Still no Politico article on Giuliani's brief tenure on and departure from Iraq Study Group
The Politico, which claims to cover "the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign ... with enterprise, style, and impact," has continued to ignore reports that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) quit the Iraq Study Group (ISG) in May 2006 after failing to attend a single meeting.
As Media Matters for America documented, The Politico largely ignored a June 19 Newsday article reporting that Giuliani delivered speeches that earned him $300,000 rather than attend the ISG meetings. The Politico devoted just two brief weblog entries to the story despite having previously reported that Giuliani's presidential campaign seeks to cast him as "tough" on national security and terrorism. In a June 20 article, however, The Politico did revisit reports that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards paid $400 to have his hair cut.
A Media Matters review showed that The Politico has yet to address the story in a news article. The only additional attention The Politico offered the story following Media Matters' original item was a brief mention in a blog entry that senior political writer Jonathan Martin posted late in the day on June 20. Martin wrote:
After giving his belt-tightening speech in Des Moines, Rudy admits that joining the ISG was a mistake -- and that he quit because of his White House hopes (as Craig Gordon, the man who started the dust-up, looks on skeptically).
Still no Poltiico Article on why Hillary Clinton made a "commerical" that mocked one of the most ugliest shows in American history "Sopranos" that denegrated Italian Americans and women. Why?
Hair cuts and ads by Democrats=Policy Decisions by Republicans?
I think this is overkill by MMFA myself, but it is strange that this story has had little mainstream coverage (I have only seen it covered online).
What is it with the Sues on this site? Anyway you are so far off base and not even worth debating. Keep focusing on stuff like the Sopranos.
Sueeld,
Not to worry. Some of us understand the connection. :-)
Some of us understand the connection.
You have consistently demonstrated that you are not among those who do.
The clinton ad has had plenty of press. Still not nearly as significant as the ISG story. Agreed, this may still be overkill by mmfa after the article yesterday.
WHAT?
Did I stutter?
If, by "stutter" you mean "babbled incoherently," the answer is yes.
So let me get this straight. According to your post, an ad "mocking" a show which "denigrated" Italian Americans (which it didn't really, it concentrated on a couple of different mob families, which is not the same as denigrating an entire race of people) deserves some sort of "coverage"? Even though as others have pointed out, and which you yourself could probably see, the Clinton ad got plenty of coverage, tons of it. Check out any news website out there, they are all still talking about it, or have prominent links posted on the site taking you to said ad. But hey, keep reaching, someday you might get that golden ring.
SueEld:
You wrote:
"Still no Poltiico Article on why Hillary Clinton made a "commerical" that mocked one of the most ugliest shows in American history "Sopranos" that denegrated Italian Americans and women. Why?"
They did mention the Clinton/Sopranos ad in an article.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=48FB2FA7-3048-5C12-001D1A8935CCFFCA
Thanks for writing.
in fact the Politico has two articles on the Giuliani/ISG story so far:
Rudy pushes back against Newsday ISG story from June 19th and
Blowing off the ISG from June 20th.
Why would MMFA lie about this?Also why no MMFA question on why its ok for the Clinton Campaign to cite a show that uses violence ande degrages women? Of course the sarcastic ones will attack me go ahead, only the weak are unable to answer in an intelligent way.
Look at above posts.
While I agree that the Sopranos was a pathetic show...although I may not share your reasons why...Clinton was spoofing (or as you said mocking) the ending of the show. This is not a way to honor the show it is a way to make fun of it and everyone;s attention to it. I found it amusing and I am no fan of the Sopranos...it had its own spin and the carrot bit was pretty funny...its good to be able to laugh at yourself.
Where the heck have you been??? I've missed you :-(
WELCOME BACK!
Howdy! I've been lurking now and then. Usually when I get to viewing the threads the discussion has run its course so it seems pointless to jump in. I still enjoy reading the discussions though. :-)
Well as for me I have missed you
Sueeee, your president has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people...so which is worse? Doing an ad which spoofs a show that depicts people getting killed, or actually getting people killed?
Get back to us on that when you find the answer on Rush Limbaugh's website.
Ah, he is not my President I voted for Gore and Kerry and I am against the War. So let me get this straight. If I dare question the Sheep and ask questions, I am labeled as someone who supports moron Bush?Nice logic.
