Friday Links and Open Thread

51 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. Why do I think Don only has a couple years left as a broadcaster? Might because complaining about his health isn’t going to help much anymore.

      • From the Mediaite piece Tapper’s tweet looked like a quote from the Sanders’ camp not a defense from Tapper.

        Has Tapper said something else?

        • I didn’t see anything else but I did a very superficial skim. If all he did was report a quote from the Sanders camp I agree that wouldn’t mean he he was defending Sanders, more likely just reporting their side of the story.

          What’s more interesting is that Tapper tweeted me within seconds of my sharing Larry’s tweet. He doesn’t follow me yet he saw my tweet almost immediately (and it did not use Tapper’s twitter handle so he didn’t get a ‘notification’ about it). I wonder what that’s all about.

          • Looking at your tweet of Larry’s post, it does contain Tapper’s name (not his Twitter handle).

            Maybe Tapper has something that filters for that and notifies him.

        • Clearly.

          I do appreciate a level of irony here. When MJ wrote of O’Reilly, it was a librul hit piece in a despicable journal. Yet, it seems to be impeccable in this instance.

          The Sanders response makes some sense, as well.

          • And possibly motivated to keep the most viable candidate from being challenged to go too far in a direction that might hurt her later.

          • I used the word “possibly”. I don’t make subjective declarations and claim they should be taken with the same deference as facts. That’s your gig.

          • CYA for what? You make a statement that the MJ piece is being treated as sacrosanct by the same people who didnt believe the O’Reilly story, and I reply with a statement that argues there is a possible partisan motive there too.

            Should I have insisted it was fact rather than suggesting it is speculation?

            Frankly, I gave you a pass on your original contention in the first place. Sanders had promptly confirmed this was his writing. Republicans didn’t have to take that on faith.

          • Yet, in the O’Reilly situation the essential facts were all essentially confirmed, too, but without the Sanders clarity and with all manner of self-serving spin. I fail to see what makes MJ holy in one instance but not the other.

          • No, they weren’t all confirmed, you had matters of interpretation about “war zone” a term used in Time Mag coverage too, as well as other things.

            Here you have Sanders saying he was misinterpreted, but to what point? At the best interpretation he is still asserting a trope that was repellant by the standards of that time too.

          • Yes. As I said, spin. I’m in a war zone feverishly packing for the return hop home in a Kensington hotel looking at the portion of the Eye from 11:00 o’clock to 3:00 o’clock. It was a war zone 73 years ago!

          • You’ve picked the most defensible bit (from O’Reilly’s standpoint) from the accusations against him.

            If you’re going to make a point that it was all settled science from day one then use another example. (However they were rolled out later.)

      • I have made my amends to Mr. Tapper whom I have unfairly maligned. I have exiled myself til the weekend. Not on the island though. Ugly bunch there.

    • There’s no question that if a Republican politician expressed these incoherent and offensive thoughts in 1972 it would be crawling across a news scroll every 15 minutes on cable. It would make the 30 minute network news shows over other more salient stories. Whether the Republican pol was a presidential candidate or not.

      I agree with Charle Cooke that it’s the sort stupidity that passes for political discussion now and ought to be dismissed.

      I don’t like Hot Air arguing that since Republicans would be treated like that, as much hay as possible should be made of it.

      I don’t see any way home from that sort of thinking. Less than scrumptious tactics and ploys and encouraging shoddy thinking will always work. There’s no doubt. And people will always justify it by saying it’s for the good.

      It’s killing us. It’s making us into amoral cretins. Little soulless brainless jihadists. It’s not surprising that what has been accepted in the back room makes its way to the front. That’s the nature of things. Thank you Charlie Cooke for just saying no.

      • The victimhood aside, I agree with your conclusion. Of course, it has much to do with the horror of American cable news.

          • So, the media hostility to Nixon was more personal than partisan? That may be astute. Would it follow that the media dislike of Romney was more partisan than personal? And, if so, which is worse for American journalism? For American politics?

          • Doubtlessly, a bit of both from the media toward Nixon. He had battled them before.

            My point was to your speculation that the Sanders piece info would have come from the Nixon camp

            Probably, and it would it have been filtered through a less partisan media which didn’t rely solely on this sort of bs as political coverage.

          • Yes, I agree with that. Certainly to the point that so much political coverage is just BS.

          • You eat that up! If this was Rand Paul you’d be over at Mediaite arguing that it was the DNA for all Republicans.

            Of course you agree with me. Its expedient HERE that you do.

          • How the hell does an article written by Bernie Sanders, published on Mother Jones website become a debate about the source? Speculating that it would have been leaked by Nixon’s crowd back in 1972?? What is the point? It was published by MJ and I get the impression from the article that the author doesn’t seem weirded out about it. It’s an article about the evolution of Bernie Sanders. So who’s feeling just a little defensive? And I don’t mean you.

          • I’m not entirely sure what point he was making about the media via CREEP.

            In the meantime the media has discovered that the gay hotelier who hosted Ted Cruz also contributed to him.

            Color that guy thoroughly punished for the expression of his civil right of supporting the candidate of his choice. It won’t be enough that gays avoid the hotel, they’ll be leaning on all his vendors and other business patrons to do so as well or be labeled “anti-gay”.

            This is the convoluted thinking of the ‘shut-up or die’ crowd.

          • Then I would suggest that you don’t eat it. Stick to your usual convenience store fare.

      • I’m confused by this.

        Is it your point that Jake Tapper never wrote a tweet defending theses sex scenes in novels (as opposed to a treatise on gender roles) or is it just to point out that Republicans have written steamy sex scenes?

        • No point…just a list of other pols from both parties whose writings have resulted in publicity which was mostly negative.

          • In the case of Jim Webb, the piece was mostly supportive, with defenses of democrat Webb provided by conservatives Allah Pundit and Michelle Malkin.

            In the case of Democrat Paul Evans one obscure religious group was quoted as chastising him.

            Republican Combs gets criticized from some hyperbolic silly billy on Daily Kos (I like her prose…)

            Republican Bubis gets dissed by fellow Republicans.

            Again this seems more like an exercise in ‘others have done it too’ ( not true since Sanders wasn’t doing fiction) than having any relevance to Larry’s remarks.

          • I wrote, “publicity which was mostly negative.”

            If I change “mostly negative publicity” to “some negative publcity,” will that make you happy? Jeez.

            You wrote, “this seems more like an exercise in ‘others have done it too’ .”

            That was not my intent.

          • Not really because you’re addressing a comment by Larry that you have acknowledged that he has already walked back.

          • Separate topic from my list of pols.

            Topic #1
            List of pols penning ‘colorful’ tomes.

            Topic #2 (totally unrelated to Topic #1)
            Was Jake Tapper apologizing for Sanders? Larry and I say no.

  2. Today’s most popular links:
    5 More murmurs
    4 turns Gutfeld loose
    3 signs Katherine Timpf
    2 Schultz eager to work
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Your World video: Neil Cavuto says goodbye to Don Imus.

Comments are closed.