August 21, 2012
I Like Baumgartner Now More Than Ever
U.S. Senate candidate Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) responded to Publicola journalist Josh Feit with a picture of himself with an American soldier, saying, "Josh, this is Pat Feeks, a Navy SEAL killed last week in Afghanistan. Take a good look and then go f*** yourself."
Feit says, "It's hard to know what prompted his e-mail last night." No, it's not: Baumgartner is annoyed that you are trying to link him to an unrelated candidate's ignorant comments about abortion instead of focusing on actual issues. That's not to say candidate's views on abortion are unimportant, but Pubicola hasn't even covered the state senator's views on Afghanistan (until now).
Baugmartner apologized to Feit "for my strong language," but I say that it's good to see, regardless of the language used. Nothing against Feit in particular, but the entire news media is going nuts over this abortion thing. A guy I've never heard of and can't vote for or against said something stupid. So what? Move on, already.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 21, 2012
05:52 PM | Email This
Publicola always struck me as -- basically -- a leftist oppo-research outfit posing as a news organization.
Not that they never do legitimate news stories. I have found a few there myself. But that isn't what they concentrate on.
I was charmed, for instance, when I saw that, with much research, they discovered that a local Republican official eats out often. (He's a single guy.)
Does anyone happen to know who is subsidizing them?
Relatively few people have even heard of Publicola, let alone even know what they are.
Therefore, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about what a blog almost no one's heard of said or did.
3. If dropping "F YOU!"s is what it takes then let's have more. Chris Christie would not shy away from confrontation.
4. I totally agree. Also, run as fast as you can away from ANY organization with "public" in its name. Public = Collectivist.
Also, Pudge, did you see the list of the presidential debate moderators? They are ALL far-left Liberal mainstream media hacks. Fair debates? I doubt it!
It's perfectly fine to take a shit all over Publicola, but why use a dead hero to do it?
And if Josh Feit can get that far in Michael Baumgartner's head, that says nothing good about Michael Baumgartner.
RushBabe: couldn't disagree more about Jim Lehrer being a "hack." Lehrer is one of the finest TV journalists of this, or any, generation. Next to him, almost everyone else is a hack.
I wouldn't call the others hacks either. Well, Schieffer maybe. But they are all three definitely on the left.
But Lehrer, frankly, I'd be surprised if you could demonstrate him being on the left.
7. "Barack": you're not fooling anyone.
Baumgartner just lit a fire under the independents and conservatives. He showed some hutzpah to say that to Feit who had it coming. Other Republican candidates should show solidarity here.
@6 - I agree - Mr. Lehrer will be the best debate moderator of the bunch.
9. I first heard about Publicola when I used to wade into David Goldstain's waste treatment plant HA a few years back just to see how insane some of our hard core leftists really were (mission accomplished!). As far as I'm concerned, it's garbage in, garbage out over at that "news" blog.
More of the usual. Anything, anything at all to distract from Obama's abysmal record. They spent weeks trying to make Romney's dog from decades ago a major issue.
Stand up to the Leftist bullies. Get in their faces. Call the media out. They are so use to never being challenged, that they don't know what to do when they are finally confronted.
Well said. HA is a sewage plant. There's a guy over there who thinks he's a rabbit. He call's his insane ramblings "role playing." Normal people just call them crazy.
Jim Lehrer is pretty clearly on the left. I don't think he is as overt about it as some of the others but I have always felt the bias was there. In particular I thought News Hour showed the bias in the stories it ran, the parts of the story they emphasized, and particularly in the stories they ignored. Newsbusters also makes a good case for Lehrer's bias.
HB @ 12:
You nailed it regarding the left's favorite news bias tactic. If a story....even a major one....runs counter to the media's far left agenda they simply ignore it, or marginalize it to the point it seems trivial. The real fools, however, are those who rely on such media sources for "news".
Hairy: Jim Lehrer is pretty clearly on the left.
If it is clear, you certainlt have evidence of it.
I've caught about 90% of episodes of NewsHour over the past many years. I don't think you can back this up. As a whole NewsHour certainly leans left. No question. That doesn't imply Lehrer does, of course.
Newsbusters also makes a good case for Lehrer's bias.
I doubt it. Where?
Saltherring: NewsHour is, bar none, the best news source on broadcast/cable in the United States. It isn't perfect, but it's by far the most accurate, most in-depth, and most relevant.
pudge @ 14:
I wasn't referring to Lehrer and NewsHour per se, but I suppose one could have assumed that from my agreement with Hariy's comment. I watch little TV "news", choosing to stay informed through various websites and to a lesser degree, talk radio.
