I guess if you haven't been quoted on the Senate floor, you're nothing to the Great Greenwald.
jpe
· 2 years ago
[quote]Greenwald is saying that the Democrats are unpopular because they haven't investigated the Bush administration enough.[/quote]
Nope.
If your reread GG's original post, you'll see that he points to several things, notable among which are the failure to compel a change of course in Iraq and the passage of the FISA erasure bill.
Hence this passage: [quote]Congress is so unpopular...among Democrats, because of their ongoing capitulations to the Bush administration, their failure to place any limits on his Iraq policy, and their general inability/refusal to serve as a meaningful check on the administration. [/quote]
I didn't see any mention of investigations in there, did you?
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
I doubt the number of investigations is of any relevance, as opposed to what is being investigated and what the results are.
Polls show that investigations are popular and that the drop in Congressional approval is due to Democrats upset that Congress hasn't stood up more strongly to Bush, particularly on Iraq. That's why Congress has such low approvals and yet Democrats are widely preferred in the generic Congressional polls. There are large numbers of voters who dislike what Congress is doing (or not doing in this case) but who will vote for the Democrat candidate come November 2008.
Greenwald did not claim that Congress was unpopular because of too few investigations. Why not quote what he wrote?
[quote]Thus, the only rational conclusion is that Congress is so unpopular, particularly among Democrats, because of their ongoing capitulations to the Bush administration, their failure to place any limits on his Iraq policy, and their general inability/refusal to serve as a meaningful check on the administration. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly dislike the President. Thus, the weaker Congress is in defying the President, the more unpopular Congress becomes. [/quote]
That's different than what you implied. The point isn't the number of investigations but the results. That's what's bothering the Democrats who are angry at Congress. They want to see Bush stopped and us leaving Iraq and Congress is not delivering.
Ellers McEllerson
· 2 years ago
Well, I for one would like to thank Mr. Greenwald for his insightful commentary. He is truly an journalist's journalist. And has been quoted on the floor of the US Senate!
HATERS!
JS
· 2 years ago
You write, above: [quote]Yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
Greenwald, in his column from Aug 21, wrote: [quote]Since Democrats took over Congress in January, there have been three major attributes characterizing their conduct: (1) a failure to stop or restrict the war in Iraq; (2) a general failure/unwillingness to stop Bush on much of anything else of significance (FISA, a failure to reverse any of the excesses of the GOP Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act, lack of limits on his ability to attack Iran, etc.); and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential. There is no rational way to argue that the numerous investigations (item (3)) are responsible for Congressional unpopularity given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]
How did you read that to mean that he thinks Congress' low approval numbers are because of too few investigations??? Feel free to retract and/or apologize, though I would not ask anybody to hold their breath, unless it Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh...
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote] He actually [i]said[/i] that? And he's smoking [i]what???[/i] ROTFLMAO!
*
· 2 years ago
As I mentioned in the other thread (coincidentally enough at the same minute you posted this thread,) Greenwald's post is not for the faint of heart.
Kudos to you Rob, it takes real courage to link to an article that thoroughly refutes one's own reasoning.
Joseph
· 2 years ago
Oh no ... not Gleen again ...
This guy never goes away. I suspect it may have something to do with his undeath - see photographic proof below:
That's "Ellison" about midway down in the picture on the right side.
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
Rob,
You made a mistake. You completely misread and mischaracterized what Greenwald wrote. He [b]never[/b] wrote that [quote]the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]as you claimed.
Will you recognize your mistake or will this go on and on?
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]During the entire Bush presidency, I have never met so much as a single individual who wanted the [b]poltroons[/b] of Congress (Dollar Bill Jefferson, Dingy Harry Reid, Nancy Botox Pelosi) to "investigate" the Bush administration. Where are these mythical Americans located? [quote]10 out of 10 ketchup heiresses and their gigolo husbands want Bush investigated?[/quote]
[quote]12 out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house?[/quote]
[quote]Greenwald's post is not for the faint of heart. [/quote]True! I nearly [i]laughed [/i]myself to death!
Paul A'Barge
· 2 years ago
[i]It's almost like telling someone to lose weight by eating more hamburgers[/i]
YOu can lose weight by eating hamburgers, but you have to avoid eating the bun.
In the world of puditry, Greenwald is a bun.
T-web
· 2 years ago
It's interesting how GG has become a litmus test for rightly bloggers. The right has a hard time taking seriously anyone who takes Greenwald seriously. He pulls this kind of obviously dishonest garbage all the time (remeber the clear cases sock-puppetry he denied & got a pass on from the left). Those who cite him as an authority, we are left to conclude, are just interested in the pseudo-intellectual cover he provides, not in any sort of honest debate/discussion.
