Last weekend’s Obamedia blitz bypassed Fox News; Chris Wallace describes these thin-skinned, the personal is the political Obamacrats as crybabies.
Oh, what’s that you say? Just the WH bypassing nazi, racist, teabagging FauxNews? Well, (via Dan Collins) it seems Saddam’s favorite network CNN is now get the snit fit treatment from the White House.
A White House senior adviser was scheduled to appear on CNN’s “American Morning” this week, but the White House rescinded the offer after the network booked author Christopher Andersen. Andersen’s new book “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage,” is out today. [...]During her interview with Anderson this morning, CNN’s Kiran Chetry said, “We reached out to the White House for a response to the book. They declined comment and made it known that they weren’t happy. In fact, they pulled an interview they had with a senior adviser once they learned you were on the show.”
Jack Cashill finds an especially delicious nugget about that book
Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published — just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams. With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from “his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.”To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members. Andersen writes, “These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.” Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.”
You all may remember when Jeff G first presented, with no personal conclusion at the time, Cashill’s investigation into whether or not Ayer’s ghost-wrote Obama’s Dreams. It created quite a stir and a follow-up post.
The Legacy poodle media was so determined to be a part of history rather than just report on it, they refused to do even minimal vetting and now finding out the “real” Obama.
Thus grief still treads upon the heels of pleasure:
Married in haste, we may repent at leisure.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 8:06 am #
HA!
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 8:08 am #
But Darleen, Bill Ayers is just some guy from the neighborhood that Barack Obama barely knew.
Even though he launched his political career.
And the rumors he edited Dreams of My Father(s) are turning out to be true.
If the Birthers dropped that issue and spent more on Obama’s connections to Ayers, the Chicago Machine, and his college records, we would be better off. Those are the unreported scandals.
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 8:10 am #
If Ayers really did write Obama’s book, think of the leverage that gives him over Obama. Wright got thrown under the bus without hesitation, but Ayers, Obama was very careful in how he distanced himself from Ayers.
Comment by Jeff on 9/24 @ 8:23 am #
The number of people that have something on Obama is scary. He must live in fear of the day one of them decides to put the squeeze on him. Between, Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dorn and his wife.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 8:41 am #
Now, if only some enterprising mass media type (O’Reilly, Rush, Levin, Hannity, are you guys listening?) would get this author and Cashill together at once; the resulting paired interview might prove to be verrrry interesting indeed…
In “Dreams of Bob Reed”, one of the WH press reporters, like Tapper or Garrett, asks Gibbs about this; and Gibbs lapses into a, “Hamenah, Hamenah, Hamenah”, routine that would make Jackie Gleason porud…
I mean, people have to have dreams, right? Or is this more of an out-and-out fantasy?
And, I wonder if O!prah will make sure that this ghost writing revalation is included in her book club descripion of the won’s biographies(’cuz it’s no longer proper to describe them as autobiographies)?
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/24 @ 8:50 am #
I think Ahmadinejad ghost writes for alphie.
Comment by DarthRove on 9/24 @ 8:55 am #
alphie’s got a hard-on for the 12th imam?
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 8:58 am #
Most people consider Faux News the Right’s comedy network, not a real news outlet.
Obama’s just recognizing that fact.
You guys need to find your Jon Stewart.
Comment by Eben on 9/24 @ 9:01 am #
Except, of course, this topic is about CNN…
On the ball again snotcone!
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:02 am #
Ted’s Last Hurrah, a ghost story.
Comment by Jeff G on 9/24 @ 9:02 am #
“Most people consider,” therefore, you must, too.
Snowcone: tyranny in a little paper cup.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 9/24 @ 9:03 am #
And yet, Faux has not presented “fake, but accurate” documents concerning a sitting president, unlike the “real News.”
Comment by Jeff G on 9/24 @ 9:03 am #
Somebody please forward Cashill’s latest to SEK. Tell him that it’s beginning to look like all the unsavory things I believe about Obama are moving beyond the realm of the purely hypothetical.
Comment by Jeff G on 9/24 @ 9:04 am #
Then call him a liar.
Oh, and Patterico, too. Fuck all of them.
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 9/24 @ 9:06 am #
New talking point: Ayers is now a respected professor. He was a Chicago citizen of the year. All this concern about his supposed extremism and terrorism is crazy, just crazy.
Comment by Jeff G on 9/24 @ 9:08 am #
And I mean that. Fuck. All. Of. Them.
It’s liberating being away from the pseudo-intellectual link whores on each side of the increasingly seedy blog world — people who, when all is said and done, care more about their own online reputations and personas than they do about this country.
And away I go…
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 9:12 am #
I am not surprised the White House acts this way with networks, nor that this was done with the book. It does not appear that Mr. Obama has ever had to struggle with something, nor has had the reality of setback, at anytime in his life.
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 9:18 am #
Jeff, always a pleasure to see one of your verbal actions. You are like a Special Forces team. In the shadows, then boom you are there and then you are gone again.
You might check out what R.S. McCain is dealing with. LGF and the lizoid minions are calling him a white supremacist racist over an alleged (aka made up) slight to Tom and Helen Willis. It is amazing how LGF and CJ’s slander tactics mimic those of some other blogger.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 9:21 am #
Obama has [n]ever had to struggle with something, nor has had the reality of setback, at anytime in his life.
You said it.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 9:22 am #
Yeah, but did you hear Glenn Beck murdered a frog? Huh? Where’s the post about that, haters?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 9:25 am #
HA!
HA!
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 9:28 am #
I once bought frogs in Saigon. The frog lady had a basket of live ones. The frog lady cleaned, gutted, and skinned them for me while I waited. No heads either. They looked dead. When I threw those skinless, headless frogs in the hot pan they jumped right out! I had to slam the lid down to keep those little hoppers in the pan. They were delicious though. I sauted them with garlic, ginger and lemon grass.
That Beck is a faker! You cannot trust him.
Comment by Gary on 9/24 @ 9:29 am #
1000% agreance Jeff, Fuck all of them and please come back…we need your voice again!!!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 9:29 am #
“Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 8:58 am #
Most people consider Faux News the Right’s comedy network, not a real news outlet.”
Most people consider you a retarded marmoset, and sit and laugh at your “comments”.
And laugh and laugh and laugh.
Three hours later, when they recall your total and complete inanity, they start giggling at the stupidity of your “comments”.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 9:29 am #
Not even with your dick, buddy. But, yeah. A hack is a hack is a hack is a hack. Not worth the attention.
Too bad that isn’t just the blog world. It’s high time we call bullshit, en masse.
