Official 112th Congress Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

a little right of center? gtfo, sir. not even you can believe this. a little right of rush limbaugh maybe.

Yea..she's probably the only person who I consider to be right of me.

[hblask 1]

He didn't say anything that was verifiably false. The worse thing he said was, "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." And then he went on to describe how she had received death threats in the past, which she had, and that her offices had been vandalized when she voted for Obamacare, which they had. I'm not going to defend someone else's statements that I think were mistakenly written, but the NYTimes hardly needs to apologize for him or fire him. Get serious.It's also annoying how stories now aren't stories, but rather they become stories about stories about stories. We're arguing about someone's reaction to someone's reaction to someone's reaction to the real story. This is why our political and media environment is terribly deficient.

So we don't have *proof* that this shooting was related to physics, but odds are that it was. Physicists often use violent language, often claiming that the universe was created in a violent explosion called "The Big Bang". Physicists are also responsible for some of the highest energy collisions on earth, and spend an inordinate amount of time discussing such collisions. It's time that we call for an end to all the violent rhetoric that crazy people can then turn into violent actions. LLY, in particular, has posted frequently about physics, and has never once denounced the violent terminology associated with it. All sensible people need to denounce this violent rhetoric.

[AmScray 355]

So we don't have *proof* that this shooting was related to physics, but odds are that it was. Physicists often use violent language, often claiming that the universe was created in a violent explosion called "The Big Bang". Physicists are also responsible for some of the highest energy collisions on earth, and spend an inordinate amount of time discussing such collisions. It's time that we call for an end to all the violent rhetoric that crazy people can then turn into violent actions. LLY, in particular, has posted frequently about physics, and has never once denounced the violent terminology associated with it. All sensible people need to denounce this violent rhetoric.

[brvheart 1,752]

BOOM!If I start hating black people can I beat LLY?

[timwakefield 68]

Does she plagiarize or flat out lie about a story to make money?

Yes, yes she does.

Throughout the book, for example, she relies heavily on quantitative searches of the Lexis-Nexis news database to support her assertions about the media's bias and its unfair treatment of conservatives, making at least 15 such claims. At first blush, these bits of evidence seem to provide strong support to her arguments. Yet very serious questions have been raised about her methodology.The American Prospect's weblog, Tapped, noted that Coulter's claim that "Between 1995 and 2001, the New York Times alone ran more than one hundred articles on 'Selma' alone" is demonstrably false. Tapped also reported the inaccuracy of her claim that "In the New York Times archives, 'moderate Republican' has been used 168 times," while "There have been only 11 sightings of a 'liberal Republican.'" But a search in the New York Times' own archive found 22 hits for "liberal Republican" since 1996; in a search of the Times archives for "all available dates" in Lexis-Nexis, the weblog found 524 such citations.Bob Somerby punctured Coulter's argument that the New York Times reveals a liberal bias by having used the phrases "Christian conservatives" or "religious right" 187 times during, roughly, the 2000 calendar year, while never using the phrases "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left." Somerby found that the New York Times compared favorably with the conservative Washington Times, which had 151 references to "Christian conservatives" or the "religious right" in 2000 -- along with, of course, no references to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left."http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

