I'll be on Dori Monson (710 KIRO) shortly after noon to talk about the spoof McGavick website, Joel Connelly's column that fell for the spoof, and the revelation of the Young Democrat who put up the spoof site.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 27, 2005 12:00 PM | Email ThisDid anyone else think his sharp criticism of Jim McDermott father on down the page was a little surprising? I’ll tell you, JC took some shots at the Congressman for life. I was surprised.
Stefan was on my SHOW - not on me. I respect the guy, but I'm not letting him on me...
Posted by: Dori Monson on July 27, 2005 01:28 PM
The mental pictures were nearly too much to bear.
Posted by: Relief of a Worried Community on July 27, 2005 01:32 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/234132_joel27.html
Had this been closer to Election Day, who knows how much damage this could have done to a campaign -- even with the correction. One would wish that the MSM would dig a little deeper, but this is just another example of their eagerness to print anything anti-GOP.
Posted by: Mark on July 27, 2005 02:10 PMWe can now officially refer to him as:
Joel "I wouldn't have done anything differently" Connelly.
Attack the ideas, not the man.
Posted by: HT on July 27, 2005 09:41 PMThey've tried to kind of keep it on the QT, there was no press release when the latest staffer (also happens to be the Spo 'Rats county chair) was hired. But if you look here: http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000206.html and here http://www.leadershipdirectories.com/cybInfo/CYBLink29.html you can see who the Spo'Rats County Chair (pictured center here - http://www.spokanedemocrats.org/index.cfm?page=chair.cfm) respresents.
Apparently someone is so worried about other 'Rats trying to take her out that she needs to stack the party deck to her advantage. A fine 'Rat in the old school Chicago tradition. Start double printing those King County ballots Mr. Logan!
Posted by: Spo-countability on July 27, 2005 10:19 PMit is not like this will matter in 06. I mean McGavick is a corporate Neocon that demanded a yearly salary over $10,000,000 and had to lay off thousands of workers to pay for his massive fat cat pay check. He has no real legislative experience except getting coffee for Slade Gordon. He has never been elected to anything and I feel pretty good to be on the side of Sentator Cantwell on November 2nd 2006.
Wow a Democratic Senator hiring Young Democrats for a staff job Www that is quite a shock. You know I think Karl (Traitor) Rove might have hired some Young Neocon Chickenhawks as Whitehouse staffers.
Besides it is not like there actually is a Washington State Young Republican group.
Posted by: Rossi Lost on July 27, 2005 10:24 PMNever let it be said that you missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Mr. Cynical, you may fire at will.
Posted by: HT on July 27, 2005 10:33 PMNo wonder why you guys keep loosing in Washington State
Posted by: Rossi Lost on July 27, 2005 10:44 PMBush wants to close the air national guard base that keeps Washington state's skies safe. Should we ever need to shoot down a plane out of Seatac we can't because George Bush is wasting away the money on Iraq and his tax cuts for the ultra rich.
Senator Murray was right.
ROTFLMAO
1: Republicans who favor social authoritarianism and plutocracy
2: Anti-Intellectualists, and economic stagnationists.
3: Complete and utter dirtbags of pure, unrefined trash that only look out for their own wealth and contribute nothing to the betterment of man kind.
Worthless. Malignant. Junk.
The perfect definition of the Klintons, now that you mention it.
Perhaps you missed the irony...
Thank you Michele.
We were just in Jackson Hole and I heard Wyoming is 60 percent Republican/40 percent Democrat. It's beautiful country and my allergies were nonexistent while there. I really want to move out of this state but I won't do it until we level the playing field. We WILL do all we can, until we get this done!
Brilliant MrEdly at 11:17 p.m!
It seems like you must live in a cave somewhere.....or perhaps Joel Cornholey ate you which explains his enormous gut!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 28, 2005 06:30 AM1) Can you pull up Safeco's SEC filings and walk us through their financials, explaining the instances where layoffs occuring under McGavick's leadership provided the company with extra cash to pay a $10 million dollar salary?
2) Can you explain your rationale for approving of Miss Cantwell's hiring of campaign staffers, given that it is a violation of multiple federal laws and Senate ethics rules to engage in campaigning using ANY Congressional resources (phones, salaries, etc.)?
3) Can you provide me with the name of even 1 White House staffer, aside from his own personal assistant, hired by Karl Rove and further demonstrate that the staffer a) avoided joining the military and b) actively advocated going to war to his bosses
4) Using Nethercutt's FEC filings, can you please show at least $2 million in campaign contributions from Karl Rove or from fundraisers in which Rove was in attendence?