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
T-web,
In this parrticular case ( I can't comment on anything else) the issue is not whether to take Greenwald seriously. It's that Rob completely misread and mischaracterized what Greenwald said. Simply put the very first sentence of this post, where it says that
[quote]Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
is false. Greenwald never wrote that the problem was too few investigations.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]is false. Greenwald never wrote that the problem was too few investigations. [/quote] Is it false or merely hyperbole? (This IS a political blog after all!)
[quote]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source hy·per·bo·le /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation --noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity." [/quote]
karrsic
· 2 years ago
Again, no analysis here, nothing thoughtful to say; only ad hominem attacks. You have nothing? Where's the "honest debate?"
Proof
· 2 years ago
Or is it something else, like when Clinton calls himself "the first Black President". Is that false? Ooooh! Is Bill a dirty [i]liar[/i] when he says that?
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Where's the "honest debate?" [/quote] You want honest debate with laugh lines like:
[quote]given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote] Please! Take your [i]own [/i]arguments seriously if you want us to as well!
Ken McCracken
· 2 years ago
Heh, what 'ad hominem' attacks, karrsic?
I've read Rob's post here, and I have still failed to find the elusive 'ad hominem' attack in there.
You have to do better than cutting and pasting your standard leftist response to anything a Republican says.
You might try, you know, actually reading his post first.
karrsic
· 2 years ago
I didn't say Rob made an ad hominem attack. But [quote]He pulls this kind of obviously dishonest garbage all the time (remeber the clear cases sock-puppetry he denied & got a pass on from the left)[/quote] and [quote]12 out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house?[/quote] qualify.
And "given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration" comes from poll numbers in Greenwald's post. [quote]From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:
Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?
Too many - 32%
Not enough - 39%
About right - 19% [/quote]
So, again, anything substantive to say?
slickdpdx
· 2 years ago
Rob: I read your posts, the comments here and both of Glenn's posts. It looks to me like you ought to graciously admit that karrsic has a good point. Misunderstandings happen, that's okay. Not acknowledging them is not. (Just as Glenn should have been honest about his bad judgment in the pseudonymous comments controversy.)
My two cents. I realize you probably do not give a hoot, but thanks for letting me toss them in.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]So, again, anything substantive to say?[/quote]
Polling, being naturally and unavoidably agendized, is a poor indicator of either fact or truth. Another poll might yield quite different results, depending on the actual questions asked, the tone of voice of the questioner, his or her appearance, etc, etc. It is the leftie way to try to use polls to force their ideology on us, because they control the MSM, and can therefore influence the information that is available to those who are polled, adding yet another distortion to the poll results.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]"given how [b] overwhelmingly[/b] Americans [b]want[/b] Congressional investigations of the administration"[/quote]All right! Let's try this argument in English! I'll try to use [i]small[/i] words for you. [quote] From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:
Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?
Too many - 32%
Not enough - 39%
About right - 19% [/quote]
[b]About right - 19%[/b] So if I say 100° heat is "[b]about right[/b]" for Sacramento in the summertime, am I saying "[b]I overwhelmingly want it to be[/b] 100° or am I acknowledging what is there?
You have [b]39%[/b] say they "[b]Not enough[/b]". But, (here's where it gets [b]tricky[/b]!) if we use [i]math skills[/i] to add 39 and 19, we still only get [b]58%[/b]. For the math-impaired, that's a little over half! [b]NOT[/b] [b]overwhelming[/b]! (Not in English, anyway!)Sheesh!
BTW, That's statistical analysis, NOT an ad hominem attack. Maybe whoever taught you that phrase can now teach you its meaning?
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]12 out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house?[/quote]Your were right! It was closer to [b]15[/b] out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house. (Glenn demanded a recount!)
Proof
· 2 years ago
BTW: Here's a link to Glenn's sock puppetry. If the facts about his dubious character or believability constitute ad hominem attack, then we'd better shut down sites like wikipedia, too! [url=http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php]Ace of Spades[/url]
docdave
· 2 years ago
One can't help wonder if those posting comments supporting GG are real or sock puppets. As far as having a [i]honest debate [/i], the liberal idea of an honest debate is when everybody agrees with them.
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
docdave,
This is not that complicated. Rob made a mistake. He claimed Greenwald said something that Greenwald never did. Rob claimed that [quote]Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
but this is not true. Greenwald never said that.
Proof
· 2 years ago
You know, by the [i]Glenn Greenwald [/i]standard, Hillary Clinton will [b]lose[/b] overwhelmingly!
[quote][b]73%[/b] of women said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if they voted against a law that would have made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18 years of age across state lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion without her parents' knowledge. Hillary Clinton voted against this law twice in 2006.