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 9:44 am #
Except, of course, this topic is about CNN…
First line of this post: “Last weekend’s Obamedia blitz bypassed Fox News“
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 9/24 @ 9:50 am #
Other sentences: Learn to read them.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 9/24 @ 9:52 am #
Yeah I think calling this guy a “good man” can go the way of the do-do. Same with not indoctrinating children in public school, not using government agencies to push the political policies of one party, and having the President be President of America and not just the slice of it that aggrees with him on everything. Well Michelle did say we would be forced to do away with the “childish” things of our past so there it is.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 9:52 am #
“First line of this post: “Last weekend’s Obamedia blitz bypassed Fox News“”
Truly, you are the mostest gifted retarded marmoset in the whole wide world.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 9:53 am #
This little country is sinking into a perverted dirty socialist oblivion to where your reputation is sort of the only thing what you can be at all responsible for anymores. Lost lost all is lost. At the very least we are changed. We are become common.
Comment by DarthRove on 9/24 @ 9:53 am #
And you wonder why people think you’re a moron when you fail to exhibit basic reading skills?
Try reading the rest of the post, and you might have a clearer picture of the topic. Or to put it in snark, “You missed the point, and I don’t mean the one under your hat.”
Hint: the orange bits in Jeff G’s first comment give some good background.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 9:55 am #
Man, though, if these keeps up Obama will only appear on MSNBC and BET.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 9:56 am #
You can also be responsible for your tasty mint, which is thriving. Mojitos are the future.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 9/24 @ 9:56 am #
You forgot NPR.
Comment by Eben on 9/24 @ 9:56 am #
ignorance on parade
Comment by Mr. Pink on 9/24 @ 10:00 am #
Ayers just being “some guy in my neighborhood” will just be another lie unreported on in what we call our “media”. Same with 50 other things that should be and have been blazing red flags. Whatever, my only condolence is that when the jackboots are passed out I will be handed a pair.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 10:05 am #
ou can also be responsible for your tasty mint, which is thriving. Mojitos are the future.
Oh yea!
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:06 am #
Did the Corsican mint do well for you Carin?
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 10:07 am #
Mark Steyn on Rush.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 10:08 am #
I still didn’t get it, Sdferr. I want to put in in a rock garden around my Veggie garden . I have the raised beds, but we haven’t gotten the rocks yet. It really is the perferct place for it …
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:10 am #
the perferct place for it …
‘cept for that winter-time thing ya got going up there, I’m thinking.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 10:11 am #
You don’t think it’s hardy up here? My regular mint is.
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 10:19 am #
I think the message is clear here. Don’t say anything negative about Teh One or you will lose your access to him and his minions.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:19 am #
Corsica
Michigan
mmmph, I’d take a chunk indoors just to be safe.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:27 am #
Carin, a quick search yielded this.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 10:42 am #
Guys - it is time to put this version of the TTP away. As much fun as a round or two of tether-troll is - and I do enjoy it - all of the fun is out of it.
It knows nothing about law (of any kind) economics, military history, military anything, or human behavior and motivation. The answers are predictible without being entertaining. Don’t respond to it - don’t get stuck on stupid.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 10:44 am #
Chris Wallace hit the nail on the head in describing them. Thin-skinned is a misunderestimation of epic proportions.
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 10:50 am #
In six weeks there will be gubernatorial elections in New Jersay and Virginia. If Christie beats Corzine (likely) and McDonnell beats Deeds (fairly likely), the lesson to other Democrats will be to flee The Won, as these elections have become as much about him as the candidates.
At that point, he’s going to have a hard time getting his statist agenda enacted.
And even if he is partially successful, well, we’ve seen his kind before. When you consider his domestica agenda, his grasping for power, his corruption of political institutions, his elitist holier-than-thou attitude, well, there he’s another Woodrow Wilson. Internationally, he’s another Jimmy Carter, distrusting America, cozying up to degenerates, preferring dictatorships to democracies because that’s the way he’d like to rule. Not govern, mind you, but rule.
Well, both the domestic and international agendas are recipes for disaster, for him perssonally, for his administration, and for the country as a whole. Thing is, as Norman Chu has remarked, Americans react to know-it-all, look-down-the-nose elitists the way teenagers react to parental authority: they misbehave. Of course, the analogy falls short, in that in this case the misbehavers have votes, and guns.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 11:08 am #
I wonder whether the White House is in a snit because they can’t get more definitive information in this case?
“How many fellows in this cell?” they could ask.
“We don’t know.” comes back the answer.
“What were they planning?” the WH might ask.
“We don’t know that either.” answer the kinder gentler interrogators on the job.
“But we’ll get to the bottom of this before people are killed, right?”
“Well, maybe not.”
Comment by LTC John on 9/24 @ 11:47 am #
“tyranny in a little paper cup”
Jeff, you have just coined quite the phrase for your site’s troll squad. That, or a new bloghead for some of the Soros funded blogs.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/24 @ 11:53 am #
must be why they have twice as many viewers as their nearest competition…
or do we have different definitions of “most” or “people”?
Comment by DarthRove on 9/24 @ 11:59 am #
Snowcone embodies the 21st century version of the Pauline Kael fallacy: “How did Nixon get elected? Nobody I know voted for him!”
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 12:20 pm #
Obama: the Wilson/Carter Fusion
I like it, I like it.
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 12:30 pm #
must be why they have twice as many viewers as their nearest competition…
Sure they do, maggie.
Is FNC king of the sewer that is cable “news?”
Yes, but Fox’s highest rated show, Bill O’Rierlly, only gets about 3 million viewers a night (the same 3 million who tune into Limbaugh each day?).
Even poor little Katy Couric draws 5 million a night, ABC and NBC doing much better.
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 12:35 pm #
Unfortunately FauxNewz has twice as many viewers as other cable news networks. The big boys are still quite a bit ahead.
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 12:42 pm #
Meaning I wish they had more viewers.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/24 @ 12:42 pm #
so, you’re saying cable news… isn’t?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 12:44 pm #
Guys - drop the lamprous troll.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 12:45 pm #
If Fox is so insignificant, why do they scare you so?
Comment by DarthRove on 9/24 @ 12:45 pm #
Yeah, but those are either old people who still think the Alphabets have respectability or people who left the TV on so the cat’s entertained.
And since Snowcone is into the social math equations, here’s one:
Old people + Obama = dead old people
Comment by Freedoms Truth on 9/24 @ 12:48 pm #
“Most people consider Faux News the Right’s comedy network, not a real news outlet.”
The ‘most people’ that reside in your head are intolerant narrow-minded twerps, as are you for thinking this irrelevency worthy of repeating.
Here’s comedy for you: Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s “Dreams of My Father” and the entire lamestream MSM hasn’t clued in on it … Jeez, that’s like that line from Austin Power “Liberace gay? I had no idea!”
