Propagandagate takes an interesting turn...

[SicTimMitchell]

Perhaps because they're the exact same three questions that were contained in a National Review Online piece that was linked on Fark yesterday?

[Relbeek Einre]

Wow. NRO sucks and Chants is lazy.

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak wrote:

Obviously GOPUSA itself wasn't giving donations. Why not put your investigative skillz to work and actually look at the people who ran it though? It was a small enough group.

Ddrak, I am not a mind reader. You asserted that there is some sort of collusion between the white house and Gannon. As factual support of this assertion you claimed that "GOPUSA makes huge donations to the GOP in Texas." But when I showed that GOPUSA really donanted little to nothing, you now say that you really meant the board members of GOPUSA made huge donations.

To answer your question as to why I do not investigate the board members donations, that's your job. If you feel that political donations are tantamount to collusion, then you can make that case. So far, you have not. Also, I do not beleive political donations are tantamount to collusion.

Ddrak continues:

As for your strange digression onto reporters having political bias, I posted links that were way more lucid than yours about that very subject.

If you beleive that the political bias of reporters is a digression, then why did you take the time to post links "on that very subject"? And exactly what is a "lucid link"? I am unclear on just how the adjective "lucid" applies to hyper-links.

The thing is though, you completely dodged my question: where did any of those reporters specifically say a party had "lost touch with reality" en masse?

Why is it that one must show that a reporter used the exact phrase "lost touch with reality" before one can argue that there are other reporters out there who [ab]use the press room in the same way Gannon did? Is that not what, in substance, you demanded? And if so, how is my effort to substantively comply with your demand a dodge?

Drak continues:

Mokhiber certainly isn't acting as a shill, just a regular old loony and none of the softball quotes you've dug up from Clinton even approach Gannon's consistant misquotes and mistruths.

I am not exactly claiming that Mokber is a shill. I am saying he is a looney making political speeches in the press room, just like Gannon. I posted those links to his speeches in an effort to substantively comply with your demands. And I do beleive that Mokhiber's questions are, in fact, every bit as misleading and disgraceful as Gannon's.

Ddrak finsihes:

Keep trying Chants. You'll vindicate Gannon soon, I'm sure.

I am not trying to vindicate Gannon. I am trying to show that there is no real scandal to Gannongate. Gannongate is nothing if there is no collusion between the white house and Gannon. So far, you have shown no collusion. Keep trying.


Relbeek wrote:

I like the so-called "softball questions" Chants dug up. (I'd found them myself earlier, trying to find any White House correspondent approaching the ridiculousness of Guckert.) Two of them are obviously trying to goad Clinton into making hostile remarks - "conspiracy", a widely derided term inside the main media, for example, or trying to get Clinton to turn on either of two people who remain to this day very loyal of his legacy. The third furthered a falsehood about Gore - that he claimed to have invented the Internet.

These aren't softball questions, kids. And the silly thing is, Clinton HAS been lobbed some softballs, so I don't know why Chants picked these.

Relbeek. If questioners pre-labels the "hard-core" substance of their questions as a "conspiracy," they have tossed softballs.

Relbeek continues:

Wow. NRO sucks and Chants is lazy.

As perhaps one of only a few conservatives on this board who makes a real effort make civil, cogent, and intelligent arguments, I can say that it takes a lot of time to do it. I do try do add and I do try to make my additions meaningful. But I do not have unlimited time. I do like you and I like this board, so I enjoy spening the time and effort necessary to make constructive comments and arguments.

But with all due respect, sir, by your labeling my efforts as "lazy" I feel you have gone too far.

[SicTimMitchell]

Try being a mean-spirited pragmatist, Chants. It's pretty hard, too.

Harlowe, it's you and me.

(Again, I consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Lots of formerly proud conservatives are in the same boat -- we got sold down the river by the usurption of the Christian right. Reagan wanted the government "off our backs." Me too.)