[b]64%[/b] of women voters would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. Hillary Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban four times.
[b]68%[/b] of women are less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if they support taxpayer funded abortion. Yet, Hillary Clinton has pledged to provide taxpayer funding for American's number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood[/quote] [url=http://www.sba-list.org/files/SBALHRCSurveyTopline.pdf]Susan B. Anthony List[/url]
Ken McCracken
· 2 years ago
Greenwald, in fact, said this:
[quote]and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential. There is no rational way to argue that the numerous investigations (item (3)) are responsible for Congressional unpopularity given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]
Yes, Greenwald did say that too few substantive investigations is a reason why Congress' poll numbers are too low.
Rob did not say that too few investigations was Greenwald's [i]only[/i] reason for the low numbers.
Clearly, Rob got it right, and you sock puppets cango put yourselves back in the drawer now.
karrisc
· 2 years ago
Frankly, I would think that one would be a bit more clever before one lays the condescension on so thick, but no matter. (I may respond to more than 1 post, here so please be patient.)
I agree with:[quote]Polling, being naturally and unavoidably agendized, is a poor indicator of either fact or truth. Another poll might yield quite different results, depending on the actual questions asked, the tone of voice of the questioner, his or her appearance, etc, etc. [/quote]
Still, whether you like it or not, it is, at least, some evidence.
This, however, [quote]It is the leftie way to try to use polls to force their ideology on us, because they control the MSM, and can therefore influence the information that is available to those who are polled, adding yet another distortion to the poll results[/quote] is pure tripe and means only that you have nothing meaningful to say.
Regarding this [quote]About right - 19% So if I say 100° heat is "about right" for Sacramento in the summertime, am I saying "I overwhelmingly want it to be 100° or am I acknowledging what is there?[/quote] remember, we're talking about the 300 investigations that you so fervently lament. So the 58% you have so adroitly summed for us believe that 300 investigations is either about right or want more! Further, this is not just 58% of non-Republicans, this is 58% of those polled. Surely, the number of Democrats would be much higher.
In addition, Greenwald produced several other polls that furthered his thesis. Perhaps he cherry-picked them, I don't know. But the point is that what evidence has been presented defends his proposition that Democrats and Independents are disappointed with Congress for not standing up to Bush, e.g. for not taking on the war, or impeaching Gonzalez or Bush or Cheney, and for rubber-stamping the new FISA law.
Clearly it's easy to get you all worked up in a lather over all this, but that's truly the only evidence presented by either side. I'm not sure why you care anyway. I'm sure you could figure out creative ways to spew vitriol over Democrats who wish to prosecute this criminal administration. I mean, you don't really need prodding, do you?
Finally, thanks for the lesson on ad hominem attacks. I surmise that you bring this up since you feel that you would more likely win that argument, then that which precipitated this blog posting. I would just like to point out that this page has several instances of posters attacking Greenwald in order to discredit his argument, rather than combating the argument itself. Greenwald could be the biggest idiot on the planet -- and yes, even Wikipedia could say so -- but it would not change the fact that by definition, what was exercised here prior to your insightful statistical "analysis," were ad hominem attacks.
Oh, whoops!
Ken McCracken
· 2 years ago
Get off your high horse.
All of the supposed polls cited by Greenwald do nothing to address Rob's point: that there are already 300 investigations going out there, and that Greenwald is a fool if he thinks that 350 or 400 of them will reach some magical tipping point where America starts to like Congress again.
How many will it take to make Democrats happy, hmm? 500 investigations?
700?
1000?
Just pick the precise number and tell us, and then finally, at long last, you will have addressed Rob's point and refuted it.
But until then, you are just going around in circles like a dog amused by its own tail.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]So the 58% you have so adroitly summed for us believe that 300 investigations is either about right or want more![/quote]And [b]51%[/b] think that it's either just right or too many! Your bogus argument cuts both ways! Minus, of course, the margin or error (which you did not cite) [quote]Clearly it's easy to get you all worked up in a lather over all this,[/quote]Some sock puppet wanders by with a poll and WE'RE all lathered up? [b]Overwhelmingly[/b] is the word used by those lathered. Common sense and reality are what we're trying to use to hose you down! [quote]attacking Greenwald in order to discredit his argument[/quote]Sorry! Greenwald [i]discredited himself[/i] with his shameless sock puppetry. At what point would I ever take him seriously again? [quote]Greenwald could be the biggest idiot on the planet[/quote]We'll conclude with [i]your[/i] argument! (Unless you're vying for the position yourself?)