Which sheep are you questioning? And what questions have you posed? You haven't asked any questions that were worth asking, or even relevant to the article that was posted. I'm wondering if you ever will. I, will not, hold my breath waiting though.
Sue, I am not sure what your intentions are but you are correct on one thing. if you DARE to question the party line you are attacked as being a "troll" or "Right winger" or even a supporter of "Bush". I know I was and I am far from all of them. Fight the good fight and stand up and speak your mind.
She's not saying anything though. That's the point. I like some debate as well, but so far her posts have not been relevant to the topic up for discussion on this article.
Fair enough, but do perform a search on sue's past comments. I can see where the confusion would come in.
Questioning the "party line" is not the problem, but doing so using asinine talking points and faulty logic will get you little respect around here.
Sueeee,
Usually when someone comes in here and repeats AA's talking points and attacks MMFA and Hillary over something as ridiculous as "The Sopranos", I naturally assume we're dealing with a troglodyte Conservative. My mistake.
Sue [ah finally a Sue I can like]
You obviously didn't read the contract too well...there in small print it clearly states that only bobbleheads get a free pass here.
Offer a different opinion [read that not the Liberal talking points] and you are automatically a Bush-loving neocon.
;-)
Jeter have you actually been paying attention to her comments though? Was it unfair to assume she was a neo-con? sure. Has she been getting as much as respect as she has been giving? As far as I can tell.
Monk,
Yeah quite honestly I did figure she was a Conservative [not a neocon] from her posts here...but I was trying a bit of humor...why I bother, my jokes have been falling flat lately :-/
That's why I included the ;-) at the end of my post.
That said, I do think there are several Dem/Lib posters here [not you] that get rather nasty when a different point of view is offered. And they even go after other Liberals. Some here don't allow for dissent.
You are correct about that. Look how that one famous poster has attacked so many of hiw own political philosophy with name caling.
It's not that she's offering a different opinion about this story, it is that she's deflecting from the original article, and veering heavily off topic, bringing up Clinton. Normally, someone who resorts to bashing of Clinton in her first post on an article not even remotely related to Clinton could safely be called a republican at least. Possibly.
The other fact is that the question that Sue asked was answered by several posters (myself included), but then she kept asking it over and over again, as if it hadn't been answered. Now, if she had gone back and asked more questions on my answer, and or others, then we have a debate, one of course that does not apply to the article at hand, but one that would make more sense than her constant posting of the same talking points that I heard on Rush and Boortz today. But hey, you know, having a different opinion is OK by me.
Sueeld,
Hey I agree with you on the content but as far as replies goes you better get used to it. It is modus operandi around here.
ps. We all take our shots and get 'em back. The little ditty was, IMHO, pretty funny. Give that man a beer!
Let the hate fly.
Also why no MMFA question on why its ok for the Clinton Campaign to cite a show that uses violence ande degrages women?
Yeah, we can't have all those women walking around graged now, can we? We have no choice but to degrage them.
Why does the GOP love 24, another show that uses violence?
why no MMFA question on why its ok for the Clinton Campaign to cite a show that uses violence ande degrages women
1. The show was violent and degrading because it portrayed a violent and degrading world.
2. Despite that, it was enough of a cultural icon that even I, despite not getting HBO and having never seen a single episode, have some familiarity with it.
3. The Clinton ad was an (in my opinion, weak) attempt to play off the widely-discussed ending of the series.
4. There was, as far as I'm aware, no conservative misinformation in that ad. (You do realize what website you're at, yes?)
5. Conclusion: You are in no position to judge the "weakness" of others.
Sueeld, MMfA wouldn't cover that because it doesn't fall under their mission statement. That simple.
Thank you , that was the most honest answer of the day. I appreciate it.
You have just ignored the other answers people have given you is all. How did you not know that MMFA is a website for exposing conservative misinformation again before you even asked the question about Clinton?
You are assuming that Suzy is what she says she is. I make no such assumption. Her "poor poor pitiful me" routine is typical of Wingnut posters. When they come on here whining about personal attacks, my troll radar starts bleeping.
Calling people trolls without proof is wrong.