[Partha]

Chants, there's a problem with your thesis. Gannon was already determined to be 'not a journalist' by Congress when someone in the White House cleared him in to briefings. It was determined that Gannon was NOT a journalist as his primary source of income, which agrees with how Eberle characterizes it. He's also not a journalist because GOPUSA (once again, as characterized by Eberle) was not a news organization for the purposes of definition to gain a press pass. So now you have a person who's not a journalist who works for no news service getting a press pass not once, not twice, but on a regular basis for a minimum of two weeks before 'Talon News' goes live and then on a regular basis for two years after. Not only that, but he's getting called on regularly, which is not the norm, especially for small organizations.

Ari Fleicher, who was Press Secretary when Gannon first showed up, now publicly states that he stopped calling on Gannon because he was not sure Gannon was a 'real' reporter, but that he considered him a political operative. So who let him in?

[Relbeek Einre]

As perhaps one of only a few conservatives on this board who makes a real effort make civil, cogent, and intelligent arguments, I can say that it takes a lot of time to do it. I do try do add and I do try to make my additions meaningful. But I do not have unlimited time. I do like you and I like this board, so I enjoy spening the time and effort necessary to make constructive comments and arguments.

But with all due respect, sir, by your labeling my efforts as "lazy" I feel you have gone too far.

Touche, sir, touche. You and Sindarre are the only conservatives on this board whom I can reliably count upon to make intelligent posts. Others are spotty about it, or outright reliably insane in the membrane.

Relbeek. If questioners pre-labels the "hard-core" substance of their questions as a "conspiracy," they have tossed softballs.

I disagree. It sounded to me that the reporter was loading the question to draw Clinton into furthering a flamewar in the press. At the time the "right-wing conspiracy" brouhaha was in full force.

[Chants Evensong]

Sictimmitchell Advised:

Try being a mean-spirited pragmatist, Chants. It's pretty hard, too.

Anger and mean spiritedness comes too easy to most. Some wear it well; I do not. I know my limitations.

Partha, Congress did not determine Gannon to be "not a journalist." The differences between a hard pass and a daily pass have already been discussed.

[Ddrak]

Wow. I think Rsak has hacked Chants' account. That mess of quoting and semantics was a sight to behold.

I figured you intelligent enough to realize that a media company wouldn't give donations but the people behind it would. Obviously you're not that intelligent, or you're trying to play stupid semantics. I did rebut your statement however - I made the opposing statement that the people who comprised GOPUSA had significant links to the GOP. I can understand your unwillingness to look it up though - it would blow a big hole in your "zomg, u can't prove teh link" speech.

Honestly, it took me about 20 minutes to find the Eberle brothers (Bobby and Bruce) were both deeply involved in the official GOP and in fundraising for conservative campaigns, having raised close to a quarter billion dollars in the last 30 years. But naturally that sort of performance would never get noticed by the GOP, right?

What you seem to be claiming is that while the owners of GOPUSA have raised a quarter billion dollars for conservative causes, while they have been stunningly active in the Texas GOP leading all sorts of committees and statewide efforts even to the point of being state delegates, while Gannon rubbed shoulders with all sorts of GOP leaders at GOPUSA hosted conferences, while Eberle himself was calling the White House to complain about Gannon's original rejection on a hard pass, while even Media Matters was commenting that McClellan was turning to Gannon frequently to escape tough questions, there's no doubt in your mind that no one knew anything and they all had convenient amnesia of previous entanglements.

Sure Chants, sure.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak,

If you beleive that rickety bridge of connection exists, go out there an prove it, man.

[Ddrak]

No, Chants. You have to disprove it. That's how it works in an argument. People make assertions and provide facts supporting them. If someone does not like the assertion another is making, they try to disporve the facts supporting it.

Or are you a hypocrite that can't live by your own rules?

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

For the past 6 posts you have asserted that political donations are tantamount to collusion. You have provided no facts to support this assertion. Ergo, there are no facts for me to disprove.

[Ddrak]

No Chants, I haven't said donations are tantamount to collusion. If you're not going to bother even reading my posts when I laid out the facts for you then I don't see why your arguments actually deserve any serious recognition.

