READER COMMENTS ON
"Scottie Takes a Break from Lying about Rove to Lie about Terrorism..."
(15 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 7/12/2005 @ 5:40 pm PT...
I've got an idea.
What McClellan is doing when he responds is getting audit inputs.
His responses are not connected to the questions; and it doesn't look as though he's reviewing paper-copy of the information.
Here's the idea
Is there a way to have a live-audio-blog feed back and forth between "our man" and the public commentary on this blog so that we can instantly spread through the blackberries inside the WHite House Press corps the following:
A. Questions related to the misleading or dubious responses
B. Real follow-up questions to the non-sense, but from other people also connected up to the same audio-blogging two-way system
C. And some live feedback that the press can interject into their questions to give their questions a "blog feel" kind of tone when asking the questions.
At this juncture, it's all well and interesting to read the daily give and take between the 4th Esatate and the Estate of Denial, but I'd like to inrease the pressure on the audio-feed person.
Remember, we're not talking to a real person here. McCLellan is just a robot. To defeat his line, the poeple who are feeding him informatoin need to get tripped up so that they can't possibly give him information fast enough.
Remember the goal: It is to make them lose. Go after the monkeys who are talking in McClellan's ear. They are monkeys, but their wings are melting.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 7/12/2005 @ 5:43 pm PT...
Braaaaaddddddd!!!!!! Good to hear from you. I thought you would be twitching by now, what with all of the Rove stuff breaking. Please tell WP it's time to let you off the leash, in the opinion of one reader.... I am missing you... if you still need the time off, I can understand... but, tell WP to be careful not to turn the Blog-a-thon's denial of Brad's rights into a Phyrric victory.... YOU are the reason we are here, and that we come back. (No insult intended to your dedicated Blog-a-thon organizers.....hope you and they and you understand where I am coming from here.......)
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 7/12/2005 @ 9:37 pm PT...
Question for Scottie McClelland that will guarantee his getting annoyed:
Do you think Bush stole the election??????????
That question will get him doing facial contortions for hours!!!
Keep shaking up the neo-cons!
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 7/13/2005 @ 1:37 am PT...
Which has more ability to make a change?
Hammering the Whitehouse about Rove's outing of Plame...
Hammering the Whitehouse about the documents that indicate Bush lied us all in to war (The DSM documents).
Hammering the Whitehouse about the plethora of election fraud issues, especially in Ohio.
Seems to me... Attacking the Rove story is the least likely of the 3 to eliminate Bush and the neocons... with the Rove story... they can just demote Rove whilst allowing him to secretly remain "Bush's Brain" from the shadows.
This can be defused by sacrificing Rove. The DSM's and election fraud make the difference from the top down (rather than a layer or two below)
Just food for thought. Any attack on Rove is better than no attack... so I'm not bitching!!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 7/13/2005 @ 2:44 am PT...
Valley Girl #2-
Little hard not to take some insult from your words, however well intended, and more for Brad sake than for ours. None of us, for a moment, thought we were replacing Brad in the eyes of Bradbloggers. What we did hope was that Bradbloggers would be moved enough by this event, honoring Brad, to recognize that Brad's efforts here and elsewhere are very important AND HE CAN'T DO THEM FOR FREE. I think that sometimes when people hear all the pitches for money they think that someone else is paying and that everything is hunky-dorry. Having spent 3 months of my life and more than a few dollars to help get this event off the ground, I now see how hard it is for people like Brad to get people to pay for what they say he provides for them. I will say, with sadness, that, for the time spent by some of us on this project, we could have gotten a minimum wage job and earned a lot more money for Brad the past couple of months. The money spent by some of us to put this event and the Store together would probably have earned more money for Brad if we'd just given it to him instead. Why is that?!!
This event was held over an extra day for one reason and one reason only, to try and earn a few more measly dollars for Brad. I'm sure he could use the extra time as well. I certainly don't speak here for Brad or for anyone else but it does disappoint me. Those of you who gave money during the event (and there weren't that many) or who give to Brad regularly, know who you are. We, and I'm sure Brad, sincerely thank you. Those of you who come to this blog more than rarely and who didn't donate during the Blogathon or who haven't donated what you can in the past, you also know who you are.
Please people, don't take this BENEFIT for granted or you'll lose it.
Sorry, but I had to say this. I'll try to keep my mouth shut now.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 7/13/2005 @ 3:48 am PT...
