« All of the Action is in Austin This Weekend | Main | "Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good" »
June 19, 2005
Open Thread
Comments to this thread are open to any topic you want to discuss. I'd particularly like to hear from you if you would like to see more open threads in the future and if you have suggestions for improvements to the blog.
Have at it.
Posted by Lyn Wall at June 19, 2005 07:57 AM | Permalink
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/329
Comments
Since we can talk about anything, let's talk about Dana Milbank's ugly little piece in the Washington Post about John Conyers. He made fun of Conyers' hearing last Thursday,about the fact that it was held in a room the size of a closet (I think the Repugs are obsessed about things that they imagine are going on in closets), about the "decor" in the basement room, about what he saw as Conyers' "playing" at being committee chair, etc., etc. Conyers wrote a letter to Milbank and to the Post explaining why the committee members met in that room--the only room the Speaker would let them have, though other, larger ones were available--why it was appropriate for him to be called "Mr. Chairman"--all stuff Dana Milbank could've found out had he bothered to ask Conyers or any other Dem in the room. Milbank set out to embarrass Conyers. Conyers--may his tribe increase--not only refused to be embarrassed, but he told off Milbank in language that even Bushies with impaired understanding could make out if they tried. I think we need to find out whose payroll Milbank is on besides the Post's. I plan to call Mr. Milbank tomorrow and ask him. Anybody care to join me? (Conyers' letter, by the way, is in Truthout.)
Posted by: Muriel Stubbs at June 19, 2005 09:36 PM
Thanks Muriel. Yahoo has the story and Conyers' letter. Vote for a 5 star rating at http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/13617;_ylt=AgU2OIAHdJdW9ZQHlZdtnglhr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl.
Posted by: Lyn Wall at June 19, 2005 09:39 PM
How does Dana Milbank still have a job as a reporter for WaPo? Have standards slipped this badly? Wait, NYT assigned Judith Miller to the UN scandal, no doubt still getting her "story" from Ahmed Chalabi.
Great idea, Muriel. Let's fill up Milbank's voice mailbox. While we're calling, let's ask him why he wrote so many suck up stories about the Iraq War.
Posted by: jaybird at June 19, 2005 10:21 PM
a) Dana Milbank irks the GOP just as much as he irks Dems. Tells me he's doing his job more or less magnificently.
b) PDiddie ... this one's for you:
Democrats have held firm on opposing Bolton's nomination, but ultimately there is only so much a minority party can do to stop the trifecta. Even with the second vote scheduled tonight, and even with Democrats expected to hold firm, it appears that Bush will be able to get Bolton in the U.N. through a recess appointment. ... Chris Bowers, MyDD
Chris Bowers ... Vichy Democrat??? The list of Vichy Democrats continues to swell, doesn't it? The nerve of him to not "say nothing." Might this simple admission of recognizable fact put the ranks of our fair party down to a mere phone booth now?
Posted by: Greg Wythe at June 20, 2005 07:06 PM
Mr Wythe, your comments exude smug sarcasm directed at a real progressive democrat so I would say you are right. The list of Vichy Democrats (including you) does indeed continue to grow. Is that a good thing? Well, I guess it depends on how much you love a democratic republic and how much you understand what the name "Vichy" implies.
Posted by: Bellwether at June 20, 2005 08:21 PM
"Dana Milbank irks the GOP just as much as he irks Dems. Tells me he's doing his job more or less magnificently."
Do you believe:
1. "x is true" if, and only if, "Dems are not irked"; and
2. "Dems are not irked" if, and only if, "R's are irked"?
Whether or not R's would be irked would be irrelevant to my statements about Milbank - unless you accept definitions 1 and 2.
Posted by: jon boyd at June 20, 2005 09:41 PM
I don't care if Milbank does irk the GOP. I don't think he's "doing his job magnificently." I think he may be on the verge of having Post readers say, "Who the hell cares what you think?"
Anyway, you can email him at milbankd@washpost.com
Here's mine:
Sir:
I'm one of those old-fashioned folks who think that reporters are supposed to report the news, not make it up or comment on it sarcastically if, for some reason,they don't like what the subject is doing/saying. What, exactly, did your journalism instructors teach you to do? Or did you assume, as some in our current administration apparently do, that membership in Skull&Bones prepared you for anything in the world that might come your way, so you didn't have to study Journalism just because you wanted to practice it?
I'd like to know what Katherine Grahem, a great lady if ever there was one--and bright--and shrewd--would think of your chop job on Representative John Conyers. I'd like to know who in the hell inhabits the office of Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Post and what in the hell he/she/it was doing when that piece landed in the paper.
I lived in Falls Church, Virginia, and taught school there for nearly a quarter of a century--plenty long enough to have watched and listened as Watergate unfolded and was played out. I think I know what The Post is capable of. Your stuff, Mr. Milbank, is not it.
I lived near DC long enough to see that the streets there run with shit, and if you live there long enough and don't watch where you're going, you get it all over you. You, sir, have got it all over you. You need to put down that hatchet, go get cleaned up, and deliver to John Conyers the apology he deserves from you. And then you need to look up your personal Deity--Leo Strauss? Lee Atwater?--and see if you can persuade It that you're not the asshole you sounded like in that attack on a man who may turn out to be a lot more prescient than you seem to be.
Or maybe he's just more sure-footed.
Muriel Stubbs
Posted by: Muriel Stubbs at June 20, 2005 10:06 PM
Perhaps the ranks of Vichy Democrats are growing, but the ranks of progressives are growing faster. The Republican Lite Democrats will soon find themselves politically irrelevant.
Posted by: Mike Chappell at June 21, 2005 08:21 AM
Jon,
If I might suggest a better paradigm for understanding the role of the media ... it is not their job to help us, it is not their job to elect us, it is not their job to placate us. It is their job to sell newspapers.
They do their job and we'll do ours (elect Democrats). And the day we stop expecting them to do ours is the day we do a better job of our task at hand. They serve a different role in society than we do and if they were to suddenly begin blindly taking our side (or that of any other) in every debate known to mankind, I'd strongly suggest that mankind needs a new media.
Mike,
If you don't get who Chris Bowers is, then the joke may be lost upon you.
Posted by: Greg Wythe at June 21, 2005 09:20 AM
Heads up on a few issues....
Steve Soto thinks the R's will make another run at SSI, this time with Lindsay Graham with the vanguard marching to seize "those worthless IOU's". Stay vigilant.
Should it surprise anyone that the R's are finding more creative and craven ways to display their corruption? Josh Marshall reports a new contractor scam involving a member of the House from California. Be sure to follow the older threads on the same subject.
Posted by: jon boyd at June 21, 2005 10:24 AM
Greg,
Indeed, my bad... thanks for the insight.
Posted by: Mike Chappell at June 21, 2005 05:11 PM