Comment by Freedoms Truth on 9/24 @ 12:49 pm #
“Yeah, but those are either old people who still think the Alphabets have respectability or people who left the TV on so the cat’s entertained.”
I think its been reduced to old people who lost the remote under the seat cushion and cant change the channel to something less painful to watch.
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 12:50 pm #
No, cable news is news, but it isn’t where most people get their news. Most are still watching the big three.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 12:52 pm #
i’ve fallen and i can’t get up
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/24 @ 12:55 pm #
oh, sorry, wasn’t addressing you, cranky. I understand that. I’m just curious what the paper cup tyrant uses for nicknames for CNN and MSNBC and whether they’re also comedy or some other form of entertainment. maybe horror?
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 12:55 pm #
In Obama’s America, that means it’s time for you to die. So get to it!
Comment by Ric Locke on 9/24 @ 12:57 pm #
I fleshed that out a bit.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by cranky-d on 9/24 @ 12:57 pm #
#65
I thought you might have meant someone else after I hit “Say it,” but it was too late. I have them all TrollHammered anyway, so I only know what they’re saying by what others are saying about them.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/24 @ 1:02 pm #
yeah, I only have trollhammer at home…
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:06 pm #
i.m-miraculously -up!
thank u death squad people..
viva viagra!
Comment by TheGeezer on 9/24 @ 1:07 pm #
The rubberistiest frog I ever seen!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:09 pm #
dear death squad leader
that wasn’t a stumble
’twas a jig..
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 1:11 pm #
Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s “Dreams of My Father”
Sure he did.
Just because some tabloid hack repeats a Right-wing rumor don’t make it true.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:12 pm #
wasn’t a faint
’twas a feint…
stay away from my lucky charms
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 1:21 pm #
“#
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 1:11 pm #
Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s “Dreams of My Father”
Sure he did.
Just because some tabloid hack repeats a Right-wing rumor don’t make it true.”
OH TEH IRONY IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!!!11!!11!eleventy!!!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:23 pm #
wife swap
michelle and bernadine
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 1:24 pm #
Well I am pretty sure Bobbie Orr did not write Dreams of My Father(s). Bill Ayers? Good possibility he did participate.
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 1:27 pm #
pdbuttons, I thought on wife swap the wives were supposed to contrast one another.
For wife swap with Michelle O., I would make this modest suggestion.
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 1:29 pm #
Michelle and Bernadine. Same vs. Same.
Michelle and Exiled Staffer. Old vs. Young. Fireworks.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:32 pm #
Y’ALL right- i sometimes hit say it then it be said
how about
michelle and sarah
Comment by Barrack Milhouse Obama on 9/24 @ 1:33 pm #
Fuck that! I mean, Michelle just looks scary.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:33 pm #
or my wife and sarah?
(sorry honey)
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:36 pm #
honeydew doesn’t like fishing
i like fishing
really..sorry honey [big grin-score!)
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/24 @ 1:39 pm #
*trying to imagine Michelle and pdbuttons*
2 people enter… only one wookie leaves.
sorry, pd.
Comment by Rick Behenna on 9/24 @ 1:39 pm #
I apologize for the off topic post!
I am Rick Behenna the uncle of 101st Airborne Ranger 1LT Michael C. Behenna refered to in the thread “Prosecuting Terrorist Slayers” located about 2-3 pages back.
Donald asked me to post some thoughts and notify.
So I did.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:41 pm #
if the room is oval there goes my
“hiding in the corner” strategy…
speak well of me…
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 1:57 pm #
Thanks Rick B.
I will review your comments and no need to apologize.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 1:58 pm #
golfing.. u like golfing right honey…?
wife swap tiger woods…’
’tis win win!
Comment by JHo on 9/24 @ 1:59 pm #
Snowy just proved Jeff’s assertion about progg mendacity. Probably without even reading it.
Lock, stock, and diversionary narrative.
Comment by Frontman on 9/24 @ 2:03 pm #
“honeydew doesn’t like fishing
i like fishing”
pd’s wife says its me or the boat
im gonna miss that girl
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 2:08 pm #
row row row ur gloat..
ossifer/ the wind whipped/ the ship dipped…
on our three hour tour….
our 3 hour tour
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 2:11 pm #
coconut radio help…dot dot dot..
hey maryanne..
nice biscuits…
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 2:12 pm #
bobby orr
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 2:41 pm #
thirsty bats are thirsty
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 2:47 pm #
thursday thirsty bots hover
friday freak document dump has cover…
saturday/ in the park…wish it was…
everyday is like sunday…
grease tea 4 me…
mnday monday
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 2:48 pm #
don cherry
not a pie
the suits are colorful
and the collars high
(for pd buttons)
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 2:49 pm #
Sour Grapes is usually pretty funny.
Comment by Frontman on 9/24 @ 2:54 pm #
Moby Grape rocks.
OK, I’ll stop now.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 2:57 pm #
grapes high on the napes
fat elvis threads make mouth agape
taking care of biz
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 3:01 pm #
the fat elvis swore
the shelly fabres no more…
ann magaret score!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 3:04 pm #
ann margeret twists
make me unclench my 2 fists
that is so sick!
ha!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 3:05 pm #
bobby orr fuck heads!
Comment by Abe Froman on 9/24 @ 3:07 pm #
OT: and not Grapey, but angry beta males and the homely girls who lurv them show the teabaggers how teabagging is done.
The left is the gift that keeps on giving.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 3:42 pm #
what’s with bobby orr?
that guy could play hockey!
right ron mclean?
i give you your opinions.
play hockey hard
and be generous like timmy
just don’t drive fast
when it is all slick and rainy
BURMA SHAVE!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:13 pm #
i’ve been drooling on this site for about
a year and whenever i get three comments in a row i say bobby orr..
for the fun..
then some wisenhiemmer started tommy herr..
all in good fun
waiting ur witty response
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:16 pm #
ur sick MTH
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 4:19 pm #
pdb, is hot tonight
whoa so hot tonight
but where will he be tomorrow?
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:24 pm #
everybodies workin’ for the weekend
qouth loverboy
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:26 pm #
pdb, is hot tonight
whoa so hot tonight
but where will he be tomorrow?
In Canada it is hokey night.
ur sick MTH
pdbuttons says
all in fun
on this thursday
BURMA SHAVE!
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:26 pm #
Those lyrics make me think of mullets.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:28 pm #
lamprous trolls
i keed, i keed
can’t beat butter rolls
a dinner need
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:29 pm #
tomorrow,and tomorrow,and tomorrow
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:30 pm #
If I look up Burma Shave in urbandictionary.com, am I going to barf?
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:32 pm #
if music is be the food of love
wax on/wax off
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:32 pm #
My apologies to all, especially the inestimable pdbuttons.
