While I was watching Barack Obama’s excellent and very strong press conference (He has what the cops call “command presence.”) I kept being distracted by the madly tweeting Republicans I am now following on Twitter.
(It seems that Republicans outnumber the Democrats two to one as Congresspersons who make use of microblogging.)
My personal favorite of the group is the very Twitter-loquacious John Culbertson, Republican from Texas, who kept up a running commentary during Obama’s press conference, 140 characters at a time.
Here are a couple of samples of his mid-conference offerings:
Presidents have an obligation to appeal to “our better angels” w optimism and hope – but he is using fear of doom to drive us into socialism
AND
FDR was ALWAYS optimistic and famously said “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” yet Obama says we have much to fear w/o stimulus bill
AND
George Washington’s portrait has ALWAYS hung to left of TR in East Room. I just noticed on DVR GW’s portrait is gone – wonder where it is?
AND…
Even Newsweek Feb 7th cover story tells us: “We are all socialists now…we will become even more French.”
Okie-dokie.
By the way, I note that, since I have started following Culbertson on Twitter, he has started following me.
Seems fair.
I know you do this as a journalistic duty, but my God – do politicians really have an audience among “real people” for their idiot musings. And were one a Beltway scribe tasked with reporting on the nations’ business, is it legitimate jouralism to rely on this crap to include in “news” stories. Political journalism – especially at the national level – already has too many hallmarks of junior high schoool. This bring it full circle with random juvenile texting. I think journalists reporting on Congress have an obligation to seek “real” interviews with politicians where there is room for give-and-take and that if “twitter” (which I admit a barely comprehend and intend to keep entirely out of my life) is allowed to enter the realm of news analysis – as opposed to satiric musings – we are fucking doomed. Obama showed a real ability to respond to questions in depth and treat citizens with honesty and respect and journalists as presumed adults (dumb questions about baseball players aside.) I guess I’m concerned that guys like Jake Tapper will start including twitter bits in their contributions to the giant maw of cable “news” just when there’s an opportunity for these clowns to demonstrate some new-found maturity when the country desperately needs it and the object of their attention in the White House deserves it.
One more thing – the use of the term “socialism” as applied to market economies that incorporate a regulatory system, social safety nets, and universal social services like a public water supply, health care, education and roads has got to stop. This is a sure sign of some combination of demagogy and idiocy. Also historical and economic illiteracy. It’s a sign of the total exhaustion of right-wing “ideology” that they’ve shifted from “Soviet communism” as the threat to American values to “France.” (Come to think of it, what ever happened to Wonder Bread and Cheese Whiz ? They’re selling baguettes and featuring brie at Safeway these days. The GOP moron who has morphed into a virus on your computer is Right – we are fucking doomed !!!!)
One other question – have you considered the possibility that “Woody” is a nom-de-mindless-internet-irritation for GOPer John Culbertson. There is a familiarity to that drivel you’re getting “twittered.”
Also, is the verb “to twitter” derived from the noun “twit” ? Or am I reading too much into Culbertson’s particular abuse of the format ?
For just a fleeting moment, when the reporter asked Pres. Obama for his thoughts on A-Rod’s dope use, I wondered if perhaps somehow the response and conversation might ‘run all the bases’ and hit upon MLB’s anti-trust status, which Tim Rutten opined might be a remedy for the troubled economic fate of the newspapers.
http://tinyurl.com/b3akx8
Maybe someone twittered it. Who knows these things? Otherwise, the baseball question was, um, pretty softball.
Reg, the partisan mindlessness of what Culbertson was saying about an issue that is of such deep importance to the country was indeed horrifying. From a literary point of view, however, I find him to be a wonderful side character—especially his random musings—mid-press-conference— about the presidential portraits.
I’m not suggesting that what he’s saying is in any way news. The medium, in this case, is the message.
It is deeply disheartened that Obama is up against this level of ill-thought-through and disingenuous crap from his fellow elected officials supposedly charged with doing the right thing by the nation.
Fitting that Republicans are using Twitter more. After all, they can’t handle complex arguments, so a 140 character limit is best for their message of (GRUNT GRUNT) TAX CUTS GOOD! (GRUNT)
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and head of a congressional oversight panel for the government’s bailout program, said, on Dateline, that when the Bush administration handed out, back in November and December, the first $350 billion of the bailout, they put no restrictions whatsoever on any of the money. Congress has absolutely no idea how the money was spent.
On a brighter note, the much touted recent elections in Iraq, while much less violent, were marred by an apparent lack of voter interest. Nearly 7 million, of Iraq’s 14 million registered voters, didn’t bother showing up to vote.
This, I think, is a very good lesson in the give and take of international politics.