It's a tough time of the year, remember. People are on vacation, hustling their kids off to day camp, coping with heat and hurricanes, generally easing off.
Air America doesn't reach me in Connecticut. That's part of the problem. One of the wealthiest areas of the country, with a fair amount of liberal thinkers (we're a blue state, remember), yet Brad's show isn't on. I suspect the same is true of New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey.
Another problem is that professionals have so dominated the fund-raising landscape in recent years that the public has become satiated. I was always a "giver"; now my name has been sold so many times, and I get so many solicitations, that I simply ignore them. I gave to one police benevolent organization last year, and have gotten phone calls from 11 others since.
When it's "about money," it's sometimes hard to separate the good guys from the bad guys because of professional fund raisers who work on a percentage. But keep asking, nicely. Gently. It will improve, I promise. Someone will leave a chunk of money in a will. A major revelation (like Karl Rove) will focus new attention on the blogosphere. From an increase in mere numbers, more money will come in naturally.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 7/13/2005 @ 8:34 am PT...
#5 Steve, Thanks for your comments.
I have another view. If someone's blog is or isn't here isn't keeping others from blogging. Thus, when you say, "don't take this BENEFIT for granted or you'll lose it.". . . I couldn't disagree more: There's nothing here that cannot be looked at independently on other blogs.
Brad just makes it easier. But I don't agree that the information will be lost, rather just harder to find. Someone else, as with all change, will fill in the gap. When we remove our hand from a bucket of water, the water fills in the space.
Take my blog: I don't advertise and don't raise funds. I do my own thing. If Brad wants to raise money that's his own thing. But whether money is raised or not isn't going to affect whether I continue to my work. If others have another approach, or want to do it better, there's nothing stopping them from spending their own time setting up their own blog.
I don't blog for the public; I blog for me. If someone wants to read my stuff and like it, great; if not, that's great. To remain silent is the greatest crime, especially when we have the Constitution that protects that right.
Unless you know of something that is going to make that go away. So when someone says, ". . . or you will lose it. . ." I kind of think, "I still have my constitution, and my blog; whether Brad chooses to continue or not doesn't mean the Constitution or my rights to free inquiry are gone.
If someone wants to threaten to "not exercise their rights to inquiry unless they get paid," I take a serious look at that: Is that really someone I want to be associated with?
Moreover, what's going to happen next time: More implied threats of "I'm not going to blog unless . . ." Fine. Stop blogging.
At this juncture, based on what you've said and the implied loss of some intangile unless I act, I'm less inclinced to care. I don't have to do anything.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 7/13/2005 @ 11:15 am PT...
An interesting reply, most of which I agree with.
However I would quarrel with this--"I don't blog for the public; I blog for me."--- That seems unrealistic. You do blog for the public, otherwise you would just go to the shore and scribble in the sand and let the surf wash it away.
I write on these sites with hope of being read and having my thoughts assimilated and added onto the body of information available to effect some beneficial change while more realistically expecting to be ignored. I do not get paid for that so what is it worth in a society that values things based on a price tag affixed? I get the feel that we agree on that.
So when Steve #5 says ---"AND HE CAN'T DO THEM FOR FREE", in regard to Brad's efforts-- I would also quarrel. And Steve you do Brad a disservice by that suggestion.
I am of the opinion that Brad, Constant, you and I and many others on this and others on threads and "Letters to editor" do what we do because we believe we must, whatever be the costs in terms of money or frustration. There are no pedestals for us to stand on.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 7/13/2005 @ 9:41 pm PT...
Ooo, ooo, Mr. McClellan, why won't you comment on Mr. Rove when Senators Dole, Coleman, Spectre, Hatch, and Santorum feel free to?
Follow-up question: Will you ask them and other members of the Republican party to help the
investigation and refrain from commenting?"
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 7/14/2005 @ 7:18 am PT...
Everything costs money.
Time, effort, research, work= money.
So, sure, we could say "Brad WANTS to do this", so let him do it on his own dime. The point is he's not doing it on a lark or because it's fun. This country has been hijacked by lawless, brutal, greedy, conscienceless thugs & is being bled dry while the media & Congress let it happen. THAT'S why he's doing it, imho, and he could use a little help.
So those who can, please donate. Those who can't, can't, no blame.