Proof
· 2 years ago
Tell you what! I'll take Greenwald seriously the day Fox News Sunday puts [i]Beanie and Cecil[/i] on their panel discussion!
deadrody
· 2 years ago
Frankly, this is exactly the kind of thing that makes Greenwald look as dumb as a post. Let's re-write that quote a bit...
[quote]no one cited a single piece of evidence, poll, or anything else to support their claim that Americans [b][i]wants more investigations [/i][/b]and/or that Congress is [i][b]unpouplar due to not enough hearings ...[/b][/i][/quote]So why is it Glenn can proclaim one stance based on no evidence, but others cannot proclaim the opposite without evidence ???
What an idiot.
deadrody
· 2 years ago
Oh and this thread CLEARLY demonstrates why you should never link to Mr. Sock Puppetry - all the leftard commenters.
Welcome to ACTUAL reality for all those that adhere to their own unique community based reality.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
So karsic, based on your poll, the majority of Americans say "enough already", leaving only your bloodthirsty Democrats to expend all of Congress's remaining capital on empty investigations into nonexistence problems.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
For the assistance of people like JPE, JS and Gabtiel who always can use help with the control-F key since they can't be bothered to read the entire article, here's the quote:
Congress is so deeply unpopular not because they are investigating or obstructing too much, but because they are investigating and obstructing far too little.
Get that? 300 investigations="far too little"
And Glenn acknowledges he said that, so why are you defending him with a false claim?
Carrick
· 2 years ago
deadrody:
So why is it Glenn can proclaim one stance based on no evidence, but others cannot proclaim the opposite without evidence ???
Completely correct. It's Glenn who makes the claim that more investigations would improve Congress's approval rating.
He's the one who made the claim, it's up to him to prove he's right, not to others to prove he's wrong.
Rob merely pointed out that with more than 300 investigations launched already, this would to a normal person seem excessive, and why would more be expected to improve their popularity?
Excellent question that could use an answer from Glenn and his supporters. In any case, questions don't require proof to be asked, though the logical basis for the question (300+ investigations) is well established.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman:
Either God is able to say exactly what He means or we can never trust Him to ever mean exactly what He says about anything, including salvation.
The problem with your logic is that, even if divinely inspired, God didn't transcribe the words onto paper, a man did.
When that man wrote what he wrote onto paper, it could have had an exact meaning to him ("four corners of the earth"="entire earth"), even though he phrased it in terms of the cosmology of his time (where the writer really believed the Earth to be flat and to have four corners). The problem retrospectively is to divide out the scriptural message from the cultural context in which the words are framed.
This is easy enough to do if you are willing to use your eyes and your brain in assisting your interpretation of scripture, much harder if you are dogmatic about those words meaning today exactly what they meant then.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Sorry! Wrong thread. :-$
karrsic
· 2 years ago
Well, it's been a fun 1 day passing through, but time to move on. As they say, nothing to see here folks. I'm surprised Glenn would link to "Say Anything," since that seems to be the only "rhetorical device" in use here. I will leave you to your self-flagellation. Good luck battling the Truthers w/ your decimating wit! Looks like you have them on the run! As for the evolutionists, not so much, but surely you'll receive some intelligent inspiration from your designer!
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
Carrick,
You are wrong. Saying that "they are investigating and obstructing far too little" is not the same as saying there are too few investigations. Greenwald's point is clear. It's not about the NUMBER of investigations its about the RESULTS. [b]If the Democrats in Congress had just ONE investigation but that one investigation managed to actually get the results the Democratic base wants they would be very happy with Congress.[/b]
No one in the Democratic side is saying they want more investigations because they want some specific number ("Don't stop until we have 500 investigations!"). That's silly. What they want are SPECIFIC RESULTS.
Here's the strange part. I suspect that if Rob had stopped and rewritten this slightly he and Greenwald would have actually agreed. It seems to me that what Rob was actually saying is that there is no lack of investigations and so, therefore, the problem lies elsewhere. And I think Greenwald would agree. He would say, IMO, that the investigations are either not investigating the right things or simply not doing a good job, or, more likely, a combination of both.
In the end, all this blustering obscures the real points. Several right-wing bloggers have made the point (not Rob I think but others have) that Congress is so unpopular because Americans don't like the fact they are investigating Bush. As Greenwald demonstrates that is false. Congressional approval has dropped because the Democratic base is unhappy with the results of the investigations and that Congress has not stopped Bush in Iraq. What they want is MORE EFFECTIVE investigations not simply more in number.