On one hand, America has learned that she doesn’t have to travel half way around the world and blow shit up to be bamboozled and robbed blind by her leaders.
On the other hand, the Iraqis have learned that stack decked democracy and apathy are cornerstones of the American system of government that we cherish so much here in the land of the free.
Y’know, in all seriousness, one can’t help but admit that when a Republican fucks you, you damn well know you’ve been fucked.
No thump thump spurt with these guys.
No 15 seconds of joy and then a nap with these neocon stud muffins.
Hell, even after they’ve left the room, you can still feel it, ramming into your hind quarters.
When people have organ transplants, particularly heart transplants, an amazing thing sometimes happens. A person who hates meat and hates sports will receive the heart of a deceased person who loved meat and was a sports freak. Soon, almost immediately after the transplant recipient recovers, they find that they have an inexplicable craving for meat mixed with a sudden enthusiasm for all things sport. Different variations of this phenomena happen all the time in transplant cases. Can we transplant Woody’s with an ape’s?
C; Barack Obama’s excellent and very strong press conference
Yeah, isn’t it great when Obama has preselected the members of the friendly press (e.g., Huffington) and has to find them rather than call on members at random, lets a left-wing fanatic radio host sit on the first row as if he were really a journalist, and fields hardball questions like how does he feel about A-Rod using steroids. (I’d fire whoever wasted that question on the President.) What’s next…boxers or briefs?
BTW, you should be sitting with me when Obama gives a talk. It’s a good thing for him that he doesn’t have to answer serious questions or account for his misrepresentations.
Let Our Congress Tweet
BTW, my youngest son thinks I’m crazy with my commenting at the TV and radio. When Obama said that some want to do something and others want to do nothing, I said, “It’s not one or the other but a matter of degree or a matter of waste. If someone has a scratch on his arm, Obama says he needs a cast, while a Republican says get him a bandaid or let it heal on its own–which it will do.”
Oh, I forgot that John Kerry had a scratch on his arm, and it qualified him for a Purple Heart and a pass out of Vietnam. Maybe a scratch is serious.
This bit exposing FOX as a GOP Party organ, as opposed to a news organiztion, is funny – especially in the light of some of the nonsense that bleeds into these comments…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016835.php
What a laugh that reg would bring up media bias as a Republican problem, as though the mainstream media and Democrats were so innocent. Maybe it would help to have a reality check.
Suck on it…
Obama is a one-termer. He’s Jimmy Carter, II.
“my youngest son thinks I’m crazy”
Hope. Change.
During the speech, I watched all Twitter posts that had “Obama” in them.
I was amazing how many mindless Obamabots are out there – still enraptured and unable to do anything but gush about how he’s so “strong” or so handsome, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama continued disgusting habit of blaming all problems on others, with him as the savior. It works well as a rhetorical campaign tactic, but demeans the office of President.
Then there was his lie about the lack of “earmarks” in the Porkulus bill, as if giving boatloads of money to every Democrat constituency and lots of various projects is something else.
This was a weak performance by a vain man.
You’re a wacko. Nobody gives a shit what you think. Not even a little bit.
“Hanson is rarely wrong”
Hanson: “Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration”
Moore – who invoked Hanson’s opining-without-portfolio without any substantive reference or context – not even a single line – is blinded by a Mancrush…enraptured and unable to do anything but gush about how VDH is so “strong” or so handsome , etc.
John Moore, your blog sucks dude. http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/
As I said, “reg” is a troll. FYI – thanks for the link.
John Moore, don’t thank me, thank Woody, he’s the one that blogs there.
“During the speech, I watched all Twitter posts that had ‘Obama’ in them.”
Surefire evidence of an obsessive-compulsive disorder…
Moore – under the rubric of “conservatism” you’re a crypto-fascist – a Pinochet apologist, shameless “blood for oil” warmonger and a pathetic gun nut. Your “politics” are a toxic version of emotional Viagra – also self-indulgent, unhinged from even an elementary grasp of history and time-warped in ridiculous Reagan-worship. You are steeped in the kind of supreme moral cowardice that fuels mindless aggression. You’re ludicrous at best, perverted at worst. You forfeited any right to civility when you called for lynching American journalists, among other niceties related to your crypto-fascist pathologies. You have no right to comment anywhere without being exposed as the sick, un-American prick you happen to be. Your petty rants against Obama are nonsensical, but that’s the least of your problems. Go To Hell.
Also, learn what “earmarks” means. This Limbaughesque bullhsit would be embarrassing to a normal, reasonably informed person.
reg Says in response to “my youngest son thinks I’m crazyâ€Â: Hope. Change.
