is not working, buy insurance? And what exactly is the purpose of showing proof of insurance when applying to a job?

It seems to me that Joe is very insecure and is extremely defensive about his opinion of drudge.

"Why is it that Drudge is constantly attacked for being a right-wing nut, when he only posts links to articles on the internet?"

Let's knock this meme down right now. No one's complaining about Drudge's selective linking. It's the Drudge "scoops" that are always, always, always wrong. Remember Clark's edited testimony? Kerry's mistress who wasn't? The airplane heading for the President's motorcade? Dylan Kleibold being gay?

These scoops are always faxed to him by hacks, and re-edited, spliced, etc. by him, in his own words. When the siren goes up, you can be assured Drudge is about to write a post that is at best misleading, and at worst evaporates after a few days of meaningless media frenzy.

As for links -- many times, the stories don't even says what the headline says they do! Try actually clicking the link some time, and see how closely the story matches Drudges interpretation. He doesn't care. He knows most people see the headline.

Another favorite trick of his is to post to misleading data saying whatever company/show/group he dislikes is tanking in the ratings. For instance, he'll talk about Franken tanking when Coulter is selling less, leaving readers with the impression the opposite is true, or to adversely affect the stock of whatever movie company has someone on the board giving to Democrats.

So, don't take my word for it; check out the facts for yourself and see how well Drudge adds up.

"actually, I do have a problem with the idea of a requirement to show proof of insurance during a job INTERVIEW in a system where employers are required to either provide insurance, or pay additional taxes if they choose not to do so. Suddenly, an individual who doesn't have insurance through his/her spouse or parents winds up being a far less desirable applicant -- so I'd actually pass legislation prohibiting employers from asking about insurance status until AFTER the hiring decisions have been made...."

You're quite right. I was multi-tasking and had mentally just moved on to a world where everyone actually did have insurance. In which case it would not be a big deal. Sorry.

Wow, if I ever neded reminding that "Drudge rules their world" the number of posted replies to Joe's piece on Drudge would have done it. I thought it was a computer typo.

Drudge really IS the "head" of the vast right wing conspiracy. From Drudge's mouth to the MSM to our teevee's, you can count on it like the sunrise.

Joe, Thanks for pointing it out.

Why don't we just confiscate all of the property of members of the Democrat party and use that property to fund health care for all illegal aliens, and if there are any remaining funds, we can use those funds to provide health care for as many members of the Democrat party as the available funds allow?

Wow, is Kristallnacht over? Sorry Joe, that mob was a little too big for me.

Folks, remember that if Hillary is for requiring proof of insurance she's also in favor of universal health coverage, so the idea isn't so crazy.

But almost 2000 responses? Either Drudge is the hottest issue ever or he has better bots than Ron Paul.

Your a joke. The only reason you are even getting traffic is because Drudge links to you right now. So much for the 18 wheeler of the MSM. More like the goldfish on a bicycle. Have a nice day buddy.

I'll take bots for 2000, Daniel.

Anyone who mentions news and Drudge in the same sentence is not a serious person. Kaus is pure Repug. propaganda.

Q: Is Joe Klein totally unaware of Mickey Kaus' historic role as second-hand purveyor of right-wing smears?

A: Not now, anyway.

Yeah, we seem to have a little problem here. A few feathers got fluffed. Oh well.

"Drudge's intent is clear. He wants the Clinton plan to seem draconian and weird. Mickey's intent is less clear..."

And Joe, your intent is clear. Mention Drudge, get him to link, and get a massive boost to your blog by piggybacking on his traffic. Clearly it worked too since it got me here

I have to admit that I am pleasantly surprised that Joe and the other liberal syncophants at Time did not remove the thread where they as well as the rest of the typical moonbat crowd got completely owned by Drudge and mainstream America.

Bravo!

I expected it to be at least 10 threads back by now.

As a public service I will be sure to include the link to the greatest thread ever here in Swampland lest you forget whenever I post...

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/09/why_drudge_is_a_disgrace_1.html#comments

Drudge and mainstream America in one sentence - hilarious.

Wingnut nation is the 27%ers. The crazies. The right wing know it alls. The self appointed "rel murikans' running around yelling at everybody and shuting up anyone who disagrees with their narrow minded view of the world.
They are the zombie nation, the mindless republican lever pullers, the thing that is dragging America into darkness through ingorance and blind obedience. Like a gang who gets high on beating strangers to death for looking at them the wrong way, the Drudge nation likes to smash journalists who dare to lell the truth about the leader of this violent confomist mob of dittoheads.

Remember people, these are the voters behind the republican party, this is the nature of the 'base' that must be satisfied and catered to. Tell me is this the 'real America' of David Broder's dreamy prose? Are these the honest souls of David Brooks' musings? Look on the reavealed truth and draw your own conclusions. The chud of America have revealed themselves to you.

I think I'll hate Drudge, Kaus AND you, Joe. Calling out my enemies won't make you my friend.

P.S. Was that previous Drudge thread all about getting the hits?

P.P.S. Are we going to be treated to more of these "I'm commenting." and now "I'm commenting on the comments on my comment" threads? They seem to come in pairs. It's not all about you, you know, Joe.

Klein's attempt at backpedalling is silly.

"Clinton wasn't proposing proof of health insurance as a requirement for work, but merely speculating on the sort of details that would be worked out in Congress."

