A New Presidential Low

[applegrove]

https://politicalwire.com/2018/02/18/new-presidential-low/

"SNIP.......


Karen Tumulty: “Imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was “laughing their asses off.” Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.”

“There was no loss of life or destruction of a city in the Russian actions described in a sweeping indictment secured by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. But it was an act of war nonetheless, a sneak attack using 21st-century methods.”

“These are the moments that test a country — and a president. They call for bringing people together in a sense of national purpose against a common adversary. Once again, Trump has failed that test.”

......SNIP"

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Yes, the country was attacked and now has 45 million + accomplices known

as deplorables.

[ffr]

14. Deplorables isn't a strong enough word to describe these lowlifes. I prefer conservative.

Because it sums them up so perfectly as greedy, lustful, heartless, envious, disgusting lowlifes.

And yes, they are deplorable.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. They don't have a real ideology; just Fear & Greed. Deplorables is better. Conned works too.

There are moderate conservatives with principles but they are ignored by most members here because so many members are kind of blinded by their hatred.

[GaryCnf]

2. It's a close call

Remember, Trump also just blamed the Douglas HS shooting on the Russia investigation.

There is no limit on his detestable-ness. "New lows" are temporary only.

[MyOwnPeace]

29. Says it all!

"New lows" are temporary only.

Ain't that the truth. You NEVER know what IQ45 is gonna' say to out-do himself - and he usually does!

[Gabi Hayes]

3. F#$k her and all her false equivalency, swiftboat loving, lazy, group thinking, phony journalist

pals, so eagerly drank the Bush koolaid.....twice, and set the stage for today’s descent into political madness

Little late for your epiphany, ain’t it?

Think I have xaggerate?

Aaahhhh, for sweet days of yore

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/13/tumulty-responds-to-olbermanns-worst-person-bro/138600

On the April 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Time magazine national political correspondent Karen Tumulty the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, suggesting in a posting on Time's weblog Swampland "that Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton's [D-NY] condemnation of Don Imus and support for the Rutgers women's basketball team there on her website was curiously placed," as Olbermann put it. Continuing, he said: "Quoting Tumulty, 'Hmmm, and right next to that respect for Rutgers, "Send a Message" link on her website, is a big red one that says "CONTRIBUTE." Sisterhood is powerful.' " Olbermann added: "Except that the big red contribute button is always in the same spot on that web page and most other presidential candidates have identical big red contribute buttons on their sites too."

As blogger Atrios (Media Matters senior fellow Duncan Black) has noted, Tumulty has since responded to Olbermann, Media Matters, and others' criticism of her blog post in an update on Swampland, titled "The Worst Person in the World: Me, I'm Told." She stated that her previous post "had stirred up some dust from the folks at Media Matters" and caused Olbermann to cite her post, but added: "Of course I know that "CONTRIBUTE" button is a permanent fixture on Clinton's website. Every campaign (and, for that matter, every charitable organization) that maintains a website seems to have one. And that was sort of my point. More and more, we all go to campaign websites to get information about the candidates." Tumulty did not note in her original post that Clinton's "CONTRIBUTE" button was "a permanent fixture" on her campaign's website nor that other campaigns also have such permanent buttons on their websites.

From the April 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: On a thin day, even a good person can win the bronze. Karen Tumulty of Time magazine, posting on the magazine's political blog, noting that Senator Clinton's condemnation of Don Imus and support for Rutgers and the women's basketball team there on her website was curiously placed. Quoting Tumulty, "Hmmm, and right next to that respect for Rutgers, "Send a Message" link on her website, is a big red one that says "CONTRIBUTE." Sisterhood is powerful," unquote. Expect that the big red contribute button is always in the same spot on that web page and most other presidential candidates have identical big red contribute buttons on their sites too.

One more

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2006/11/01/times-tumulty-reported-as-fact-that-kerry-insul/137159

Kerry insulted troops! (?)