I like to laugh and jest.
And pdbuttons is the best.
His little rhymes are here.
But we’ll keep your chin clear.
Burma Shave.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:33 pm #
No JD. It is pre-WWII roadside advertising using little jingles on a series of signs for a brand of shaving cream.
I am not that old, but I remember a lot that I see and read.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:34 pm #
wax on/wax off
make tender areas red?
ladies use our
product instead
Burma Shave.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:36 pm #
what a piece of work is man
shaved
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 4:37 pm #
“Those lyrics make me think of mullets”
Jeff had a Loverboy flashback a while ago thought I would see if I could smoke him out ;)
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 4:37 pm #
ROFL! A true question for the ages.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:40 pm #
Is Burma Shave what they use for manscapes? Or is that the Smooth Away?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:40 pm #
what a piece of work is man
shaved
and we can keep your money
saved
Burma Shave.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 4:40 pm #
Amazingly enough, Burma Shave appears to be unsullied at this point.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:40 pm #
my coarse my coarse
my razor for a..
burma shave?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:41 pm #
A real one:
In this vale
Of toil and sin
You head brows bald
But not your chin
Burma Shave.
Comment by Charles' Johnson on 9/24 @ 4:43 pm #
Check out this finial.
Comment by Captain Obvious on 9/24 @ 4:43 pm #
Abe,
Unauthorized (no permit) marches and protests by the left, and the predictable violence and looting by their “anarchist Black Bloc” footsoldiers is “speaking Truth to Power”. Authorized (as in: they got a parade permit) marches by right-wing and libertarian “tea partiers” are blatant and undisguised RAAAACISM!
Thus endeth today’s lesson.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:44 pm #
umm ‘grows’.
Unless you are a descendent of Leonid Brezhnev or John L. Lewis. Then you might want to shave there too.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:44 pm #
Thanks, BMoe. I was not brave enough. Alppuccino has tricked me too many times.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:45 pm #
my coarse, my coarse
my razor for a.. torch
keep fire from your skin
just buy our little tin
Burma Shave
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:46 pm #
BMoe - Did you make it through the Bush-caused flooding alright?
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:46 pm #
done to death by a slanderous tounge…
Comment by SGT Ted on 9/24 @ 4:47 pm #
Snowcone needs to take Obamas dick out of his mouth. I can’t understand what he’s saying.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:47 pm #
Okay, I really have to stop.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 4:49 pm #
If you leave Nair on the taint for too long, hilarity ensues.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 9/24 @ 4:49 pm #
Mikey NHT
References to them were also a running gag in cartoons of the era, especially Warner Bros’ Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies. That’s where I first heard of them.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 4:49 pm #
done to death by a slanderous tounge…
they said i didn’t look young
my sweetie said i could kiss her
since i lost my whiskers
Burma Shave
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!
SOMEONE HELP ME!!!!!!
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:50 pm #
some Cupid kills w/ arrows
others with burma shave
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 4:55 pm #
every inch a king
shakespeare
move it on over
hank williams senior
Comment by alppuccino on 9/24 @ 4:55 pm #
you were thinking of a “Burmese Shove” JD.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 5:01 pm #
hey good looking
what’s u got cooking?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:02 pm #
I am trying to go cold turkey.
Maybe just another.
One drag won’t be bad.
Anyone can walk away after…
please help me…
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:04 pm #
hey good looking
what’s u got cooking?
all the ladies now say
since my beard went away
Burma Shave.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 5:13 pm #
mommy won a prize
is the carnival leaving?
she’s coming back/ right?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:18 pm #
For snotcone:
Don’t lose
Your head
To gain a minute
You need your head
Your brains are in it
Burma Shaave!
Comment by SBP on 9/24 @ 5:18 pm #
There was another thread where SEK…uh…distinguished himself on this topic.
(and yeah, it’s ego — I think that was one of my better takedowns on this site)
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:19 pm #
Bristles scratched
His cookie’s map
That’s what
Made poor
Ginger snap
Burma Shave!
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 5:19 pm #
I apologize for my sacrilege!
Comment by SBP on 9/24 @ 5:19 pm #
Beginning of the thread mentioned above.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:20 pm #
Henry the Eighth
Sure had
Trouble
Short term wives
Long term stubble
Burma shave!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:20 pm #
Ok, here:
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/
Enjoy.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 5:32 pm #
theres no stompin
the kids from hoppin..
when they do..
the bristol stomp!
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:34 pm #
mommy won a prize
is the carnival leaving?
she’s coming back/ right?
because carny’s are
hairy noon and night
Burma Shave.
*whimper*
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:36 pm #
theres no stompin
the kids from hoppin..
when they do..
the bristol stomp!
before the rave
make sure you shave.
Burma Shave.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:39 pm #
Old man King Gillete
on blades made his bet
do not make
his ghost frown
from your chin
remove that down
Burma Shave
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 5:41 pm #
Other than having some jobs rained out, no problem. Finally got sunny enough to hit the driving range and try out a set of Ping Eye 2s a friend just gave me. I like them.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 5:41 pm #
you know, pdbuttons
if we where there
in 1960 somethin’
this product would be
still the rave
and all would know
of Burma Shave
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 5:47 pm #
Good news, BMoe. The copper Eye-2 sand wedge might be the best ever made.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 6:00 pm #
Comment by N. O’Brain on 9/24 @ 5:20 pm #
Thanks, N. O’Brain.
it has been fun
make words run
so morning’s sun
sees your chin done
Burma…Shave
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 6:07 pm #
Too good to give away, apparently, lol. Set only includes a PW and a Ben Hogan 53. It does have a 1 iron in case I get caught in a thunderstorm.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 6:10 pm #
Hysterical.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 6:20 pm #
Just wanted to remind people. Here’s SEK on the mere possibility that Ayers was involved in the ghostwriting of Obama’s book — a proposition he derided as “absurd” “on its face”:
Typical of SEK, he here demands proof of something I never asserted, and suggests that lack of said proof marks the mere raising of the question on Cashill’s part as “absurd.”
Wonder what he thinks now?
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 6:23 pm #
Oh, Jeff G, he is even more mendoucheous now.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 6:23 pm #
SHUT UP!
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 6:23 pm #
Jeff,
I sent you an e-mail
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 6:24 pm #
You think that is funny, you need to come down here some time and watch me try to play, JD.
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 6:26 pm #
Somewhat off topic but topical for sure:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/yosi-sergant-resigns.html
Comment by Marmoset on 9/24 @ 6:26 pm #
Most people consider you a retarded marmoset, and sit and laugh at your “comments”.
HEY!
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 6:28 pm #
I’ll concur with B Moe’s assesment, Jeff.
