gasping at straws with this, uh, "late breaking news"...

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 08, 2005 08:02:33 ET XXXXX
CNN PRESIDENT HOLIDAYS IN NANTUCKET DURING NETWORK HURRICANE COVERAGE

CNN President Jonathan Klein spent last week on a posh island off Massachusetts while his network was down in the muck, covering Hurricane Katrina, the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS reports.

Reporter Lloyd Grove quotes a CNN rep: "Coverage plans for the hurricane were set before he left, and Jon was in constant contact with his deputies and CNN the entire time."

Klein has held the title of CNN president since November 2004.

Klein's holiday in Nantucket did not apparently hurt CNN in the ratings; the all-news network saw audience levels reach the highest levels in years, with host Aaron Brown even topping FOXNEWS one night last week in the demo.

and you just gotta love this....

Despite the rare Brown demo win, FOXNEWS still commands a wide lead over its competition.

Funny how he makes no mention of the President's vacation. You know, the guy who is supposed to look after these types of things instead of a private citizen whose network were essentially the first responders?

I can't wait for what the right wing slime machine will come up with next....

It could be very possible that he was being facetious and mocking everyone who is blaming Bush since he was on vacation while the hurricane hit.

So he's trying to equate the responsibilties of the President of the United States to those of an executive at CNN?

If you believe this is comparable, well then, you are an idiot of epic proportions. It is inarguable that Bush failed and failed miserably with Katrina and anybody who argues that this is a, you gotta love this, blame game is also, you guessed it, an idiot of epic proportions.

Imagine if this happened under Clinton's watch? You think the, "who me?" Republicans wouldn't rightfully be enraged? If you don't believe so, well then, I've got a bridge to sell you for cheap. Real, real cheap...

And yes, Bush's incompetence can not be argued here. End of ****in' story...

Drudge/Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin and the like appeal to the intellectual garbage of the country and attract them to the GOP. I think that's why the party has been going to hell for the last decade.

It's like a whole party full of nothing but Michael Moore's.

Supply side economics is their only religion.

Drudge/Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin and the like appeal to the intellectual garbage of the country and attract them to the GOP. I think that's why the party has been going to hell for the last decade.

It's like a whole party full of nothing but Michael Moore's.

Dont forget Michael Savage.

I like Malkin.

If you believe this is comparable, well then, you are an idiot of epic proportions. It is inarguable that Bush failed and failed miserably with Katrina and anybody who argues that this is a, you gotta love this, blame game is also, you guessed it, an idiot of epic proportions.

Imagine if this happened under Clinton's watch? You think the, "who me?" Republicans wouldn't rightfully be enraged? If you don't believe so, well then, I've got a bridge to sell you for cheap. Real, real cheap...

And yes, Bush's incompetence can not be argued here. End of ****in' story...

Now that's not debate, discussion, or anything even approaching it. How convenient. Just label anyone who disagrees as, let's see, "an idiot of epic proportions". I've heard better from 5 year olds.

Drudge/Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin and the like appeal to the intellectual garbage of the country and attract them to the GOP. I think that's why the party has been going to hell for the last decade.

It's like a whole party full of nothing but Michael Moore's.

Ah, the familiar sound of the "we're too smart to attract average voters" reasoning for why democrats lose elections.

Supply side economics is their only religion.

What the hell does that have to do with Matt Drudge's reporting standards? Are you trying to derail your own thread? We have a rule against baiting, here.

If you believe this is comparable, well then, you are an idiot of epic proportions. It is inarguable that Bush failed and failed miserably with Katrina and anybody who argues that this is a, you gotta love this, blame game is also, you guessed it, an idiot of epic proportions.


That's no way to foster intelligent debate. That's like saying everyone who opposes your viewpoint is a poopiehead.


Imagine if this happened under Clinton's watch? You think the, "who me?" Republicans wouldn't rightfully be enraged? If you don't believe so, well then, I've got a bridge to sell you for cheap. Real, real cheap...


That's a strawman. No one has said, "I bet Clinton would have failed miserably and I would complain a lot when he did." But you did a great job of knocking down that argument that no one ever presented.


And yes, Bush's incompetence can not be argued here. End of ****in' story...

The point Matt Drudge was trying to make is that just because Bush is on his ranch, that doesn't immediately mean that his emergency personel were unable to respond appropriately to the situation. We didn't elect our President so that he could be Hercules and do everything by himself without anyone's help. His job is to delegate authority and coordinate the efforts. That's something he's perfectly capable of doing from far away. (Although I do agree that he could have done a better job, and probably should have been there on the scene)

The point Matt Drudge was trying to make is that just because Bush is on his ranch, that doesn't immediately mean that his emergency personel were unable to respond appropriately to the situation. We didn't elect our President so that he could be Hercules and do everything by himself without anyone's help. His job is to delegate authority and coordinate the efforts. That's something he's perfectly capable of doing from far away. (Although I do agree that he could have done a better job, and probably should have been there on the scene)

Yes, he should have been there. If you reduce the whole thing to a political calculation, he had to balance being seen as inattentive and being seen as an attention hog. He waited too long.