Time national political correspondent Karen Tumulty, in an October 31 article for Time.com, reported as a fact that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) "insulted" U.S. troops when he said in an October 30 speech at a campaign rally in California: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Tumulty's reporting echoed the claims of White House and GOP officials, who have attacked Kerry and demanded that he apologize for allegedly slandering U.S. troops. Kerry, however, has said that his remark was not an insult to American soldiers serving in Iraq, but rather a "botched joke" about President Bush -- something Tumulty neglected to mention in her article. Nor did she mention that, as the Associated Press reported, Kerry had delivered "several one-liners," including one about Bush, immediately prior to his "stuck in Iraq" comment. And Tumulty made no mention of Kerry's assertion, as noted by The New York Times, that he misread his prepared remarks, which make clear that he was criticizing Bush. Also, former House Majority Leaders Dick Armey (R-TX) and Tom DeLay (R-TX), as well as former Bush campaign chief strategist Matthew Dowd, have agreed that Kerry was not referring to the soldiers in Iraq.

Armey went further, acknowledging on the October 31 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that Republicans were making political hay by "misconstru[ing]" what Kerry said: "Well, it`s pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said, you isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it, then feign moral outrage." When host Chris Matthews stated that Kerry "was trashing Bush," Armey responded, "Right," and went on to say, "A fundamental premise of politics is: We can make this work if people just never figure it out."

From Tumulty's October 31 article:

You've got to wonder about John Kerry's eye-hand coordination. His career is falling into a pattern. Whenever Kerry is confronted with a big decision, he tries to compensate for his last mistake. He voted against the first Iraq war, which turned out to be a success. So when the second one came around, he swallowed his misgivings and voted for it. That also turned out to be a mistake. So when it came time to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war that he had voted for, he produced what must be the single most damaging sound bite in modern political history by voting for it before he voted against it.

So now, when U.S. troops are suffering their worst casualties in nearly two years, he insulted them. Could Karl Rove have dreamed up a better October surprise than having the Democrats' most recent choice for Commander in Chief suggest that the men and women are dying there because they weren't smart enough to get into law school?

What a sleazy liar

[applegrove]

5. Should I delete the thread? I reread the first three paragraphs of your post and can't make

any sense of it. My brain must be fried.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. No, its good she said what she did, but Im SICK of these phonies who suddenly leave the groupthink

Parade, after decades of lazy obliviousness to the fact of just how foul the republican presidential candidates have been, choosing to eagerly pile on the dems, while mostly ignoring the MAJOR depredations of every pug candidate since Ike

Check the edit about Kerry

That’s a better example of her BS

[applegrove]

9. Kay. I'll leave it up. Thanks for doing my thinking for me.

[Gabi Hayes]

10. Dunno what you mean. Just my thoughts on the media, who are more at fault than than the monsters

Who would take us back to this benighted stage in history

[Gabi Hayes]

12. The comments section is great, btw

See the violence inherent in the system!

[sprinkleeninow]

15. Who is this. They all belong to the twisted twisters mutual admiration society.

Hey lady, hold your hand on your ascot & wait for FAIL to become presidential....

[Gabi Hayes]

16. Got it. They can use their offhands for pearl clutching

That Obama laugh fits my reaction to your post to a T

Or D, as in Dump

[sprinkleeninow]

17. You know I wuz addressing the clueless airhead journalist

and the rot she wrote.

Schlumpy really brought down the level of detest with that couple's shameless behavior since the children's and school staff's deaths and injuries. There is no bottom.

[sprinkleeninow]

18. I know you knew! 😉

[Gabi Hayes]

23. Of course! Cracked me up

KT epitomizes the shabby lazy groupthink into which journalism has devolved

Seldes spins in his grave

I hope you appreciate the massive effort this took.....15 whole minutes Slogging thru useless way back machine crap, then stumbling upon one of my favorite reads ever:

KAREN TUMULTY (1)
TIME
Def.
CAL THOMAS
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
TUMULTY, THE ONLY female impersonator left in the draw, advances this week for a number of reasons. Press readers may recall that in the first two rounds, Tumulty was characterized as a third-rate sportswriter, a serial poll-humper, an arch-priestess of conventional wisdom, the unrepentant human embodiment of the lowest common denominator, the sworn enemy of all political substance, and, incidentally, ugly.