So, reg reasons like a teenager. Figures. They all think that they know everything until they grow up and have to pay taxes.
JM,
You honestly don’t know wtf a troll is.
RP
Do you know anything about fishing? Have you ever heard of UseNet?
Reg
Don’t forget I eat babies on religious holidays.
I know what a troll is. Reg does not fit the definition. Someone who tosses inflammatory, comments into the discussion just to get a rise out of people is a troll. That fits someone here, but not reg.
RP…
That’s crap on stilts.
When Reg spews his venom about other commenters (mostly myself an Woody), he is trolling. He is going for a rise.
Reg is a troll. Get used to it. We had lots like him on Usenet, back when the term was invented.
You don’t know what a troll is. Here’s a troll comment: completely off topic, nasty and designed to provoke an angry response. This comment is indicative of that particluar commenter’s style.
As for trolling, accusing people of slander for voicing their opinions about a particular writer – especially one who has a history of controversy – certainly qualifies. It’s called projection and it’s textbook ego defending.
Grow up.
Also, the right should stop being such big wussies.
Moore obviously doesn’t understand what being a troll means. Reg is a contributor. And in the final analysis, the blogkeeper decides who is a troll. Does Celeste consider Reg a troll? There’s your answer, Moore. You fail.
Well, well…
Apparently the left on here seems to think that one cannot be both a troll and a contributor. Typical narrow minded thinking.
Oh, and this post is both a troll and a contribution.
As for wusses, you link cites as groundless our concern that the “Fairness” Doctrine will be re-instated. The left should quit being such liars.
Wrong again, Moore: just repeating yourself, believe it or not, actually doesn’t make your incorrect observation magically correct. Reg is not a troll, and trolling is ultimately determined by the blogkeeper–in this case, Celeste. This is hard for you to accept, obviously, as you continue to whine about it like a child not given a treat. Perhaps it’s time for you to go to your room and take a nap, and leave the conversation to the adults.
Kyle, if you think the determination of troll-dom is determined by the blogger (what’s a “blogkeeper?”), then you clearly don’t know the history of the term, which was in widespread use for on-line debate long before blogging or even the world wide web existed. But then, you were probably still in diapers then.
In other words, you’re clueless dude.
Reg makes informative points–that’s not trolling. Just because you are offended by his manner and/or language does not make it trolling; rather, it means it’s your problem, not his our ours. We can engage in a long and ultimately pointless discussion over what constitutes being a troll (e.g., you, Woody) vs. simply trolling (e.g., can someone who is not a troll still exhibit trolling behavior?), but you quite frankly bore me. Moreover, it’s pointless because of the earlier assertion I made: it’s Celeste’s call, and not yours. She (and the rest of us) obviously learn a lot from reg, and like reading his comments. Which is why your childish whining quite obviously betrays much more about your personal emotional hang-ups than it does about reg.
Reg will be sticking around, so I guess you’re just going to have to find a way to work through your emotional issues. Good luck with that.
As for wusses, you link cites as groundless our concern that the “Fairness†Doctrine will be re-instated. The left should quit being such liars.
Not a chance it’ll happen, but by all means keep pushing that idea as it has no relevance to most people except the wingnut right. By all means, please continue your side’s social and political marginalization.
What I really find astonishing is the sense of outrage from the right. Newsflash: your side made the mess that this country is now in. As my link cites, the public has rejected your side in both 2006 and 2008.
So, instead of coming up with intelligent ideas and solutions that are viable, please keep trying to retread your failed policies and please keep up the wingnut whining and your self-inflicted sense of victimhood.
BTW, I know your comment was directed at Kyle, but I don’t care if you have been doing this since ac won out over dc. You still don’t know wtf a troll is.
One of the amazing things is how quickly lefty blog commenters get personal. It’s as if nobody on the right could possibly deserve respect or even courtesy. Why is it that the left always accuses the right of being full of hate, but all the outrageous behavior and anger seems to come from the left? Projection?
JM posted this on 2/14/09 at 7:36 p.m.:
“Why is it that the left always accuses the right of being full of hate, but all the outrageous behavior and anger seems to come from the left? Projection?”
I posted on 2/13/09 at 8:32 a.m.:
“As for trolling, accusing people of slander for voicing their opinions about a particular writer – especially one who has a history of controversy – certainly qualifies. It’s called projection and it’s textbook ego defending.”
Honestly, it seems that you don’t have an original thought in your head.
As for hate-spewing three days ago in another post, I made the following comment to you:
This comment of yours that “all the outrageous behavior and anger seems to come from the left” is pure fiction that you have manufactured out of whole cloth; completely unsupported and designed to inflame sentiments. Of course, as I have stated before you don’t wtf you would call a person who would make such statements.