My reference to news bias (often by omission), however, was directed towards the fake leftist media in general. NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WAPO, Sea T, local network news and many of the various magazines lean heavily to the left to the point where it should embarrass their executives, writers, editors and talking heads, not to mention the idiots who read, listen to and believe their gibberish.
16. Oh, yeah, saying "go fuck yourself" is a great way to serve in the US Senate. This blog is a rag. A bunch of Tea Baggers, I see.
17. If you don't like this blog, then go away and good riddance.
18. Isn't the question whether Baumgartner legitimately or illegitimately told him to go fuck himself?
While I agree the reporter probably deserved his reprimand and it does kind of raise Baumgartner's standing (I did vote for him in primary), I think it is interesting for GOP candidates to be running away from Akin's general point. I can't believe that Ryan who has a 100% rating on Abortion (Akins only has a 90% rating) has gotten the case of Romneyitis and now has soften his long record on the issue. Akin said it wrong, but there are two types of rape on the books and "rape is rape" is not correct when it comes to statutory rape laws across the states. The other part of Akin's response on a women's body's reaction to rape is straight from Dr. John Wilke's information, which many on the Right To Life end promote as their understanding and belief. So, people like Romney (and now Ryan, it appears), would rather be concerned about winning elections than their principles on abortion. Some asked me in the past why abortion was not a deciding issue for me when looking at candidates, it is because of this wishy-washy nature. Both sides want to say what will get them elected when it comes to this subject and not really follow their principles, even if it means they can't get elected. I am glad Akins spoke out because it raises this issue and shows the hypocrisy of politicians on this issue.
BTW, I believe what Leviticus says in that "Blood is Life." Therefore, I believe Life begins at implantation. I think another theologically correct thought would be the position of the Roman Catholic church and being against all non-natural interference in the process, including various forms of contraception. I also agree with part of Carl Sagan's review on the subject finding that one can not argue that life begins at conception and then allow exceptions for things like rape. The only reasonable exception is if mother's life is endangered and thus it becomes a medical decision on which life can be saved, if both can't be.
Hutz: that's already
Jason: saying "go fuck yourself" is a great way to serve in the US Senate.
Sure. Why not?
This blog is a rag.
So is Publicola. Shrug.
A bunch of Tea Baggers, I see.
Yes, I am a member of the Tea Party. So? You say that like it's a bad thing. I doubt you could back up your implication, though.
Like many out there, you are just pretending to have a point by using strong language. But you didn't actually make a point.
Baumgartner did make a point with his strong language. You didn't.
tc: I think it is interesting for GOP candidates to be running away from Akin's general point ... [that] there are two types of rape on the books and "rape is rape" is not correct when it comes to statutory rape laws across the states.
That wasn't his point that he's getting beat up for. His point was that a law allowing abortion for rape is not necessary becasue the body will take care of it on its own.
The other part of Akin's response on a women's body's reaction to rape is straight from Dr. John Wilke's information, which many on the Right To Life end promote as their understanding and belief.
Shrug. It's wrong. Well, it is certainly correct that a woman's body CAN end a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it will, just because the woman was raped. So he was wrong.
people like Romney (and now Ryan, it appears), would rather be concerned about winning elections than their principles on abortion.
You have not made this case at all.
... this wishy-washy nature.
You're full of it. They never shared this belief. They still don't. There's nothing "wishy washy" here.
... it raises this issue and shows the hypocrisy of politicians on this issue.
False. You have demonstrated not a single iota of hypocrisy.
I also agree with part of Carl Sagan's review on the subject finding that one can not argue that life begins at conception and then allow exceptions for things like rape.
That is mostly true: it assumes one also believes in the right to life, AND that the right to life of the life inside the womb is of a higher priority than the right to not carry the child of the mother. Most people believe that the right to life of all people is essentially equivalent and is of higher priority than other individual rights. Not everyone agrees, and under such a calculation, the right to life in the womb is valued less, and while it might normally be of higher priority than the right to not carry the child, if rape was involved the calculation could shift.
Of course, most of us find it abominable that we should even conduct such calculations. But some do.
I prefer Romney's view over that of the RNC. His position is less absolutist and extreme and would appeal more to independents. Sometimes I wonder why they don't use common sense - besides the standard answer that politics and common sense don't mix.
The pro-life lobbyists prefer the RNC position, which is another reason I disagree with it.