. Last week, Tumulty wrote to the Press to angrily complain, "Who are you calling ugly?"
Under the subject line, "Mannish?" she wrote a two-line letter:
Pre-op version of dave barry? let's see how YOU look when you are 48 and have had two babies.

We were about to send a hurtful, gratuitous response to this when we spotted an article in the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, which quoted Stockholm-born actress and sizzling nude-scene star of The Unbearable Lightness of Being Lena Olin as saying, "Now that I'm 48 and have two children, I look just like Karen Tumulty." That was a humbling piece of information for us, so we just shut our mouths in shame, and didn't answer the letter at all. Not content with this victory, Tumulty, clearly concerned about the next round, wrote again the next day:

i'm not writing this week for next week. does that mean i'll have to forfeit, or can you find something you hate from this week's cover on the ground game? the pressure is getting so intense...

Now, in Wimblehack, you advance automatically when you send in faux-sarcastic letters of the "Not that I care, but..." genus in an abject attempt to find out ahead of time if you're going to be savaged in the next issue. Besides, is there anything funnier than a campaign-trail journalist asking for a sneak-peek verdict from a reporter before the publication date? Can you imagine what Tumulty's reaction would be if someone like David Wade or Stephanie Cutter meekly asked for a private preview, three days early, of one of Tumulty's patented, "Kerry: Why Women Snicker" pieces? She'd laugh out a 20-foot hole in the fuselage; it'd look like a scene from Airport '77.

Tumulty also advances because, over the course of a lengthy taxonomic survey of evil campaign clichés last week, the Press was completely flummoxed in its attempts to find one worthy of being called a "Tumulty." The reason for that is that they were all worthy of being called a "Tumulty." Every campaign reporter has something he can call his own. George Will has his unnecessary alliteration, Howard Fineman his boxing/combat imagery, James Bennet the unexplored vestiges of the liner notes to Beowulf. Tumulty is the only reporter with the perfect all-court game. She uses labels like "liberal" more consistently and derisively than Karl Rove; she can't file a single piece that isn't wrapped around a poll; she is more prone than most to imbecilic generalizations like "Kerry's [positions are] more like a kaleidoscope, than like a circle"; and she is really the only reporter on the trail who can be consistently counted on to croak out dire warnings to candidates about the consequences of listening to reason instead of pollsters ("The Kerry campaign at times resembles a floating five-ring circus of longtime Democratic operatives who have all sorts of views? That worked fine when it was up against Howard Dean's homespun Vermont militia. Against Bush-Cheney '04, a disciplined hierarchy run by Karl Rove...it could be a recipe for a landslide&quot .

Here’s the link

http://www.westsidespirit.com/wimblehack-round-3/

Set up like bracketology, and those he reams richly deserve it

Will give Tumulty credit for her good willed response to his gratuitous reference to her looks

Gonna spend the rest of the night reliving my sad past, rereading how some leeches never rotate their their suckholes

Ta!

[sprinkleeninow]

42. I appreciate. 😊

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Personally, I allow the possibility that people can improve with 11 years experience past your 2007

[Gabi Hayes]

24. Like, say, Chris Ruddy?

You’re much too kind

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Who is Chris Ruddy and why should I care? If you are proposing a counter-example, that's a fallacy.

What's your point?

[Gabi Hayes]

27. If you dont care, then why even respond?

And if you don’t know who another well known pseudo journalist is, why are you even reading this thread?

There’s this thing.....starts with a G....take you as long as as ten pecks on the board. Try it!

How’s the air up in your ivory tower?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Please read. I did NOT say I don't care. I did NOT say I care. So don't stuff words in my mouth.