5) Please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that either Rob McKenna is not a Republican or Rob McKenna lost his AG race.
6) Please explain why you expected President Bush to find bin Laden in 8 months on the job but you did not expect President Clinton to find bin Laden in 8 years on the job. Also, specifically what "warnings" about bin Laden or 9/11 landed on POTUS's desk between inaugguration and 9/11?
7) Please document a) President Bush's role in any BRAC proceedings; b) President Bush's specific role in BRAC's reccomendation to move several F-15s from Oregon to Louisiana; and c) analysis of the military value provided to the Puget Sound area by the presence of F-15s in Oregon. In addition, explain why the F-14s and F/A-18s aboard the multiple aircraft carriers in Puget Sound would not be able to shoot down a plane, whereas F-15s from Oregon would be able to fulfill that role.
8) You claim money is being wasted by "tax cuts for the ultra rich." Please post your net worth, your income for each of the past 10 years, and your tax returns for those 10 years. Then explain how you reconcile the cut in your taxes and your claim that cuts were only for the ultra rich.
9) If neocons are "anti-intellectualists," and Karl Rove is a neocon, and Karl Rove engineered two straight national Democratic losses, what does that say about the Democrats who lost. If Republicans are economic stagnationists, how come the economy made a quick recovery (about 1 year) following 9/11 and has been continually growing, inflation is slowing, and unemployment is at a 10-year low? If Republicans only look out for their own wealth, why do people like President Bush, Governor Rossi, and future Senator McGavick quit private sector jobs where they are making fortunes in order to run for public office?
Please post your answers to these questions. I am inviting you to prove to the SP community that you are not intellectually bankrupt. Please contain your answers to each question to 100 words.
Posted by: ARS on July 28, 2005 11:43 AMIf Republicans are Anti-Intellectualists then why is it the dumbass Democrats that can't seem to operate a voting machine?
Posted by: swassociates on July 28, 2005 12:53 PMDid you as a child attend one the daycare centers financed by Osama bin Laden that Patty Murray is so proud of? Did your wife just cast off her Burkka on the way to work when she dropped off your little ankle biters?
Posted by: swassociates on July 28, 2005 12:56 PM1) Traitor: "One who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" (MerriamWebster.com).
That definition disqualifies Rove, whose sole offense is that he happens to be Republican, and because your attacks on Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all failed miserably. Since Rove is the next prominent figure on the list, he's open game.
However, the definition distinctly qualifies Patty Murray (for openly praising bin Laden), Jim McDermott (for openly supporting Saddam Hussein), John Kerry (for his consorting with the North Vietnamese government while still in uniformed service), Bill Clinton and Al Gore (for selling sensitive nuclear technology to China), and Ron Sims (for obstructing the arrest and prosecution of a known terrorist).
On the other hand, you call Rove a traitor simply because you hate him. OK, pal. Whatever gets you through the night.
2: "9-11 happened on Bush's watch."
Well, let's look at that... that would be because Clinton refused to snap bin Laden up when the Sudan was ready to hand him over on a silver platter- not once, but three times. Clinton himself admitted this. Are you calling Bill Clinton a liar?
3: "Worthless. Malignant. Trash."
Consider. The. Source.
Considering what you have said thus far, and the manner in which you have said it, you honestly have not won any of us over to the idea that we should see you and your previous comrades as our intellectual and moral superiors.
From Think Progress.org
How To Talk To A Conservative About Karl Rove (If You Must)
Everything you need to fight back against the right-wing misinformation campaign.
CLAIM: White House Can’t Comment While Investigation Is Ongoing
McClellan: “While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.”
FACT: White House Has Repeatedly Commented During the Ongoing Investigation
McClellan had previously cited that same investigation and then gone on to answer the questions as they pertained to Rove. For example, on October 1, 2003, he said, “There’s an investigation going on … you brought up Karl’s name. Let’s be very clear. I thought — I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it’s simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and — nor, did he condone that kind of activity.” Similarly, on October 10, 2003, McClellan said, “I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing investigation.” But he then added with regard to a question about Rove’s involvement, “I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.”
CLAIM: Rove Didn’t Leak The Name So He’s Not Guilty
Rove: “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Rove attorney Robert Luskin said “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”
FACT: National Security Law Says Identifying Covert Agent Is Illegal
Rove at the very least identified Plame as “Wilson’s wife.” Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “any information identifying [a] covert agent” is illegal.
CLAIM: White House Didn’t Push The Story
Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin claims Cooper manipulated what Rove said to him “in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to report negative information about Plame.”