And those who don't get the bloody fucking POINT,
*sigh* Jesus-in-a-jar it just makes me tired contemplating the thickness of your head.
whatever be the costs in terms of money or frustration
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 7/14/2005 @ 8:16 am PT...
Sorry, that last line on my last post:
"whatever be the costs in terms of money or frustration"
was a quote from comment #8, which I had intended to work into my little rant there but got distracted & forgot about. hehe.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 7/14/2005 @ 8:39 am PT...
btw, re my #10,
that reminds me, where are ya, Teresa?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 7/14/2005 @ 12:21 pm PT...
I am very disappointed to see the comments made by Constant #7 and also by something Cole #8 said regarding the importance of our public funding of Bradís work.
I have chosen Brad to be a Representative of my voice in these days of MSM blackout. He has made contact with very important people and groups who are leaders of the causes I support. He has made numerous trips across the country in order to attend very important meetings and conferences on my behalf (and yours.) He made some of those trips back during the winter when he really should have stayed in bed because he had a bad case of flu at the time. I really appreciate what he did for me and I hope you do as well.
Constant #7 said, ďThere's nothing here that cannot be looked at independently on other blogs.Ē --- I disagree. For one thing we know Brad is reporting with sincerity and honesty and I believe he picks up stories that you cannot always find ďon other blogs.Ē
Constant #7 said, ďBrad just makes it easier. But I don't agree that the information will be lost, rather just harder to find. Someone else, as with all change, will fill in the gap. When we remove our hand from a bucket of water, the water fills in the space.Ē Wow. I canít believe you said that! It sounds like you are marginalizing Bradís work and saying something like, ďOh gee. Who really cares.Ē Well, I care and I donít agree with this statement.
Brad not only maintains this blog and regularly digs deep to find stories we arenít finding anywhere else, but does a lot of work keeping the umbrella site VelvetRevolution.US active and alive and on top of all that, manages to find excellent guests to interview every week on the BradShow. There arenít very many individuals (if any) who have involved themselves on this level in our behalf. And one more thing: We Do Not want to LOSE a single one of our most important voices. We have had little to no radio or reporting voices in MANY YEARS. Please donít work against this one Ė we must support each and every voice we have.
Constant #7 said, ďIf someone wants to threaten to "not exercise their rights to inquiry unless they get paid," I take a serious look at that: Is that really someone I want to be associated with?Ē Who are you quoting? Nobody on this page said the words you have in quotes. I think you have misinterpreted Steveís comments. Why are you bent so out of shape over a request for donations? Bradbloggers have made so many rallying comments on threads for many months. Steve was disappointed we didnít have that many offering even a small donation to the one theyíve been rallying for in past comments. You are new here, so maybe it would take more research on your part to understand it all.
Constant #7 said, ďMoreover, what's going to happen next time: More implied threats of "I'm not going to blog unless . . ." Fine. Stop blogging.Ē Really. Constant Ė I have enjoyed reading your comments on John Conyersí site and here, until this scathing and unwarranted attack on Steve. This I donít like and it makes me wonder where you are actually coming from.
Cole #8 said, ďSo when Steve #5 says ---"AND HE CAN'T DO THEM FOR FREE", in regard to Brad's efforts-- I would also quarrel. And Steve you do Brad a disservice by that suggestion.Ē Brad is paying for everything he does for all of us out of his own pocket. The BradShow studio alone costs $500 a week. Add that to the other costs (as Joan noted in comment #10, ďEverything costs money. Time, effort, research, work = money.Ē) I TOTALLY AGREE. Steve also made it clear in his comment #5 that, ďI certainly don't speak here for Brad or for anyone else but it does disappoint me.Ē So, how does this do Brad a disservice?
Come on folks, letís pull together & stop this bickering and start supporting our Free Speech Fighters.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 7/14/2005 @ 12:23 pm PT...
Darn. Free Speech Fighters might be taken another way --- I mean support those who fight for our Free Speech. (I'm sure y'all knew what I meant, but I do try to be clear.)
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 7/16/2005 @ 10:29 pm PT...
You said everything I wanted to say but was too burnt out/incoherent to do so.
John Conyers has endorsed this blog for good reason: he recognizes Brad for the dedicated, honest, hard-working patriot that he is.
Guess it takes one to know one.
But you're right, Kira, sorry...I'll stop contributing to the bickering now!