Check out many of her posts. Troll is being kind to her at times.
So I am a troll because I participate in debates and do not follow the Party line? Ok, thanks for the insight.
Some might call you a troll because it seems that you define "participation" in a debate as making clumsy attempts to completely change the subject and then whining when the other participants try to stay on point. "Some" might "say" that :)
Yes...and I'm so ashamed.
Scroll through the article about which you post. You will see:
"The Politico devoted just two brief weblog">[link to www.politico.com] entries">[link to www.politico.com] to the story despite having previously reported that Giuliani's presidential campaign seeks to cast him as "tough" on national security and terrorism."
The above links are blog entries, not news articles. And if you bothered to read MMFA's own article, you would know this:
"The Politico devoted just two brief weblog entries to the story despite having previously reported that Giuliani's presidential campaign seeks to cast him as "tough" on national security and terrorism."
GADZOOKS!
I've heard of ADD but this is getting ridiculous.
Hello? McFly? Hello? Been there. Done that. YESTERDAY!!!!!!
Next thing you know MMFA will threaten to hold its collective breath till it turns blue unless The Politico bows to its will.
But then, on second thought, it is in keeping with their summer re-run schedule.
Tomorrow: KEITH OLBERMANN GIVES POLITICO WORST PERSON AWARD FOR NOT PRINTING ENOUGH ABOUT RUDY QUITTING ISG!
Magnolia,
I was about a lungs worth of O2 ahead of you on the 'holding breath' comment.
;-)
YIKES! I've started typing in caps!
Another real post of genius!
Cut the Deputy some slack, he's hooked up to pure oxygen. ;0)
AA, I kind of thought that the ISG was an important group kind of like the 9/11 group. I know that some (Jeter see I didn't say all) conservatives never wanted the groups to exist but we were in a war that was and is going badly. Rudy knowing he wanted to be Pres. should have welcomed serving since it would have added a much more important star on his resume than the 9/11 mayor. Instead he chose to make $300,000 in speaking engagements. Now I find it hard to listen to BS about Edwards talking about the poor while making a speech and earning $$ when Rudy is screaming about terrorism but fails to serve on the very group that is suppose to help us win the war so that they "won't follow us home".
I know that some (Jeter see I didn't say all) conservatives
Thank you Pearlene [I just blew you a kiss] oops is that allowed here ;-)
I think Rudy blowing off the ISG is important...in fact it's close [but not equal] to the reports that Hillary didn't bother to read National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, before what she has referred to as "the most important vote of my life"
No excuses for either of them in my book.
Jeter, couldn't agree more. Senators who voted "yes" owe all of us an apology especially when they don't even bother to read a report authorizing "war".
Few of the one hundred senators voting on the AUMF read the full National Intelligence Estimate.
Even the exact number is in dispute. The Washington Post reported only six did according to visitor logs. Twenty-two senators claimed to have read the whole thing. The Senate Intelligence Committee says no one knows for sure and that there are no records of who did.
What it means that so few read it I can't say. It's possible that it's routine not to read such things, even for such a serious decision as war, and most of them thought other sources were enough for them to make their decision.
It's also equally possible that most of the Senate just fell down on the job that day (they did, in that they voted for the AUMF) but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that reading the NIE wouldn't have changed their vote. Many of those who voted no, including Feingold and Boxer, either didn't read the whole thing or didn't remember reading it.
I am not a fan of Hillary, but I wouldn't single her out for criticism on this basis alone.
Man, 90% of this thread is off-topic posts!
Giuliani's entire candidacy is based on national security, though his claims to being an expert on that subject rest solely on the fact that he happened to be mayor of NY during 9/11. National security is the one issue he flogs, relentlessly. Take it away from him and he is nothing.
In a sane country, the revelation that he joined the ISG and then blew them off for another few million would destroy his campaign. At least Bush tries to look like he cares about national security. But wave a dollar in Giuliani's face and he's outta there, can't even be bothered to pretend that he's interested. But in our upside-down America, where you can have three wives and still be "pro-family", it won't mean a damn thing to the distracted electorate.
Giuliani is, was, and always will be about Giuliani. To him the presidency means a position where he can destroy his enemies and reward his cronies on a colossal scale, and to hell with the country and the world.