Does anyone actually think that Hillary - or any presidential candidate - would digress in a stump speech and start talking about how Congress would change a submitted piece of legislation? "I'll submit a health care plan to Congress, and they might add a requirement that you prove that you have health insurance to get a job, but I don't advocate that."

Can anyone say with a straight face that Hillary doesn't propose exactly what she said? Does anyone believe that Hillary would talk about what Congress would do to her proposals if she didn't support those steps?

You people are beyond parody.

At the very least we can say that Hillary isn't opposed to a law requiring proof of insurance before hiring. If she was, she would have said that she wouldn't sign a bill that had such a provision in it.

She floated the idea as a possibility. She's not swearing on her mother's grave that she'll make that happen, but she's clearly fine with it.

And Drudge's headline linking to an article about Hillary's proposal, "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK," makes him a "disgrace"? Please.

Not everyone needs car insurance. Some don't own cars. Others don't drive. Others are wealthy.

It would be more fair if people insured themselves. Then they could chose what level to cover themselves, or not to, and risk paying for their own injuries. Of course then the trial lawyers would be poorer, because they wouldn't be able to sue A for an error committed by B. Be frank. Most insurance is there to protect from lawyers and the government which amplifies their evil.

In like manner, noone needs health insurance. The alternative is to show up at the emergency room where they are forced to take care of you anyways, like they do for the illegal aliens. That is why ERs are the HMO of choice for illegal aliens.

You're actually wondering about the morality or conscience of a skunk like Mickey Kaus, who calls Ann Coulter one of his dear friends? Oh yeah, that's a real puzzle. The most amazing thing about Kaus is he insists on taping bloggingheads. If anyone has a face for radio, as they used to say (I guess it's face for blogs now), it's that bald, doughy little troll.

Wow you liberals are all so smart. You know how I know? Because every time I read one of your threads, congratulating each other on your brains seems to be the main topic.

The other interesting thing I learned from this thread is that the role of major, well once major, journalism outlets like Time is to shill for particular candidates.

I am sure that I am wrong and that there are plenty of articles in Time defending Bush in cases where his statements were "mischaracterized" from his point of view.

That does seem to be the issue here. That not only should the news be reported accurately, but that the intended spin should be maintained as well. The first, Drudge did fine, the second is where his shameless and disgraceful crime against journalistic integrity occurred.

AK

The libs in here are indeed beyond parody but it is still fun to do so.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/09/why_drudge_is_a_disgrace_1.html#comments

"He wants the Clinton plan to seem draconian and weird."

He uses Hillary's own words. Which seem draconian and weird. And it was only a headline - that was his entire contribution. A headline that quotes the article.

Only one of you has a warped view of the article and it isn't Drudge. If you had a set, you'd just suck it up and admit you screwed the pooch on this one.

It seems "draconian and weird" because it will inevitably be draconian and weird by the time it gets enacted. To cut to the chase is hardly illegitimate by blog standards.

Plus I wonder what you mean by "right wing smears" on Drudge. The only smear in the Monica Lewinsky matter was on the dress, and the only smear in the Swiftboat business was Kerry's winter soldier testimony.

lukasiak has been since birth, and probably picked it up in his amniotic fluid, a congenital moron in every septic dump he puts on this thread and othes where his most productive orifice leaves steaming fecal piles of leftist sh*t.

He has no brain & can't write. Typical ultra-left commenter.

Oh, and Joe, Mickey has more brains in the cuticle of his pinkie finger than you have in your left-of-center head.

You mean the "liberal" Mickey Kaus, right? Funny how the "liberal" Mickey Kaus spends all his time defending people like Drudge. Oh, when he isn't attacking "fags."

All my monkey has escaped!

It's funny how you've changed your other swampland posting to have comment approval vs. allowing free expression. How liberal and free minded of you.

That way, you get to cherry pick your criticism. The truth being what you allow to be said and all.

What a coward!

Damn right wingnut fascist bastards--Joe routinely calls out his fellow journalists who mischaracterize Bush and his many moderate (not Left Wing, just moderate, reasonable, tolerant, caring and highly intelligent--gifted, actually) fans are equally opposed to mischaracterizing someone who happens to have a different point of view. Here, diversity of opinion is prized only slightly less highly than journalistic integrity.

I have a framed copy of Joe's great column giving Dan Rather a good talking-to for you-know-what. It's good reading if anyone wants a copy.

With so few responses, it's safe to assume this thread's not linked by Drudge.

Time wouldn't mind a few more such links.

Yes, the horde has left your living room. However, a few have bookmarked the site to come back and randomly turn over the furniture. Not to mention you can count on Mickey to link here at least once a month to keep a friendly feud going. He seems to enjoy creating mild chaos for others; it's his business model.

The idea of having to show proof of insurance is worth examining. There are risks depending on the details, but it is obviously something that has to be examined in pursuit to a national health care solution. So, it is very amusing when Hillary's response to the Drudge headline is not to embrace the obvious need, but to deny. Being defense only validates others' suspicions and creates a problem where none existed. It is fascinating how "professionals" can make such a simple mistake.

Joe, are you, like, unaware that you're attacking Drudge for saying Hillary agrees with you, when it's, like, possible but not definite she doesn't? That's, like, weird.

Drudge and Kause are more than just friends!