Ah, the familiar sound of the "we're too smart to attract average voters" reasoning for why democrats lose elections.

Who said I was a Democrat? I just think that those sensationalist, reactionary, anti-intellectual, hysterical garbage radio & TV shows, blogs and articles have attracted the worst kind of trash into the party, and that's why the party has become such a mess. I never said I was a Democrat, and I never gave my opinion of their party.

Who said I was a Democrat? I just think that those sensationalist, reactionary, anti-intellectual, hysterical garbage radio & TV shows, blogs and articles have attracted the worst kind of trash into the party, and that's why the party has become such a mess. I never said I was a Democrat, and I never gave my opinion of their party.

Then why are making one of their favorite arguments for them? Would you have preferred I said "They're too smart to attract average voters?

Then why are making one of their favorite arguments for them?


Because I agree with one of their favourite arguments, if that's one of their favourite arguments. If it is, then I agree with them, and I think they're right about that. I think those shows, bloggers, and columnists happen to be trash. If the Democrats agree with me, then they and I agree with one another on that subject.

That doesn't mean I'm going to give up my right to independent though and sign up as a party member and become a blindly faithful cheerleader. If I were of the mind to do that, then I'd probably like those shows, bloggers, and columnists I'd mentioned earlier. That's what their market is, after all (which is how we got here in the first place.)

Because I agree with one of their favourite arguments, if that's one of their favourite arguments. If it is, then I agree with them, and I think they're right about that. I think those shows, bloggers, and columnists happen to be trash. If the Democrats agree with me, then they and I agree with one another on that subject.

That doesn't mean I'm going to give up my right to independent though and sign up as a party member and become a blindly faithful cheerleader. If I were of the mind to do that, then I'd probably like those shows, bloggers, and columnists I'd mentioned earlier. That's what their market is, after all (which is how we got here in the first place.)

So you agree that the democrat party is doomed to an existence as an elitist organization that despises the very people it needs to give it power?

So you agree that the democrat party is doomed to an existence as an elitist organization that despises the very people it needs to give it power?

Whoa. This is a twist worthy of Drudge or Limbaugh. I was talking about the Republican party, not the Democratic party.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Oh, and here's something good to watch.... (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/07.html#a4845)

Does anyone really give a crap about the president of CNN? I know I don't.

Agreed and thats the point of the thread.

And I have to apologize to those who I called idiots. Seems I have fallen to he Matt Drudge, partisan mentally which has done this country a great disservice. Though I still feel that this is mostly a conservative tactic (as this thread duly attests), no one is innocent.

Still, I feel this is a republican attribute to stand by their man no matter the circumstance and slander those who voice justifiable protest which I will forever feel is a moral, social and political disgrace.

And especially in this case here....

Whoa. This is a twist worthy of Drudge or Limbaugh. I was talking about the Republican party, not the Democratic party.

Work with me people, work with me. You wrote


Drudge/Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin and the like appeal to the intellectual garbage of the country and attract them to the GOP. I think that's why the party has been going to hell for the last decade.

It's like a whole party full of nothing but Michael Moore's.


That to me indicated an elitist attitude. With me so far? You indicated that you support that attitude, correct? You believe it to be true. I merely took it one step further and asked if you believe that the democrat party is doomed to existence as an elitist organization that despises the very people whose support it needs for power, because that's what that attitude says to me. I see no twist in that line, and since you insist you are not a democrat, you should have no problem agreeing.

Agreed and thats the point of the thread.

And I have to apologize to those who I called idiots. Seems I have fallen to he Matt Drudge, partisan mentally which has done this country a great disservice. Though I still feel that this is mostly a conservative tactic (as this thread duly attests), no one is innocent.

Still, I feel this is a republican attribute to stand by their man no matter the circumstance and slander those who voice justifiable protest which I will forever feel is a moral, social and political disgrace.

And especially in this case here....

Both sides do it equally.

I don't really look at American politics as "Left vs. Right". I look at it as "Crazy vs. Sane". And there are plenty of crazy people on the right wing and the left wing. They spend a lot of time making retarted statements about each other. It's up to us, the sane ones, to ignore the crazy people and take a more practical approach to forming public policy.

Don't let yourself get sucked in by the crazy people.

that is good advice...

That to me indicated an elitist attitude. With me so far? You indicated that you support that attitude, correct? You believe it to be true. I merely took it one step further and asked if you believe that the democrat party is doomed to existence as an elitist organization that despises the very people whose support it needs for power, because that's what that attitude says to me. I see no twist in that line, and since you insist you are not a democrat, you should have no problem agreeing.

What?!@?!?!

Okay, since you think I have an 'elitist attitude', and am not a Democrat, that must mean that I think Democrats are an 'elitist' organization? How the hell do you get there?

Also, attitudes aren't true or not true. I don't "believe it [ an 'elitist' attitude ] to be true." Attitudes aren't facts, or even opinions. How can an attitude be true?