A separate argument is whether want the Democratic base wants is even possible, ie whether the Democrats in Congress have the power to stop Bush in Iraq or 'discover' impeacheable offenses. I suspect the answer is no to both. But that's another story.
slickdpdx
· 2 years ago
It may not be accurate but the clear import of Greenwald's post is that the Democrats lack of popularity stems from the ineffectiveness of their efforts not the sheer number of them. I am inclined to agree with you about whether Greenwald is right, I don't understand why everybody persists in misconstruing the post.
Greenwald's follow-up post is not a concession that he was arguing for more investigations period (more investigations is consistent with what he said but not necessarily called for) he is taking you on on your underlying premise - that excessive partisan investigations are hurting the Democrats and pointing out that although the idea may appeal to you (it appeals to me too) the polls don't seem to bear that out. (At least the polls he selected - but I haven't seen anyone offer others.)
Ultimately, the investigations are probably hurting them because they are ineffective AND they are chasing down partisan bugaboos rather than focusing on the broader issues. Spending more time naysaying than getting anything positive accomplished.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Gabriel, you're a hoot. You're trying to transmorgify "investigating too little" into "investigating too poorly". Greenwald said "too little", and based on his follow up comment, agrees with Rob's interpretation.
He is left with arguing "well prove my assertion is wrong." Unfortunately that's a logical fallacy: If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove your position, not to ask others to disprove it for you.
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
Carrick,
If you read the whole article Greenwald's point is very clear. It's all about the RESULTS, not the number of investigations. If you still don't get it...
Carrick
· 2 years ago
No, Gabriel, I get it. The lack of results are related to the fact that the basis of the investigations are based on lies and hyperbole. They came up empty because there was nothing to investigate, not because they lacked due diligence.
Gabriel
· 2 years ago
[quote] The lack of results are related to the fact that the basis of the investigations are based on lies and hyperbole. They came up empty because there was nothing to investigate, not because they lacked due diligence. [/quote]
Well, that's a completely different debate, one on which I have offered no opinion. I am focusing on what Rob wrote in THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of this post. That's all.
As I wrote above I suspect that Rob and Greenwald would actually agree that the issue is not the number of investigations but the results. To some extent they are talking past each other.
To recapitulate:
1) Some conservative commentators have claimed that the reason Congress is so unpopular is that the investigations on Bush are unpopular. Greenwald clearly showed this to be false with supporting evidence from several polls.
2) In fact, the polls show that the reason Congress' popularity has fallen is that Democrats were expecting certain things they have not gotten. That's what Greenwald wrote about.
3) Rob appears to have misunderstood what Greenwald wrote and thought that Greenwald was saying that all Democrats cared about waas the NUMBER of investigations. Greenwald never wrote that. Greenwald made clear he was referring to the RESULTS. That could be accomplished with just one investigation, in principle.
That's OK, in less than 2 years we will have a Dem WH and Congress and we will begin the process of cleaning up the mess Bush and his supporters created.
:)
docdave
· 2 years ago
[quote]Ultimately, the investigations are probably hurting them because they are ineffective AND they are chasing down partisan bugaboos rather than focusing on the broader issues. Spending more time naysaying than getting anything positive accomplished.[/quote] That has pretty much been the strategy/tactics of the Democrats. They have dwelled so long on naysaying that it may not be in their capablity to switch to something more profitable.
Oh,yes,the dems do have their socialism issues but they are not going over well either.
docdave
· 2 years ago
[quote]That's OK, in less than 2 years we will have a Dem WH and Congress and we will begin the process of cleaning up the mess Bush and his supporters created.[/quote] How heartwarming /sarc. And what is their plan to do that? They don't have one yet?? Why does that not surprise me.
All Comments
I guess if you haven't been quoted on the Senate floor, you're nothing to the Great Greenwald.
Nope.
If your reread GG's original post, you'll see that he points to several things, notable among which are the failure to compel a change of course in Iraq and the passage of the FISA erasure bill.
Hence this passage:
[quote]Congress is so unpopular...among Democrats, because of their ongoing capitulations to the Bush administration, their failure to place any limits on his Iraq policy, and their general inability/refusal to serve as a meaningful check on the administration. [/quote]
I didn't see any mention of investigations in there, did you?
Polls show that investigations are popular and that the drop in Congressional approval is due to Democrats upset that Congress hasn't stood up more strongly to Bush, particularly on Iraq. That's why Congress has such low approvals and yet Democrats are widely preferred in the generic Congressional polls. There are large numbers of voters who dislike what Congress is doing (or not doing in this case) but who will vote for the Democrat candidate come November 2008.
Greenwald did not claim that Congress was unpopular because of too few investigations. Why not quote what he wrote?