You were right
and thank you for this site
words are your might
just keep your face bright
Burma…
AH!!!! SOMEONE!!!! PLEASE!!!!
HELP!
Comment by Great Mencken's Ghost! on 9/24 @ 6:28 pm #
We’re doing Burma Shave? here’s one from Three Beers Later:
You’ve lost your home
Don’t run to mama
She’s lost hers too
Just thank Obama!
Burma Shave!
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 6:33 pm #
Burma shave signs. I am old enough to have seen them as a kid. They were olny workable on 2 lane roads. The interstates killed them.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 6:33 pm #
Half of Atlanta
Down the ‘hooch is a floatin’
Too many white folks,
And the wrong kind of votin’
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 6:35 pm #
only, I seem to be unable to spell today.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 6:40 pm #
While this newish information on the Obama/Ayres book story is eye popping (because, who expected it just now?), it still stands as but a reasonable conjecture; since C. Anderson hasn’t sourced his telling of it we may be merely in possession of a dog chasing his tail dealio, until further details emerge or not, as the case may be.
Comment by Darleen on 9/24 @ 6:46 pm #
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 6:26 pm
But..but…but…. IT’S ONE OF THOSE ONE DAY STORIES!!!1!!
heh
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 6:52 pm #
Sdferr — I was skeptical and still am. But SEK turned that into my championing of the “Cashill Doctrine” regardless. And when I called him on it, he wound up at “the idea is absurd on its face,” which means (somehow) that my hypothetical analysis of what “Obama” would be were this true (from the perspective of identity and public personal) was an indictment on Obama’s policies.
The point here being that I never understand how this could be construed as absurd, and the more Cashill digs, the less absurd it seems, given all we are learning about the Ayers / Obama relationship.
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 6:53 pm #
The Hannah Giles’ defense fund. I plan to make snowy proud.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 6:58 pm #
Yep. I personally don’t think it’s in the least absurd, never have and wouldn’t be in the least surprised that over time it is proven conclusively true. You, by the way, need no defense on this account with me, as nothing you’ve written to date makes any claim as to the truth of the Cashill/Anderson account.
All I’m doing above, really, is echoing my agreement with Ron Radosh.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:16 pm #
geoffb:
Heh. I’ve been to the Henry Ford Museum. And my parents were born in the early 1930’s. And on trips down I-75 to Florida we would see these signs: ‘See Rock City’. And we never did!
See Rock City
The Signs Read
Dad Never Stopped
We Come In Tins
An Will Smooth A Chin
Throw Away The Strop
Burma Shave.
MAKE IT STOP!!!!
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 7:19 pm #
scott addressed this at his blog today. Here. He has a good point about Cashill being sort of a dork how he wrote his post but I think the assertion Andersen makes of Ayers having some uncharacterized unquantified collaborative role goes unchallenged, which means there’s definitely a story here. I think. I can’t get over those creepy schoolchildren in that video though.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:20 pm #
The Hannah Giles’ defense fund. I plan to make snowy proud
Snowy?
Snowy’s face
is like a bristle brush
on him no human
will have a crush
Don’t be a Snowy
doomed to be a lush
Burma Shave
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 7:21 pm #
One glaring though minor puzzle does stand out for me though and that is this: Cashill on the one hand says “… inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself …” and on the other hand Radosh says of Anderson’s book “… the Obamas did not cooperate with him [Anderson].”
So it may be, for instance, that “quite possibly Michelle Obama herself” is meant to convey a complex tale untold in full, such as, “Michelle told this story to her friend X who in turn told it to her friend Z who told it to Anderson,” and yet the Obama’s did not co-operate with Anderson. Or it could also be that “quite possibly Michelle Obama herself” is utterly unwarranted speculation and false. And the Obama’s did not co-operate with Anderson.
Comment by McGehee on 9/24 @ 7:29 pm #
I swear to you all, my hand to God, that I remember seeing a set of “Burma Shave” signs in Calaveras County, California during the very early 1990s. Murphys Grade Road, heading up out of Angels Camp.
This says there are still commemorative examples extant, but Murphys Grade Road doesn’t seem prominent enough for these signs to have been part of such a project; it would have made more sense to put them on Highway 49.
Comment by McGehee on 9/24 @ 7:31 pm #
Scott Eric Kaufman
Has never been keener
On proving himself
A major wiener
Burma-Shave.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 7:32 pm #
So there’s that then.
oh. Here is a video what is really sort of marvelous what this young lady can do. I know most of you will not to be enjoying the music. But she’s really quite good at doing what she does, I think you will agree.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:37 pm #
McGehee:
When I was at the youth camp at Camp Dearborn in 1985, there was a tent area that had a stack of signs in one area. At the bottom I put a sign that said ‘Burma Shave’. I was nineteen, and only a few others got the joke. (Those that also had parents that - then - were in their mid-fifties.)*
*The rented vans came with am radios. A song came on and another counselor said “who is singing this?” I replied “Tony Bennet”. He said “Yes! And we know this why?” “Because our parents are old.” “Yes!”
(I was listening to Paul Harvey before it became ‘ironic’.)
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 7:37 pm #
Some one could have bought or made them and put them up up themselves on their own property.
Comment by Benedick on 9/24 @ 7:38 pm #
Apropos of nothing, I’d like to thank the Pittsburgh cops who are, as I type, protecting my neighborhood from G-20-protesting douchebags.
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 7:40 pm #
“quite possibly Michelle Obama herself”
Why not jump in with both feet?
“quite possibly Pope Benedict XVI”
or maybe
“quite possibly Bigfoot!”
They’re about as believable as Michelle Obama.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:42 pm #
Another thing - the movie “A Chistmas Story”. Me and my brothers watch it - and we get it. Like ‘one foot in that world, one foot in this world’ get it.
Comment by Abe Froman on 9/24 @ 7:46 pm #
“quite possibly Bigfoot!”
They’re about as believable as Michelle Obama.
Michelle isn’t Bigfoot?
Comment by McGehee on 9/24 @ 7:47 pm #
I don’t know that I learned all that much of what I know about pop culture before my time from my parents. I had the benefit of all those old Warner Brothers cartoons on TV after school. I think I got more benefit out of goofing off and watching cartoons than I would have gotten doing my homework.
Also, my #184 was supposed to contain a link to a section of Wikipedia’s article on Burma-Shave.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:48 pm #
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 7:40 pm #
From Michelle Obama’s
garden none can eat
bad stuff in the ground
You keep all neat
See your chin round.