I invited you to make your point whatever it might be, and that might include getting me to care about some Ruddy guy that you seem to care about enough that you offer up as a counter-example in a fallacious way.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. You said why should I care?

Not close enough?

Why should I care if you should care? Try making some sense, or at least read what you wrote before you post more puffery, dear mr. fallacy.

I wouldn’t put words in your mouth.....not any more room there, obviously.

And for such an obviously erudite logician, it seems odd that you lack the basic curiosity to find out fact one regarding the subject I compared to your journalistic icon.

One last.....thanks for lulling me so much I feel the soft whisper of Pasithea in my ear

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. I asked you "why should I care?". I mean exactly what I wrote. It was a question and invitation.

An invitation for you to explain.

You'll have more success convincing other readers if you read carefully. You have obviously written me off since you have descended to attempts at personal insults: "puffery", "not any more room there", "dear mr. fallacy", "ivory tower".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. I apologize for not being as educated as you are.

I apologize for trying to improve myself by reading your post.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. Sarcasm does not become thee

Apology duly accepted

Let’s dine!

Really...don’t mean to be dickish

Having a swine flu backflash

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. But you feel it becomes yourself. . . . nt

[Gabi Hayes]

38. Glad Im asleep

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. I think you miss the logic.

You took the OP's person and found some stuff from 2006 and 2007.

So we have Tumulty saying something bad in 2007 and something good now in 2018. You claim that because she said something bad in 2007 she is irredeemable. I say that because she said something good in 2018 she might be ("possibility") redeemed or redeemable.

Do you see the gap in your logic now?

If there is an example of someone who said something bad in both 2007 and 2018 it does not mean that other people are not redeemable.

[Gabi Hayes]

31. Jesus. I dont care what she says now. Shes just like all the others who didnt do their job when

it mattered.

Who cares if she had a momentary spasm of illumination. It’ll fade. She’s a hack.

Masters of the obvious, after the fact are a dime a dozen, mr. syllogiz

She can go redeem some of these. You can scurry along with your new heroine

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. So. You wrote her off forever in 2007 and assign her no hope. That's dehumanizing.

It's your claim that she is irredeemable and the OP provides an example from 2018 to show that she is. Ball is in your court to provide some examples of her current writing to counter the OP's example.

You wrote her off forever in 2007. That's dehumanizing. How many wrote you off forever for some things you said in 2007? Have you evolved? I allow for the possibility that you have evolved.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Please quit that despicable tactic of stuffing words in others mouths. She is NOT my "new heroine".

Nothing I have written gives any evidence that she is or was or might become my "new heroine". So just stop that, please. It's cheap.

[Gabi Hayes]

39. You crack me up!

Do you always take so many words to say so little?

[EarlG]

4. I feel like

"Trump is failing this test" is the new "maybe Trump will pivot and become presidential."

It took the media a while to realize that the latter was never going to happen. Hopefully it won't take them as long to realize that he's not "failing this test" -- HE'S IN ON IT, UP TO HIS NECK.

[applegrove]

6. That is a sharp obeservation there Earl.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. Yep, cant wait for her soon to come, He just became President today slobber, next time he

doesn’t vomit all over his shoes while hanging a medal on some tin pot dictator from Outer Uriinalkakistan

[Hortensis]

11. Exactly. This is same old bottom dweller behavior

he's always exhibited because that's what he is capable of.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, there's no "failing" he's failed big time and continues to do so

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Nah. He's not failing. He's failed. Pivot is so Feb 2017. That train left without tRump. . . . nt

[Cha]

43. Matthew Yglessias: MSM doesnt think Trump did anything wrong with Russia and will scold disagreers

Then there's that..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210255015#top

[pangaia]

22. There certainly is an ongoing "..... loss of life or destruction of a city.."

Caused by the election of fuckwad and many other republicans...

[SunSeeker]

40. Trump fails at every test of presidential leadership. nt