[quote]Thus, the only rational conclusion is that Congress is so unpopular, particularly among Democrats, because of their ongoing capitulations to the Bush administration, their failure to place any limits on his Iraq policy, and their general inability/refusal to serve as a meaningful check on the administration. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly dislike the President. Thus, the weaker Congress is in defying the President, the more unpopular Congress becomes. [/quote]
That's different than what you implied. The point isn't the number of investigations but the results. That's what's bothering the Democrats who are angry at Congress. They want to see Bush stopped and us leaving Iraq and Congress is not delivering.
HATERS!
[quote]Yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
Greenwald, in his column from Aug 21, wrote:
[quote]Since Democrats took over Congress in January, there have been three major attributes characterizing their conduct: (1) a failure to stop or restrict the war in Iraq; (2) a general failure/unwillingness to stop Bush on much of anything else of significance (FISA, a failure to reverse any of the excesses of the GOP Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act, lack of limits on his ability to attack Iran, etc.); and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential. There is no rational way to argue that the numerous investigations (item (3)) are responsible for Congressional unpopularity given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]
How did you read that to mean that he thinks Congress' low approval numbers are because of too few investigations??? Feel free to retract and/or apologize, though I would not ask anybody to hold their breath, unless it Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh...
He actually [i]said[/i] that? And he's smoking [i]what???[/i] ROTFLMAO!
Kudos to you Rob, it takes real courage to link to an article that thoroughly refutes one's own reasoning.
This guy never goes away. I suspect it may have something to do with his undeath - see photographic proof below:
http://catcubed.com/images/zombie_puppetmaster_...
That's "Ellison" about midway down in the picture on the right side.
You made a mistake. You completely misread and mischaracterized what Greenwald wrote. He [b]never[/b] wrote that [quote]the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]as you claimed.
Will you recognize your mistake or will this go on and on?
Where are these mythical Americans located?
[quote]10 out of 10 ketchup heiresses and their gigolo husbands want Bush investigated?[/quote]
[quote]12 out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house?[/quote]
[quote]Greenwald's post is not for the faint of heart. [/quote]True! I nearly [i]laughed [/i]myself to death!
YOu can lose weight by eating hamburgers, but you have to avoid eating the bun.
In the world of puditry, Greenwald is a bun.
In this parrticular case ( I can't comment on anything else) the issue is not whether to take Greenwald seriously. It's that Rob completely misread and mischaracterized what Greenwald said. Simply put the very first sentence of this post, where it says that
[quote]Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
is false. Greenwald never wrote that the problem was too few investigations.
[quote]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
hy·per·bo·le /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
--noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity." [/quote]
Ooooh! Is Bill a dirty [i]liar[/i] when he says that?
You want honest debate with laugh lines like:
[quote]given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]
Please! Take your [i]own [/i]arguments seriously if you want us to as well!
I've read Rob's post here, and I have still failed to find the elusive 'ad hominem' attack in there.
You have to do better than cutting and pasting your standard leftist response to anything a Republican says.
You might try, you know, actually reading his post first.
But [quote]He pulls this kind of obviously dishonest garbage all the time (remeber the clear cases sock-puppetry he denied & got a pass on from the left)[/quote] and
[quote]12 out of 10 sock puppets who live at Glenn Greenwald's house?[/quote]
qualify.
And "given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration" comes from poll numbers in Greenwald's post.
[quote]From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:
Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?
Too many - 32%
Not enough - 39%
About right - 19% [/quote]
So, again, anything substantive to say?
My two cents. I realize you probably do not give a hoot, but thanks for letting me toss them in.
Polling, being naturally and unavoidably agendized, is a poor indicator of either fact or truth. Another poll might yield quite different results, depending on the actual questions asked, the tone of voice of the questioner, his or her appearance, etc, etc.
It is the leftie way to try to use polls to force their ideology on us, because they control the MSM, and can therefore influence the information that is available to those who are polled, adding yet another distortion to the poll results.
[quote] From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:
Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?
Too many - 32%
Not enough - 39%
About right - 19% [/quote]
[b]About right - 19%[/b] So if I say 100° heat is "[b]about right[/b]" for Sacramento in the summertime, am I saying "[b]I overwhelmingly want it to be[/b] 100° or am I acknowledging what is there?
You have [b]39%[/b] say they "[b]Not enough[/b]". But, (here's where it gets [b]tricky[/b]!) if we use [i]math skills[/i] to add 39 and 19, we still only get [b]58%[/b]. For the math-impaired, that's a little over half! [b]NOT[/b] [b]overwhelming[/b]! (Not in English, anyway!)Sheesh!
BTW, That's statistical analysis, NOT an ad hominem attack. Maybe whoever taught you that phrase can now teach you its meaning?