Like I said - you've been cherrypicking the easy and most dubious parts and claiming victory over everything from it. Bad form and bad arguing.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

If you have not argued that the donations from GOPUSA and its the board members mean something, then you have argued nothing.

[Ddrak]

Stop playing the fool and read what I wrote.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

If you can not make a cogent argument showing collusion between the White House and Gannon, then there probably is not one to articulate.

[Relbeek Einre]

Hm. I no longer feel bad about the "lazy" remark after that exchange. Bad form, Chants.

[Chants Evensong]

Honestly, it took me about 20 minutes to find the Eberle brothers (Bobby and Bruce) were both deeply involved in the official GOP and in fundraising for conservative campaigns, having raised close to a quarter billion dollars in the last 30 years. But naturally that sort of performance would never get noticed by the GOP, right? [/quote}

Ddrak is arguing that donations are tantamount to collusion. I have already stated that I do not accept this argument. Ddrak has even stated that this is not even his argument, although is actually is.

What you seem to be claiming is that while the owners of GOPUSA have raised a quarter billion dollars for conservative causes,

This is another donations are tantamount to collusion argument. However, Ddrak is claiming that this is not his argument.

while they have been stunningly active in the Texas GOP leading all sorts of committees and statewide efforts even to the point of being state delegates

The board members are politically active and interested in state politics. So what? Am I supposed to infer that there was collusion between the white house and Gannon because the board members of GOPUSA are interested in and participated in state politics? That's a rickety bridge.

while Gannon rubbed shoulders with all sorts of GOP leaders at GOPUSA hosted conferences,

Journalists, bad ones, good ones, and inbetween, rub shoulders with politicians all time. This is nothing new. This rubbing of shoulders does not show collusion betwen the white house and Gannon. If it did, then the white house press pool would be empty.

while Eberle himself was calling the White House to complain about Gannon's original rejection on a hard pass,

And Eberle's demand was rejected. This rejection of Eberle's demand is actually evidence of a lack of collusion, not evidence of collusion.

while even Media Matters was commenting that McClellan was turning to Gannon frequently to escape tough questions,

And I have provided links to many, many, many examples of when McClellan called on another marginally credentialed reporter (Mokhiber) who consistently asked hostile and in Ddraks own words, "loony," questions. Simply calling on Gannon does not show collusion. Reporters, good ones, bad ones, inbetween, friendly ones, and hostile ones all seem to be called upon on a consistent basis.

there's no doubt in your mind that no one knew anything and they all had convenient amnesia of previous entanglements.

Of course there is a doubt in my mind. There is a doubt in my mind that my car will not start the next time I get into it and turn the key. The question is whether there is a meaningful doubt. The answer is no.

If I must pick apart facially incorrect arguments to avoid the "lazy" label, then Relbeek, you ask too much, sir. And Ddrak's argument is on its face void of any evidence of collusion.

[Relbeek Einre]

You made the same argument of SBV, Chants, and it was just as wrong then as it is now. These are movers in shakers in the President's home state, you think there's no connection there? Bullshit.

I don't think you're lazy, but if you're going to be rudely dismissive of Ddrak, I feel less bad about having been the same towards you.

[Chants Evensong]

I have been senatorial in my treatment of Ddrak. That is because I find him intellgent, sober, knowing, and worthy of my respect.

The same cannot be said of his treatment of me. He has called me a fool, a hypocrite, and numerous other derisve adjectives. And his implication that I was dumb for not not following the football after he gamely changed his focus from the GOPUSA to its board members was just plain unfair. He has derided my entire apporach to this subject of collusion as a cheap debate tactic. The list of his being rude to me can go on and on.

Conversely, I have simply disagreed with him on this issue of collusion. I have not called him a fool, a hypocrite, pulled any stunts, or criticized his style.

I am here for a genuine exchange of ideas. I am looking for proof of collusion, and if it is found, I will pursure it aggressively.

But you are asking me to infer collusion based on the political activities of a pro-republican organization. If I did, I would have to condemn every politically active journalist
with access to the White House press pool. I am not prepared to do that.

[Chants Evensong]

Also, I made no such argument regarding the SBVT.