23. A while back, when the national media was talking about Romney's dog, his tax returns, gay marriage, contraception, or whatever else instead of the economy, jobs, debt, and what matters, I predicted abortion would be the next distraction. And here we are.
tc: Ryan sponsored a bill with Akin that 150 GOP members of the House voted for and now Ryan states that Akin should not run because of his view point might not win the Missouri Race.
This I call as being "wishy-washy."
You're making things up.
Akin is getting beat up for two points, his view on whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and his sharing Dr. Wilke's view of women's body shutting down.
The only reason he is in additional political trouble is the latter part. The only reason Ryan said he should not run is the latter part.
Romney in 2007 praised Dr. Wilke.
That implies total agreement? You're making things up.
I believe Ryan has also supported this viewpoint in the past
I believe you make things up.
You demonstrated none.
... is the fact that the GOP Platform committee is settling on the standard of not supporting the exception for rape and yet Romney is saying that he doesn't agree with this.
So? This isn't "wishy-washy," it's disagreement. You're making things up.
his past praise for Dr. Wilke and now wanting to distance himself from Dr. Wilke's viewpoint
Again, you're full of crap. There is NOTHING WRONG with that.
I was on my way to a meeting so I couldn't finish my thought properly, so I will reiterate.
Paul Ryan distanced himself from a statement that was not reflected IN ANY WAY in the bill he sponsored. Saying this makes him "wishy-washy" is retarded. Same thing with Romney praising Wilke. Unless he praised him specifically for what Akin said, then calling it "wishy-washy" is retarded.
It's like if I said, "the Seahawks are the best team in football," and then a player for the Seahawks steps on a guy's face on the field and is suspended for the season, and when I say that the player was wrong to do it and deserved his punishment, you call me "wishy-washy."
You're retarded, tc.
Stop being retarded.
26. ... is the fact that the GOP Platform committee is settling on the standard of not supporting the exception for rape and yet Romney is saying that he doesn't agree with this.
So? This isn't "wishy-washy," it's disagreement. You're making things up.
Come on pudge, give people some credit for some intelligence. Romney is control of the party, convention and the platform. He could require the platform to reflect a view support by a wide majority of the people, the view he himself claims to have. Instead, he would rather capitulate to the far Right, even after all of the mess these far right views are bringing the party.
If that isn't wishy washy, what is? I don't expect you to admit that Romney is dead wrong, but don't yell at people who point out the truth just because it hurts your candidate.
tc: Here is 2007 Romney Press release regarding Willke endorsement and Romney's praise for Willke, who was head of the National Right To Life organization for many years (so not some quack).
And in NONE of that was this particular issue referenced. So you're lying by saying this has anything to do with the discussion.
As far as what Ryan said to Akin, we don't have an official statement from Ryan, himself, other than confirming that he talked to Akin. We have Akin's interpretation of the call, but from it one can't assume yours or my interpretation of what was said.
You're a liar. My "interpretation" is simply that you were lying. And now you admit you are lying by saying you can't assume it, even though you stated it as fact.
As far as Willke's position, here is the chapter where Dr. Willke discusses rape.
Unless Ryan or Romney referenced it any way, it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Do you, Pudge, believe that Rape is an acceptable exclusion for allowing abortion?
Of course not. That's idiotic.
Why is Akin standing on principle on what he believes and stating it wrong?
You're a damned liar. What we say is wrong is that he said victims of rape don't need abortions because their body terminates the pregnancy for them.
You're gone again, tc. I am sick of your lies.
28. As per their usual MO, the loud libs have changed the subject, which was OUR SENATORIAL CANDIDATE HAS A SPINE. How inconvenient when the liberal candidate habitually hides under her desk and collects her paycheck/benefits until an election year when she suddenly finds something, for which she almost has an electoral passion.
Hutz: Come on pudge, give people some credit for some intelligence.
Not if I have evidence to the contrary.
Romney is control of the party, convention and the platform. He could require the platform to reflect a view support by a wide majority of the people ...
False. You have no idea what you are talking about. While he has influence, he doesn't control it. The platform committee is made up of delegates elected through the convention process, and even many Romney delegates won't go along with him on this.
If I really wanted to be a Romney delegate to national, I likely could have been (I was a Romney supporter at the state convention, too). And I would not support a rape exception no matter how much Romney wanted me to, because it's stupid. He does not control the delegates. He has no power to "require" the platform to contain anything in particular. He can ask, lobby, plead, but he cannot control or require. And on an issue like this, asking/lobbying/pleading cannot help him, because the committee members will already have strong views on the subject, and will vote accordingly.