Another favorite tactics of Coulter's is the use of deceptive paraphrases to distort others' viewpoints. Blogger Scoobie Davis has noted that Coulter misrepresents the views of Frank Rich and Bruce Ackerman on the war on terrorism. Early in the book, Coulter writes that "New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General John] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." The column that she cites, however, makes no such argument. Coulter also writes that "Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism ('declare war at the first decent opportunity'!) and instead concentrate on 'home-grown extremists.'" Yet Ackerman's column suggests a cautious approach to a global war on terrorism, not "dropping" it, and nowhere does he advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists instead of international terrorists. Coulter's paraphrases are both wild distortions.Another problem plaguing Slander is the deceptive way Coulter uses footnotes to lend a false sense of legitimacy to questionable points. To take one example, in her discussion of media treatment of former Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., she provides a list of 10 quotes alternating between positive coverage prior to his political demise following allegations of sexual harassment, and negative coverage afterward. Coulter introduces the list with the claim that "What happened to Packwood is a stunning example of the media's power both to destroy and protect ... In the case of Packwood, the media's good dog/bad dog descriptions were applied to the exact same human being."To the casual reader, the list must seem fairly damning. Yet if one flips to the back of the book and checks her sources, it turns out that her claim about "the media" rests on a very small sample. Rather than the 10 different articles the casual reader would assume Coulter is quoting, she relies on one article for four of the five negative quotes, a second for three of the five positive quotes, and a third for the other two positive quotes. In all, the list comes down to four articles -- thin evidence at best for the broad suggestion that coverage of Packwood proves "[t]here is no intellectual honesty whatsoever in media descriptions of politicians," which she makes two paragraphs later.Coulter's use of quotes from liberal commentators as proof of media bias is equally problematic. She disregards the importance of conservative commentators, by writing, for example, "Rush Limbaugh is not the president, the vice president, or a Massachusetts senator. He's not the New York Times. He's not ABC, NBC, or CBS." Coulter also tells us that "What conservatives object to is not liberal opinion commentary, but rather ostensibly objective news coated with smears." Yet much of her evidence for media bias and unfair attacks on conservatives comes from the opinion columns of liberal pundits. Particularly damaging is the way in which she bases broad comments about "the media" in at least two places exclusively on opinion columns. Writing that "the media quickly sketched out the larger themes" about Bush's intelligence, she cites the Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske and the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman to support the contention that the media portrayed George W. Bush as dumb -- all of whom are columnists.In all, Coulter offers more than 40 citations of columnists and pundits to support her assertion that conservatives are treated unfairly by the mainstream media. Though most of these quotes are identified as coming from commentators, and some of her examples are certainly outrageous, the danger is that the casual reader may interpret many of these as evidence of reportorial bias. If read carefully, however, much of her evidence reveals little more than then banal fact that liberal pundits and the New York Times editorial page are critical and often unfairly dismissive of conservatives and their policies. Using Coulter's methodology, one could easily string together quotes from conservative pundits and Op-Ed pages to make the case that the media treats liberals unfairly, rather than conservatives.http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

Throughout Slander, Coulter represents quotations from sources or views attributed to those sources as being from media outlets themselves, an extremely disingenuous practice. In her latest column, she defends her actions:I wrote: "For decades, the New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages." Among the quotes I cited, one came from a New York Times book review. The quote made a loose association between Nazis and Christians. New York Times book reviews are printed in the pages of the New York Times. The Times allowed that quote to run in its pages. How else, exactly, are you suggesting I should have phrased this, Ed?Coulter is selectively quoting herself. On pages 114-115 of the hardcover edition of Slander, she introduces the quotes with "For decades, the New York Times has allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages. Statements like these were not uncommon: 'Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?' ... 'the church is "co-responsible" for the Holocaust' ... 'Pope Pius XII, who maintained diplomatic ties with Hitler.'" [ellipses in original] In context, she is clearly implying that those statements are the editorial position of the Times - a fact she obscures in her column. As Franken points out, the first quotation summarized an issue under debate - the full quote continues, "Or did Nazism draw instead, as the Roman Catholic Church has argued, on pagan ideas that were distinctly anti-Christian?" And he also notes that Coulter's second quotation is a statement attributed to another writer.http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''...And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a personal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic profiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In fact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois newspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure the reference):I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath away.Durbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that his crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue is patently false....Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false. First, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs in Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the Taliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994, several years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and its subsequent collapse (1991).Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and Mike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking, "Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress were meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225) The group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question, though they did meet with Iraqi officials.Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton, the man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us ... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229) Clinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news database, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source is its slight resemblance to a passage in a November 2001 speech at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a story from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced terms. Given that the speech has been widely distorted in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's supposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).In one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize, stating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal [the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for North Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for Bush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel committee's award announcement cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," of which North Korea was only a part. In the presentation speech at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue was not even mentioned.Lastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under President Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own fate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote, but it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not a quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's summary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote "determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis news database along with Clark's name and Iran.)In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her source material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to her claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the religion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New York Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center bombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading spokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article states that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic fundamentalist." In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word article titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent Voice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement officials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent message of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City."She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named Hesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los Angeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front door, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight that his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'" (p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the initial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible motives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El Al is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a fare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with Hadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally well-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by customers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the El Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's opinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle "expected" that it was a dispute).In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you need a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated insistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p. 281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another "clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described Muhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the role of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in psychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of extremist Islamic beliefs. In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear what the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters writing in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter have them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects' actions were driven by their religious beliefs?And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely mentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), saying "t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the declassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but neither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page.http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

[nutzbuster 7]

Actual footage of Pelosi handing over the gavel(yeah you know what's coming)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd7RooCnroI

[Balloon guy 158]

Actual footage of Pelosi handing over the gavel(yeah you know what's coming)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd7RooCnroI

Does Palin have a target on Pelosi on any of her websites? Cause it's not Boehner's fault if she does.