FACT: There Was An Organized Campaign To Push Leak Info
First, Robert Novak admitted: “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game.” Third, Time magazine reported the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”
CLAIM: Conversation Was About Welfare Reform, So Rove Didn’t Do Anything Wrong
National Review’s Byron York: “According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform.”
FACT: What They Spoke About Was Irrelevant
The original purpose of the conversation between Rove and Cooper is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the fact that Rove did identify a covert agent during that conversation.
CLAIM: Plame Wasn’t An Undercover Agent
Ed Rogers, former official under Reagan/Bush: “I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don’t think there’s any meaningful investigation about that.”
FACT: Former CIA Officer Who Worked With Plame Verified She Was Undercover
Larry Johnson, former CIA officer: “Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover.”
CLAIM: Rove Was Trying To Correct A False Story
Rove attorney Luskin added, “What Karl was trying to do … was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false.”
FACT: Wilson Was Right, Bush Was Wrong
Bloomberg recently reported, “Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.”
CLAIM: Wilson Lied About His Trip To Niger
Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: “What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger.” [CNN, 7/12/05]
FACT: Wilson Never Said Cheney Personally Sent Him To Niger
Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office,’ Wilson wrote.”
I would give your data more credence if it came from an objective source.
If you think that Rove & Bush are the foci of the problems this country has- or this state or county, for that matter- then you're wrong.
Because this is still a constitutional republic, it takes more than two men to direct the course of the nation. And even if these two were the malefactors your source paints them to be, we still have a series of checks and balances- Congress and SCOTUS- to counteract any malfeasance or poor leadership on the part of the executive branch.
So really, your argument that Rove and Bush are the root of all the evil that is loose in the nation is spurious. Furthermore, your argument shows a remarkable lack of knowledge on your part regarding the roles and functions of the branches of government.
Just as congress thwarted Bill Clinton's (vis a' vis Hillary's)push for universal healthcare- thus averting disaster- congress has also thwarted some of Bush's plans as well. This is the beauty of a constitutional republic.
If you want to tilt at the Bush-Rove windmill, knock yourself out. But if you want to engage in reasoned and objective discourse, choose from objective sources of information before mashing the keys.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 28, 2005 07:03 PMMcLELLAN AND THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION: If you ever paid attention to one of McLellan's briefings (they usually occur multiple times a day on C-SPAN and rebroadcasted on the web), you would know that McLellan only stopped commenting on the ongoing investigation once Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald asked him to stop commenting. Yes, he previously did comment, but at a time when Fitzgerald had yet to ask him not to. The fact the McLellan is no longer commenting, which is in accordance with the Special Prosector's wishes, firmly establishes the fact that the White House is indeed cooperating to the fullest extent with the investigation.
ROVE'S POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW: The question of whether revealing general information about a covert agent constitutes disclosing that agent's identity according to the statute is a question that may have to be interpreted by a judge. But there is no doubt that the statute only applies to covert agents, which Ms. Plame Wilson most definately was not. In her husband's own "autobiography," he explains that Plame Wilson was last posted overseas in 1997. That establishes the fact that Plame Wilson was covert in neither the spirit (she told her friends about her status, gave political contributions listing her known-CIA-front company as her employer, and drove to Langley five days a week) nor the letter (not having been stationed overseas in the past five years disqualfies individuals from 'covert' status) of the law.
"SMEARING" MR WILSON: To begin with, discrediting a political opponent is neither illegal nor unethical. By accepting a public role (such as an ambassador), individuals realizing they are giving up whatever privacy they previously had and are now being held to a much higher standard. They can no longer sleep with whatever intern they want or accept gifts from whatever lobbyist they want. And when you mess up, you're fair game. Assuming the primary intent of the White House was to discredit Mr. Wilson (which has not been proven, the White House could have just as easily been trying to clarify their official position on hte matter), that constitutes nothing more than "hardball" politics. The Democrats inability to learn this is the primary reason why they have won just two national elections since 1993 (incumbent Clinton winning in 1996 and regaining a Senate Majority in 2000, although on a technicality). Further, it is well established by both Cooper and Novak that Rove brought up the Plame-Wilson affair at the end of their respective conversations, and in their view (according to their grand jury testimony) Rove was not actively pushing the story.
Man up and post your real email address and I will gladly debate these issues with you, and hopefully you will learn facts and won't be quoting from DailyKos and MoveOn.org. My email address is strokes2007 AT comcast DOT net. I work in Washington, DC and cannot post my full work email because I'm afraid the MSM might pick up my comments and attribute them to my boss.