[url=http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php]Ace of Spades[/url]
This is not that complicated. Rob made a mistake. He claimed Greenwald said something that Greenwald never did. Rob claimed that
[quote]Glenn Greenwald wrote a column at Salon claiming that the Democrats' low approval numbers can be explained by too few investigations of the Bush administration. [/quote]
but this is not true. Greenwald never said that.
[quote][b]73%[/b] of women said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if they voted against a law that would have made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18 years of age across state lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion without her parents' knowledge. Hillary Clinton voted against this law twice in 2006.
[b]64%[/b] of women voters would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. Hillary Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban four times.
[b]68%[/b] of women are less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if they support taxpayer funded abortion. Yet, Hillary Clinton has pledged to provide taxpayer funding for American's number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood[/quote]
[url=http://www.sba-list.org/files/SBALHRCSurveyTopline.pdf]Susan B. Anthony List[/url]
[quote]and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential. There is no rational way to argue that the numerous investigations (item (3)) are responsible for Congressional unpopularity given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.[/quote]
Yes, Greenwald did say that too few substantive investigations is a reason why Congress' poll numbers are too low.
Rob did not say that too few investigations was Greenwald's [i]only[/i] reason for the low numbers.
Clearly, Rob got it right, and you sock puppets cango put yourselves back in the drawer now.
I agree with:[quote]Polling, being naturally and unavoidably agendized, is a poor indicator of either fact or truth. Another poll might yield quite different results, depending on the actual questions asked, the tone of voice of the questioner, his or her appearance, etc, etc. [/quote]
Still, whether you like it or not, it is, at least, some evidence.
This, however, [quote]It is the leftie way to try to use polls to force their ideology on us, because they control the MSM, and can therefore influence the information that is available to those who are polled, adding yet another distortion to the poll results[/quote] is pure tripe and means only that you have nothing meaningful to say.
Regarding this [quote]About right - 19% So if I say 100° heat is "about right" for Sacramento in the summertime, am I saying "I overwhelmingly want it to be 100° or am I acknowledging what is there?[/quote] remember, we're talking about the 300 investigations that you so fervently lament. So the 58% you have so adroitly summed for us believe that 300 investigations is either about right or want more! Further, this is not just 58% of non-Republicans, this is 58% of those polled. Surely, the number of Democrats would be much higher.
In addition, Greenwald produced several other polls that furthered his thesis. Perhaps he cherry-picked them, I don't know. But the point is that what evidence has been presented defends his proposition that Democrats and Independents are disappointed with Congress for not standing up to Bush, e.g. for not taking on the war, or impeaching Gonzalez or Bush or Cheney, and for rubber-stamping the new FISA law.
Clearly it's easy to get you all worked up in a lather over all this, but that's truly the only evidence presented by either side. I'm not sure why you care anyway. I'm sure you could figure out creative ways to spew vitriol over Democrats who wish to prosecute this criminal administration. I mean, you don't really need prodding, do you?
Finally, thanks for the lesson on ad hominem attacks. I surmise that you bring this up since you feel that you would more likely win that argument, then that which precipitated this blog posting. I would just like to point out that this page has several instances of posters attacking Greenwald in order to discredit his argument, rather than combating the argument itself. Greenwald could be the biggest idiot on the planet -- and yes, even Wikipedia could say so -- but it would not change the fact that by definition, what was exercised here prior to your insightful statistical "analysis," were ad hominem attacks.
Oh, whoops!
All of the supposed polls cited by Greenwald do nothing to address Rob's point: that there are already 300 investigations going out there, and that Greenwald is a fool if he thinks that 350 or 400 of them will reach some magical tipping point where America starts to like Congress again.
How many will it take to make Democrats happy, hmm? 500 investigations?
700?
1000?
Just pick the precise number and tell us, and then finally, at long last, you will have addressed Rob's point and refuted it.
But until then, you are just going around in circles like a dog amused by its own tail.
[quote]Clearly it's easy to get you all worked up in a lather over all this,[/quote]Some sock puppet wanders by with a poll and WE'RE all lathered up? [b]Overwhelmingly[/b] is the word used by those lathered. Common sense and reality are what we're trying to use to hose you down!
[quote]attacking Greenwald in order to discredit his argument[/quote]Sorry! Greenwald [i]discredited himself[/i] with his shameless sock puppetry. At what point would I ever take him seriously again?
[quote]Greenwald could be the biggest idiot on the planet[/quote]We'll conclude with [i]your[/i] argument! (Unless you're vying for the position yourself?)
[quote]no one cited a single piece of evidence, poll, or anything else to support their claim that Americans [b][i]wants more investigations [/i][/b]and/or that Congress is [i][b]unpouplar due to not enough hearings ...[/b][/i][/quote]So why is it Glenn can proclaim one stance based on no evidence, but others cannot proclaim the opposite without evidence ???