[colonel Feathers 5]

And a little extrahttp://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-K...01/10/id/382350

[Roll the Bones 74]

To me though, aside from simply the bullseye reference, during the last election I kept noticing that an unnamed "revolt" kept getting mentioned more frequently on message boards. I did some searching a little while back and media matters did a complilation of the times Beck kept refering to this idea of a revolt coming and Palin used it alot as well. It was definately part of their strategic rhetoric, aimed at conservatives and their belief in the myth that through armed revolt we can achive some form of paradisical society. This is the same type of rhetoric that fueled all the neo-nazi, military type cults, and it now seems to be an effective tool for the mainstream if you wrap it in God, the constitution and founding father rhetoric.

Sarah Palin telling the Tea Party convention that "America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this" and Glenn Beck asserting that "the second American revolution is being played out right now."

Whether they actually win or not depends upon how much you love your family and your nation and the principles that made this nation great. Our founders themselves believed in the right of revolt, and knew better than any of us that governments must be replaced from time to time. They were wise enough to provide us with a constitutional framework that will outlast any government, including this one. We can dispose of this government, and restore the Constitution that has served us and the rest of the world so well for so long.We stand at the brink.We are on the right side of history. Our would-be rulers, fat on self-appointed largesse and drunk on their own purloined power, imagine us subjects, not free men and women.Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured.In a letter to James Warren in 1789, Samuel Adams foresaw our current state.A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.The question for you, my fellow Americans, is simple.Will you fight, or will you surrender your liberties?

I am not saying they are responsible,

[85suited 0]

you know this guy was following the congresswoman before sarah palin was a national political figure right

[Balloon guy 158]

you know this guy was following the congresswoman before sarah palin was a national political figure right

Doesn't matter.Doesn't even matter that they do the same thing with targets, declaring war on the right etc.See...they 'know' that the Tea Party is filled with knuckle draggers. They 'know' that we are a step away from coming unglued.They KNOW that we are going to shoot Obama for being black. So when it happens, they can say: "See, We told you so."Having this one isolated event that turns out to be one of their own be the shooter doesn't change the fact that should of could have been one of us.So sure, they'll back off a tiny bit from their accusations, but guaranteed they are pissed that this guy wasn't a right winger so they could gain political points...on the dead bodies of Americans.

[custom36 4]

And a little extrahttp://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-K...01/10/id/382350

There's nothing legitimate about Newsmax.

[custom36 4]

Doesn't matter.

Like the facts, apparently. Rational people aren't blaming Palin....I wish rational people were the only ones that mattered.

[timwakefield 68]

Doesn't matter.Doesn't even matter that they do the same thing with targets, declaring war on the right etc.See...they 'know' that the Tea Party is filled with knuckle draggers. They 'know' that we are a step away from coming unglued.They KNOW that we are going to shoot Obama for being black. So when it happens, they can say: "See, We told you so."Having this one isolated event that turns out to be one of their own be the shooter doesn't change the fact that should of could have been one of us.So sure, they'll back off a tiny bit from their accusations, but guaranteed they are pissed that this guy wasn't a right winger so they could gain political points...on the dead bodies of Americans.

You are attempting to "gain political points" thanks to dead Americans. Condemning the left for wishing they could gain political points on this tragedy is unbelievably hypocritical when you are using this tragedy for that exact purpose: to attack the left for what you perceive as their hypocrisy, and thus gain "points" for the right. You are painting the issue as left vs right while blaming the left for doing precisely that. The guy probably did not share mainstream Democratic or Republican views at all. It is far more likely that his brain is fucked up and he's a crazy asshole. I think it's safe to say that mass murder and the assassination of Americans aren't a part of either the Democratic party or the Republican party's agenda.You keep pretending that he's a Democrat (which, even if it were true, would be inconsequential), and are explicitly using this event to make cheap political jokes. On the dead bodies of Americans.