Burma Shave
Comment by McGehee on 9/24 @ 7:48 pm #
I thought Michelle was a Wookiee. Is Bigfoot a Wookiee?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 7:54 pm #
Yeah, McGee; there were a lot of reruns and old movies on tv, especially when a kid was sick and a t home (Bill Kennedy At The Movies, Detroit). But if you saw those old shows with the old references, and listened when your parents were not talking to you, a lot of references get picked up. Back then those were thirty and forty year old references. But what are thirty and forty year old references today? That’s M*A*S*H. That’s ‘Mikey Likes It!’.
Comment by Snowcone on 9/24 @ 7:57 pm #
Michelle isn’t Bigfoot?</i.
Sounds like a question for Glenn Beck.
Pingback by The Census Worker Killing « POWIP on 9/24 @ 8:01 pm #
[...] and David Paterson, which connects to my post yesterday that connected to Darleen’s post that she connects to, which I’ve just [...]
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:13 pm #
Wookies and Ewoks
All over Endor
Just pull back
Nuke it from orbit.
Burma Shave
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:15 pm #
Snowy thinks
he is clever
Needs a better
shave than from
The Bros. Lever.
Burma Shave
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 8:15 pm #
If you remember the Bill Kennedy show on channel 50 do you perhaps remember the late night movie one with “The Ghoul” out of their sister station in Parma Ohio?
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:18 pm #
Mr. SEK actually did a pretty persuasive job of putting it to Mr. Cashill I thought. It’s depressing. I’m going for a walk. I can link the persuadey bits or copy them later, but I just felt I should say as much. Cause of it’s hard not to conclude that Mr. Cashill is a willfully deceptive person. And he decepted me. Me. After I defended him and all.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:21 pm #
Snowy thinks he’s cool
But all know he’s a stool
So all you lads
That want a lassy
Your beard should na
Grow so massy
Burma shave
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 8:24 pm #
Seriously? I thought the post you link was so disjointed it was surreal. Because Anderson acknowledged talking to Cashill, that proves Cashill is the anonymous source? Scott is fucking delusional.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:25 pm #
geoffb: Yes I remember the ghoul. But I only saw that when mom and dad went out and we had a baby-sitter who would let us sit up late. [One of the DeVo girls - Jpyce or Cathy.] (The bird’s nest hat, the glasses with one dark lens and the other clear - the ghoul.) I saw more of old Sir Graves Ghastley. Nyahhhh-ahhh-ahhhh!
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 8:28 pm #
CheeseWiz!!
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:28 pm #
his refutation of Cashill is what was persuasive, and … this especially…
happy, there’s a big, huge problem with this part:
Andersen writes, “These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.” Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.”
Namely, that those two statements aren’t connected. That neighbor is not the person who made the first statement—in fact, no one did. Those are Anderson’s words, and they’re based on a claim that, as his legally-vetted language demonstrates, no one wants any part of. As I noted in the post above, Anderson uses the conditional phrase “would be significant” because he can provide no solid evidence that the claim is true. As someone who has taught journalism, I can assure you that his decision to write “would be” over “was” wasn’t a stylistic one.
But did our little president man collaborate with a domestic commie terrorist cum domestic commie academic on his bestselling book? I don’t know the answer to that. But Andersen suggests he did. (This part is Mr. SEK quoting my comment.)
But Anderson only “suggests” because that’s the best he can do in the absence of evidence. Given that even he doesn’t have enough faith in his credibility of his source to write “was” over “would be,” I don’t think he or Cashill will ever be able to do anything other than write pathetically tendentious “literary analyses” (Cashill) and suggest that they might could be meaningful (Anderson).
I did the boldy part.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:29 pm #
oh. blockquote fail…
everything but the first and last lines are Mr. SEK except where noted
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:31 pm #
the “Hyde Park neighbor” doesn’t really say anything… it’s all trickery
fie on trickery I say
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:35 pm #
Yeah. Cheez Whiz. I vaguely remember that.
But I was little then.
I remeber Kimba the White Lion (anime?) and Underdog. Saw those at lunch because home was one block from school and I came home for lunch a lot of times.
BTW - has anyone else got into the house through the milk-chute?
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 8:36 pm #
He isn’t “refuting” anything. He is pointing out that it is an anonymous source. Just like everybody else has. He is pointing out that Anderson is carefully parsing his language, just like everybody else has. The part you bolded is especially stupid, if Anderson wanted no part of it he wouldn’t have printed it. He did print it, though, he just worded it carefully because he apparently doesn’t have solid evidence. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t any evidence at all.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 8:36 pm #
I’ll venture a guess:
Except he’d take 2000 words to say it.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:39 pm #
I’m not saying I think the little president man wrote his book, just that Madonna biographer Christopher Andersen maybe didn’t advance the story all that much for reals, except maybe just by adding some smoke to the whole where there’s smoke dealio. Smoke is good. But Cashill should have let things smolder a bit before busting out with his clumsy post I think.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 8:39 pm #
See, this is a vast racist conspiracy where Mr. Anderseon is in cahoots with Mr. Cashill to prove Mr. Obama really is good buddies with the unrepentant terrorist Mr. Ayers. It’s absurd, I tell you! SHUT UP!!!!
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 8:41 pm #
So Cashill had been interviewed by Anderson? Ugh. That is the perfect case of a dog chasing his own tail. And does indeed look like Cashill tried to pull a fast one with his “news breaking” post at AT when he knows damned well Anderson is pointing back at Cashill, shooting his own credibility right in the ass. What a putz.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:42 pm #
um… well, yeah - he just worded it carefully because he apparently doesn’t have solid evidence. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t any evidence at all.
I agree. I’m just saying Andersen needs to bust out with the goods cause you have to do better than this to break through. Mr. Breitbart has a lot demonstrated the it what you have to bring. Andersen didn’t bring it.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 8:43 pm #
Jesus Christ, I give up.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:44 pm #
Yes - Mr. sdferr - that was the other part of what Mr. SEK said that was compelling. And don’t for a minute think that I appreciate Mr. SEK persuading me of anything. I find it most unseemly.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 8:47 pm #
I must do something
Maybe write a book
My new neighbor
can take a look
He knows bombs
And words
Things he can come
up with
That won’t be a turd
Now Sen. Joe
He should know
a candidate seems
articulate and clean
For this I need
something with speed
That won’t chafe
My perfect face
Burma Shave
(I blame the alcohol)
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 8:49 pm #
A’far as I’m concerned hf, it’s the only thing that’s particularly compelling at this point. I don’t have the book, won’t have the book, can’t force Anderson to reveal his sources if he has any, don’t expect to be hearing anything but denials on the part of Obama, his wife, Ayres or his wife, so until someone steps into the light of day with a name and gives willing testimony or puts hard evidence on the table, this story goes nowhere but to undermine whatever good faith Cashill had accumulated. Sad to say, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 8:54 pm #
Well, if the little president man could be forced to deny it that would be a Win of no small significance really. Maybe. Other than the fact that he was more than chummy enough with this commie terrorist douchebag and it was more than enough documented and 52% of America didn’t care.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 8:55 pm #
i’d like to rhyme uma thurman and
burma shave
but i can;t
so i won’t
i can’t so i don’t
i could but i can’t
i would
but i won’t
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 8:57 pm #
i’d like to teach the world to sing..