What an idiot.
Welcome to ACTUAL reality for all those that adhere to their own unique community based reality.
Get that? 300 investigations="far too little"
And Glenn acknowledges he said that, so why are you defending him with a false claim?
Completely correct. It's Glenn who makes the claim that more investigations would improve Congress's approval rating.
He's the one who made the claim, it's up to him to prove he's right, not to others to prove he's wrong.
Rob merely pointed out that with more than 300 investigations launched already, this would to a normal person seem excessive, and why would more be expected to improve their popularity?
Excellent question that could use an answer from Glenn and his supporters. In any case, questions don't require proof to be asked, though the logical basis for the question (300+ investigations) is well established.
When that man wrote what he wrote onto paper, it could have had an exact meaning to him ("four corners of the earth"="entire earth"), even though he phrased it in terms of the cosmology of his time (where the writer really believed the Earth to be flat and to have four corners). The problem retrospectively is to divide out the scriptural message from the cultural context in which the words are framed.
This is easy enough to do if you are willing to use your eyes and your brain in assisting your interpretation of scripture, much harder if you are dogmatic about those words meaning today exactly what they meant then.
You are wrong. Saying that "they are investigating and obstructing far too little" is not the same as saying there are too few investigations. Greenwald's point is clear. It's not about the NUMBER of investigations its about the RESULTS. [b]If the Democrats in Congress had just ONE investigation but that one investigation managed to actually get the results the Democratic base wants they would be very happy with Congress.[/b]
No one in the Democratic side is saying they want more investigations because they want some specific number ("Don't stop until we have 500 investigations!"). That's silly. What they want are SPECIFIC RESULTS.
Here's the strange part. I suspect that if Rob had stopped and rewritten this slightly he and Greenwald would have actually agreed. It seems to me that what Rob was actually saying is that there is no lack of investigations and so, therefore, the problem lies elsewhere. And I think Greenwald would agree. He would say, IMO, that the investigations are either not investigating the right things or simply not doing a good job, or, more likely, a combination of both.
In the end, all this blustering obscures the real points. Several right-wing bloggers have made the point (not Rob I think but others have) that Congress is so unpopular because Americans don't like the fact they are investigating Bush. As Greenwald demonstrates that is false. Congressional approval has dropped because the Democratic base is unhappy with the results of the investigations and that Congress has not stopped Bush in Iraq. What they want is MORE EFFECTIVE investigations not simply more in number.
A separate argument is whether want the Democratic base wants is even possible, ie whether the Democrats in Congress have the power to stop Bush in Iraq or 'discover' impeacheable offenses. I suspect the answer is no to both. But that's another story.
Greenwald's follow-up post is not a concession that he was arguing for more investigations period (more investigations is consistent with what he said but not necessarily called for) he is taking you on on your underlying premise - that excessive partisan investigations are hurting the Democrats and pointing out that although the idea may appeal to you (it appeals to me too) the polls don't seem to bear that out. (At least the polls he selected - but I haven't seen anyone offer others.)
Ultimately, the investigations are probably hurting them because they are ineffective AND they are chasing down partisan bugaboos rather than focusing on the broader issues. Spending more time naysaying than getting anything positive accomplished.
He is left with arguing "well prove my assertion is wrong." Unfortunately that's a logical fallacy: If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove your position, not to ask others to disprove it for you.
If you read the whole article Greenwald's point is very clear. It's all about the RESULTS, not the number of investigations. If you still don't get it...
Well, that's a completely different debate, one on which I have offered no opinion. I am focusing on what Rob wrote in THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of this post. That's all.
As I wrote above I suspect that Rob and Greenwald would actually agree that the issue is not the number of investigations but the results. To some extent they are talking past each other.
To recapitulate:
1) Some conservative commentators have claimed that the reason Congress is so unpopular is that the investigations on Bush are unpopular. Greenwald clearly showed this to be false with supporting evidence from several polls.
2) In fact, the polls show that the reason Congress' popularity has fallen is that Democrats were expecting certain things they have not gotten. That's what Greenwald wrote about.
3) Rob appears to have misunderstood what Greenwald wrote and thought that Greenwald was saying that all Democrats cared about waas the NUMBER of investigations. Greenwald never wrote that. Greenwald made clear he was referring to the RESULTS. That could be accomplished with just one investigation, in principle.
That's OK, in less than 2 years we will have a Dem WH and Congress and we will begin the process of cleaning up the mess Bush and his supporters created.
:)
Oh,yes,the dems do have their socialism issues but they are not going over well either.