It is possible Romney secretly supports something he publicly opposes. Of course it's possible. But that the platform committee, which traditionally goes further to the right of the candidates, disagrees with Romney is simply not evidence of this.
You just have no clue here. When you find something you do have a clue about, please come back and try again.
30. Romney is control of the party, convention and the platform. He could require the platform to reflect a view support by a wide majority of the people ...
By the same type of loud lefty that claimed TeamThug had no way to condemn the outright lies of his senate majority leader nor those of the super-pac run by his close friend and associate.
When will America see through this hypocrisy?
31. Since Dems seem to like filth so much (witness their love of HA), this should actually gain some democrat votes.
Here is an update from NWCN.com. More reason to support Baumgartner. He expressed the frustration and contempt many of us have from the shills/quislings in the media like Feit.
SPOKANE - U.S. Senate candidate Michael Baumgartner apologized Tuesday afternoon for sending a profanity-laced email to a Seattle area political blogger. Sort of.
The email, which came from Baumgartner's personal email account, was published on the blog PublicCola Tuesday. It showed a picture of a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan last week. Baumgartner wrote: "Take a good look and then go f&%k yourself."
Baumgartner, a state senator running against Democrat Sen. Maria Cantwell, said the email he sent to Joe Feit of PubliCola was meant to be a private email.
He went on to say he sent the message out of frustration that more media attention has not been given to his campaign platform to end the war in Afghanistan.
"I apologize to Josh for my strong language," Baumgartner said in a statement. "The problem is that many media outlets, including PubliCola, do not want to talk about why these men and women continue to be killed. They don't want to discuss Maria Cantwell's record supporting the war in Afghanistan or a smarter foreign policy that can save thousands of lives in the future."
Despite the statement his office released, Baumgartner told KREM 2 News he does not apologize and that Feit "had it coming."
He apparently apologized to the public for the language he used, but not to the reporter to whom the private email was directed - OK, fair enough !
I would add ProPublica to the list that disproves #4's absolutist claim. One of the few places where true investigative journalism can still be found on a regular basis instead of the flash in the pan occasions with other outlets.
Regarding Publicola, I get a kick out of the site. Sure, they are advocating a certain angle (bias if you like) regarding any topic, but they don't claim to do otherwise either, which anymore is kind of refreshing. Every now and again they come up with a pretty interesting post as well.
As far as the e-mail, it was a dumb move on Baumgartner's part. Sure, Publicola may not have much statewide recognition, but that might make it worse. It makes no difference to me, I wasn't going to vote for Cantwell anyway, but I'm not the person that Baumgartner needs to be convincing between now and November.
34. Great post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I'm impressed! Extremely helpful information specially the ultimate part :) I care for such info much. I was seeking this particular info for a lengthy time}. Thank you and good luck.
35. sooooooo, if President Obama (and that is the proper way to speak of him, said F-**- Y-* to Trump and Gov. Romney on remarks that he was not born here, what would you idiots say? "Unbecoming, rude, etc etc" geez
36. sooooooo, if President Obama (and that is the proper way to speak of him, said F-**- Y-* to Trump and Gov. Romney on remarks that he was not born here, what would you idiots say? "Unbecoming, rude, etc etc" geez
@36 - Why do you lie about how Romney addressed the birth certificate issue ? This is a nasty campaign and the nastiness has mostly originated from the President's campaign and they are only searching for issues. Romney has repeatedly said Obama was born in the US and Trump is not running for President. You are a typical progressivist, trying to politicize anything and distort facts.
Baumgartner's email was not a smart move, but he made a valid point toward the media coverage that sucks.
Analyze this, Mr. Geez - The Obama campaign has repeatedly said F*** You to Mr. Romney, not taking back the allegation of him being a felon in the ad featuring Mr. Soptic (having to lie about it to save face) or approving of the allegation that he paid no taxes for 10 years, where any idiot knew that the IRS would have caught him if that is true or Biden saying the Republicans are going to put blacks "Back in chains". That was divisive, racist and Joe thought he was being cute and like an idiot, you probably thought it was cute also.
Jay, KDS is right. You're lying. Stop it. Romney never said what you accused him of, and there's no evidence he even remotely believes it.
Further, if Obama said in a private communication to Trump to "go f*** yourself" in response to Trump's accusations about the birth certificate, I'd probably appreciate Obama doing so.
(Oh, and actually "Obama" is also the proper way to speak of him. While he has the official title "President," and I do use that title for him often, it is not required to use it, and I often don't use it, too.)