i could
but i won’t
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 8:57 pm #
Point, I guess, on the *forced to deny*, though I can easily imagine his slipping that, either through a clever turn, never being asked or ignoring the question if asked.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 8:58 pm #
happyfeet,
Don’t be bamboozled by SEK’s attempt at rationalizing Andersens choice of wording as proof of him being a liar. Here’s what I commented after his explanation:
“Thanks for answering SEK, but what prevents Andersens choice of wording, as if he was in the past speaking about the future, from being just not poor style or an attempt to strike a more melodramatic or prophetic tone; what’s keeping that stylistic tact from being just another rhetorical flourish?
To assume so unfairly damns him as a conniving liar, unless, you have forst hand knowledge of the truth…”
I understand he argues well and is a humanities professor, but that doesn’t give him a crystal ball into every writers intent, or to see through poor wording as soem sort of chicanery…
Be Cool
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 9:03 pm #
Uma thurman
Is not
Ethel merman
thanks a lot
her tender skin
we got to see
to our tins
she said whee!
Burma Shave
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:05 pm #
You don’t have to think Anderson a party to chicanery if you suppose he’s just peddling gossip or something closely kin to it. The chicanery was pulled last evening by Cashill when he posts a breathless *update* to his researches saying “corroboration found!” and then fails to mention the probable source of the corroboration is himself at one remove through the interview with Anderson, Bob. To borrow happyfeet’s “unseemly” and thrust it into this context would be inadequate to the harm Cashill has done himself with such an approach.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/24 @ 9:05 pm #
rommel/ u magnificent bastard
i read your book
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 9:07 pm #
that part is this:
and Mr. SEK comments that Andersen’s claim is couched in a conditional clause (”would be significant”) of the sort favored by authors who learned their libel law from the wrong end of many lawsuits.
I think you’re right to challenge that, Bob. I think as defensive wording it seems remarkable insubstantial. I’m not sold that it expresses conditionality.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 9:10 pm #
Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia is hysterical, in a very dark and disturbing way.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 9:10 pm #
rommel/ u magnificent bastard
i read your book
Don’t be a dastsard!
Shave! You mook!
Burma Shave
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 9:10 pm #
now for real i have to go get stuff
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:10 pm #
I mean, we could honestly take Darleen’s sentence “J. Cashill finds an especially delicious nugget about that book” and in light of the fact Cashill denied us all, re-write it to read “J Cashill planted an especially delicious nugget about that book”. Again, ugh.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 9:12 pm #
sdferr,
You may be right, but we’ll see in time I suppose. While Andersen does mention Cashill, amd Cashill’s post was misleading in a way, doesn’t mean that Andersen’s anecdotes about the neighbors words are necessarily untrue…
I do agree that by not include the part where his name was mentioned does make it look like Cashill was taking a more nuanced approach, as the won! might say.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/24 @ 9:13 pm #
G’night all
its been swell
before we meet
I’ll scrape my tell.
Burma Shave
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 9:15 pm #
Other than SEK pulling that out of thin air, where the hell are you getting that? Andersen stated an anonymous source reported Obama delivered tapes and a draft to Ayers. Cashill has never said any such thing, all he has done is point out computer studies and stylistic similarities. Is it impossible for you to believe that Andersen may have more than one source?
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 9:15 pm #
Please forgive me for asking whether the Emperor has actual clothes, but what does a book matter?
Obama is President. Regardless of what has come before, that’s the present fact. Deal with it.
So, how to deal?
Forget everything about what came before. It’ll be buried by his assorted friends and never, ever, come to light.
The thing to do is what Breitbart is showing: go film the open sewer upon which The Won stands.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 9:17 pm #
The only thing I see clear evidence of is SEKs continued descent into bad faith and utter bullshit.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 9:17 pm #
hf,
That’s how I see it; what’s to say it’s not poor wording or simply an attempt at prophetic, and dramatic, sounding prose by using that consitional voice.
I mean, I guess he didn’t make his intent clear enough for there to be no question; and wasn’t that one of the rules that Jeff said we had to be sure to follow?
Still, Cashill shouldn’t have appeared dishonest by leaving the refernce to himself out of his post; it looks unseemly…
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:17 pm #
I’ve no grounds to quibble with Anderson on his sources, should he have any, or the truth of what he may have learned from them, if they exist and told him anything substantial about Ayres writing the book with Obama. I don’t have a problem with Anderson, is what I’m getting at. Even should he prove to have written the “would be significant” as a conditional (which can certainly be reasonably read as such, with the “if what Jack Cashill told me is true” as the condition.)
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:18 pm #
“where the hell are you getting that?”
I think SEK quotes from Anderson’s book to that effect B Moe.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 9:19 pm #
Fine. No more conjecture or supposition. If we don’t have hard evidence with multiple collaborators and smoking guns then just shut the fuck up.
Circumstantial evidence is racist.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 9:20 pm #
Where? SEK said because Andersen talked to Cashill, Cashill must be the source. That is fucking retarded.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:20 pm #
Here’s the full quote:
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:25 pm #
It’s easy to answer. Just ask Cashill and Anderson.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:28 pm #
@243
That doesn’t say what SEK suggests it says.
I’m not surprised that SEK has taken so many of you in. I bet Patterico even thinks of the lying douche as a good man.
He isn’t. He’s a sophist at work for the cause of progressivism. The sooner you recognize that the better for all those who drag his bullshit back in here and pretend it is anything other than carefully constructed agitprop meant to destroy “right wing” credibility.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:30 pm #
Seriously, though. Somebody email Cashill and Anderson and try to have them set the record straight. If Cashill is sourcing himself at one remove to bolster his case, he should be exposed for doing so.
I have no horse in this race; but I do know how SEK operates. Any of you who give him a pass do so at your own intellectual risk.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:31 pm #
I don’t particularly care what Kaufman said or says, B Moe, could care less in fact. What matters to me is that Cashill doesn’t reveal he had been interviewed by Anderson, when he writes his Anderson Blows Ayers’ Cover on Dreams post.
Comment by Abe Froman on 9/24 @ 9:33 pm #
As I noted in the post above, Anderson uses the conditional phrase “would be significant” because he can provide no solid evidence that the claim is true. As someone who has taught journalism, I can assure you that his decision to write “would be” over “was” wasn’t a stylistic one.