[Balloon guy 158]

You are attempting to "gain political points" thanks to dead Americans. Condemning the left for wishing they could gain political points on this tragedy is unbelievably hypocritical when you are using this tragedy for that exact purpose: to attack the left for what you perceive as their hypocrisy, and thus gain "points" for the right. You are painting the issue as left vs right while blaming the left for doing precisely that. The guy probably did not share mainstream Democratic or Republican views at all. It is far more likely that his brain is fucked up and he's a crazy asshole. I think it's safe to say that mass murder and the assassination of Americans aren't a part of either the Democratic party or the Republican party's agenda.You keep pretending that he's a Democrat (which, even if it were true, would be inconsequential), and are explicitly using this event to make cheap political jokes. On the dead bodies of Americans.

My first reaction is to tell you you are wrong. But when I step back I have to give you some credit here.I am grandstanding a little much on this.To be honest, my first reaction when this story broke and the left began hinting at the Tea Party I was hoping this wasn't the case, which implies that I felt it could have been too.So I guess I am guilty as charged.But I still think Palin is hot.

[Balloon guy 158]

There's nothing legitimate about Newsmax.

I can legitimately tell you that if you ever sign up for this mag, you will get spam emails by the dozens per day....

[custom36 4]

But I still think Palin is hot.

Me too. I won't apologize for it.

[Scott31 0]

I don't think any rational person believes that since Palin made a target over her district that Loughner decided to shoot the congresswoman. However, I see no fault in pointing out that Palin's map and Gifford's 2010 congressional opponent making gun references is in incredibly bad taste for the reason that something like this could happen. Because there are crazy people out there and something like this can happen is why you should avoid the slightest reference toward violence in regards to the opposition. For the record: Palin's voice is so nasal, it's tough for me to find her attractive--sort of like Fran Drescher.

[loogie 115]

I don't think any rational person believes that since Palin made a target over her district that Loughner decided to shoot the congresswoman. However, I see no fault in pointing out that Palin's map and Gifford's 2010 congressional opponent making gun references is in incredibly bad taste for the reason that something like this could happen. Because there are crazy people out there and something like this can happen is why you should avoid the slightest reference toward violence in regards to the opposition. For the record: Palin's voice is so nasal, it's tough for me to find her attractive--sort of like Fran Drescher.

Word.The latest I've read about Jared the Child Murderer is from an interview with the friend he called the night before the rampage. This friend said that Jared used to smoke pot but stopped, and once he stopped, he starting spinning out of control even faster.This makes much more sense to me than the earlier report that Jared was (and is) a pot head.The whole situation actually reminds me of a friend of mine. Let's hope he never stops smoking.

[hblask 1]

Just to put an end to any of the nonsense that the right is any more responsible for the violent rhetoric or violent atmosphere in this country, over the last couple days I've been collecting a few instances of left-wing violence and rhetoric.. Feel free to provide this list to anyone who is still stupid enough to blame the actions of a crazy person on a single person.

[Balloon guy 158]

Just to put an end to any of the nonsense that the right is any more responsible for the violent rhetoric or violent atmosphere in this country, over the last couple days I've been collecting a few instances of left-wing violence and rhetoric.. Feel free to provide this list to anyone who is still stupid enough to blame the actions of a crazy person on a single person.

Thanks. I may use this in the near future...

[85suited 0]

Daily Kos Put a "Bulls Eye" on Giffords District in 2008 - Kos' words - not mine

[ShakeZuma 585]

The whole situation actually reminds me of a friend of mine. Let's hope he never stops smoking.

so the real culprit is rage?

[Scott31 0]

Did anyone see Jon Stewart's take on this? He was spot on as usual. "We live in a complex ecosystems of influences and motivations and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine. And this is coming from someone who truly hates our political environment."""Boy would it be nice to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this, the horrors will end. To have the feeling that this type of event can be prevented forever. But it's hard not to feel like it can. You cannot outsmart crazy. Crazy always seems to find a way, it always has.""It's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction of the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what counts as acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people in no way resembled how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot."

[loogie 115]

so the real culprit is rage?

It always is.