The Stupid, it Burns!
I just love that phrase. It makes me think of the brilliant Athenae over at First Draft.
I have to say I'm really getting tired of beating down these willful smears of people and attempts to make the Abramoff story a bipartisan scandal. The willful misleading and just plain ignoring of the distinction between accepting money from special interest groups and taking money as a quid pro quo just pisses me off.
Also the AP article that was quoted left out some very important facts
(Link)
Accepting money from the Indian Tribes is and of itself IS NOT ILLEGAL. The key issue here is quid pro quo. (Latin, this for that, as my Latin Scholar reader will no doubt tell me). The good people at myDD have an excellent post about this. Now if a certain radio talk show host would bother to understand the distinction he wouldn't have a "Hot" topic to rant about. When he did have a caller, Jim, who wanted to calmly point out the facts Sussman changed the subject (and then hilariously said he wasn't changing the subject.)
Good try Jim, but trying to have a rational conversation with Mr. Sussman and get him to admit he is either wrong or intentionally misleading is like pushing water uphill. Like a used car salesman he has three slippery statements to every one of your rational facts. I wrote about this type of interaction in December, "How to Talk to Wing Nuts." When confronted by facts that prove that they are wrong they switch topics and pull up a different "fact" you know nothing about, use the classic, "But, Clinton" or --which was the case in this exchange -- they sum your entire statement falsely. It's what they do. The sad thing is that some people hear this "entertainment" and use it to solidify their opinions or, most horrifing, use these people's inaccurate information and smears as sources of news.
Jim, Media Matters has some good advice on dealing with these hosts under the heading of Take Action, it might help for the next time you call, but remember it's not a level playing field and they never make it a fair fight.
Important things to remember for certain radio talk show hosts and this AP article: (from bink at myDD)
I have to say I'm really getting tired of beating down these willful smears of people and attempts to make the Abramoff story a bipartisan scandal. The willful misleading and just plain ignoring of the distinction between accepting money from special interest groups and taking money as a quid pro quo just pisses me off.
Also the AP article that was quoted left out some very important facts
The AP noted that Reid opposed legislation to approve a Michigan casino for a Native American tribe that would have rivaled a casino owned by a tribe represented by Abramoff. But the article omitted the fact that Reid said at the time that he opposed the legislation because it would create a "very dangerous precedent" for the spread of off-reservation gambling -- something Reid had opposed for nearly a decade. The article also suggested that Reid coordinated with Abramoff to sabotage proposed legislation that would have raised the minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory represented by Abramoff, without noting that, in fact, Reid was a co-sponsor of that legislation and spoke on the Senate floor in favor of its passage.
(Link)
Accepting money from the Indian Tribes is and of itself IS NOT ILLEGAL. The key issue here is quid pro quo. (Latin, this for that, as my Latin Scholar reader will no doubt tell me). The good people at myDD have an excellent post about this. Now if a certain radio talk show host would bother to understand the distinction he wouldn't have a "Hot" topic to rant about. When he did have a caller, Jim, who wanted to calmly point out the facts Sussman changed the subject (and then hilariously said he wasn't changing the subject.)
Good try Jim, but trying to have a rational conversation with Mr. Sussman and get him to admit he is either wrong or intentionally misleading is like pushing water uphill. Like a used car salesman he has three slippery statements to every one of your rational facts. I wrote about this type of interaction in December, "How to Talk to Wing Nuts." When confronted by facts that prove that they are wrong they switch topics and pull up a different "fact" you know nothing about, use the classic, "But, Clinton" or --which was the case in this exchange -- they sum your entire statement falsely. It's what they do. The sad thing is that some people hear this "entertainment" and use it to solidify their opinions or, most horrifing, use these people's inaccurate information and smears as sources of news.
Jim, Media Matters has some good advice on dealing with these hosts under the heading of Take Action, it might help for the next time you call, but remember it's not a level playing field and they never make it a fair fight.
Important things to remember for certain radio talk show hosts and this AP article: (from bink at myDD)
Abramoff is a convicted criminal. He plead guilty, in Federal courts, to the following:
* Defrauding the Indian Tribes
* Tax evasion
* Conspiracy to bribe a Congressman Bob Ney (R) with material gifts and lavish trips * Bank fraud in the purchase of the SunCruz casino deal
Now, looking at this article, how is Harry Reid implicated in any of these charges?
He wasn't.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home