I can’t believe anyone was taken in by this. I don’t even know how someone types that without their fingers recoiling in horror.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:37 pm #
I emailed American Thinker. Will see if I get a reply.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 9:44 pm #
Again though Abe, I don’t give a rat’s ass what Kaufman wrote, I don’t need him for anything but being the eager buyer to scurry out and get Anderson’s book — so that he could write it up in his own way and for his own political purposes, obviously — and faithfully copy what Anderson had written, as it happens, the relevant bit that Cashill had left out of his write up.
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 9:48 pm #
Here I sit, on a magnificent throne on a beach of the beautiful south coast of England.
I bid the tide go back, and yet it comes on.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 9:50 pm #
sdferr,
I don’t believe he was quoting from the book verbatim. I think he was getting his quotes from other sources, but I’ll double-check and see…
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:52 pm #
Why is the fact that Cashill was interviewed for the book a problem, sdferr? Perhaps Cashill didn’t quote the portion that mentions him out of, say, modesty. That’s as least as believable as a scenario that has him “hiding” his involvement because he is the source for Anderson’s claims.
In the latter scenario, we are asked to believe that Cashill thought no one would ever read the book and make the connection. Which is rather chancy.
Just food for thought. In the conditional sense.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 9:53 pm #
Jeff G,
I’m looking forward to hearing of the reply to your email to AT. But, like yourself, I think that SEK was trying to use his academic credentials to declare what Andersen wrote BS, when it may be stylistic. I for one did not buy it…
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/24 @ 9:55 pm #
Going back to my hole now.
Glad to see many of you are hanging out at SEK’s digs. If nothing else, you’ll improve your skills as first class pedantic bullshitters.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 10:02 pm #
sdferr,
I didn’t see any link that would lead me to believe that SEK has the book, or even where he got the more complete exerpt from…
His expalnation on why the conditional is a problem is here: http://tinyurl.com/y9zykfw
In essence, he says he’s sure Andersen’s publisher made him change the wording to avoid possible litigation…
While it makes some sense, without any direct knowledge it’s simply uninformed speculation, or an educated guess!
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:06 pm #
I guess the problem in an interview by Anderson with Cashill, setting aside Cashill’s failure to mention it, is that in such an interview and perhaps more importantly, through reading Cashill’s work on the subject, Anderson has the opportunity to take on board Cashill’s theory of Dreams, repeat it in his own book, however modified by his actual reporting, which may or may not be substantive or dispositive and potentially reinforce Cashill’s thesis through a selection bias which even he, Anderson, may be unaware of.
I agree with you that it doesn’t make sense on the face of it for Cashill to write up the story with the expectation that his interview wouldn’t be found out. Modesty though? Maybe, but the potential relevance would weigh heavier I think.
I can’t say for sure but dollars to doughnuts no-one is hanging out at Kaufman’s blog, thought it’s clear hf thought to check on what Kaufman had to say about this story today.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:09 pm #
One last time, this time for you Bob, I do not give a flying fuck what Kaufman has to say. I concluded a long long ago that the guy is a sleaze I want nothing to do with.
Comment by Abe Froman on 9/24 @ 10:10 pm #
I think that SEK was trying to use his academic credentials to declare what Andersen wrote BS, when it may be stylistic. I for one did not buy it…
You’re right not to buy it Bob. It’s going to take a lot more evidence before I can bring myself to take this story at all seriously but SEK is beclowning himself with this argument. It is a stylistic choice. Period.
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 10:14 pm #
Snowcone is laughing.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:14 pm #
Further, if it proves that Cashill had intentionally left out the fact of the interview to distance himself from Anderson’s conclusion, that doesn’t in turn prove that the hypothesis that Ayers played a major role in writing Obama’s Dreams book is wrong. It complicates Cashill’s role in the mess to be sure, but the book Dreams was written years ago and that deed has nothing to do with our contemporaries behavior.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 10:16 pm #
sdferr,
I wasn’t saying that you adopted SEK’s point of view at all, I was just describing the argument he made with me and hf, and was providing you a link to his discussion of why he was justified in calling BS on Andersen.
I was only trying to give up all the facts, and meant you no offense nor irritation…
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:22 pm #
No worries Bob. It’s kinda like being asked to click on a Sullivan link.
As to Anderson, if he had bought into Cashill’s thesis on the Obama book, would have done well had he simply come right out and stated his agreement from the get go (and though I’ve no way to know that he hasn’t, it sure wouldn’t make any sense that he had when viewed in the light of Cashill’s last post).
Comment by Abe Froman on 9/24 @ 10:22 pm #
Snowcone is laughing.
He giggles at the bubbles in a soda can. Anyone who gets overly invested in this story is an imbecile, but people are just spit-balling. The time where something like this would have even mattered politically has long since passed.
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:27 pm #
Ain’t that the truth Abe, it would be like adding one more grain-of-sand-lie to the Mt. Rainier-of-lies Baracky’s already accumulated.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/24 @ 10:33 pm #
I mean jeez at #13 Mr. G said hey someone send this to Scott and time passed and then I had a meeting and I came back and time passed and no one had sent it to Scott, so I did. I was checking over there cause we were in the middle of a disagreement about that whole Breitbart NEA story. And then there was the matter of the pickles.
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 10:33 pm #
Hmm. Well. Color me gobsmacked.
The recent point I’ve been trying to make is that IMHO it really doesn’t matter how The Won arrived. The point is, he has arrived. So. How bet to deal?
Me, I’m betting on bright sunlight on cockroaches, and ensuing mockery.
I am also moving assets to Uruguay. They’ve always struck me as nice people, far from the river of history, and able to feed themselves. Sayonara. Or some such.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 10:49 pm #
From AllahP:
“Now Andersen gives no sources or names; the Obamas did not cooperate with him. Skeptics will argue that we have no way of knowing whether his claims can be verified, and we have no way of knowing the veracity of those he interviewed. Who, for example, was the Hyde Park neighbor he spoke with? Some might even argue that he reached his conclusion after reading Cashill’s original blog, without citing it. Andersen faces the same credibility problem Bob Woodward faces, since he is often charged with making outrageous charges in some of his books without offering any proof that conversations he could not have been privy to took place. But Woodward’s use of such a technique never has hurt his reputation. After all, he is Bob Woodward. Reviewers of Andersen’s book have had no compunction in labeling much of what he writes as pure ‘gossip.’”
From, http://tinyurl.com/yb6o895 , in reference to, http://tinyurl.com/ycqnycl …
Some pretty good points made in both of those pieces…
Comment by sdferr on 9/24 @ 10:52 pm #
That’s Radosh Bob, he’s one of the good guys in my book. I linked that piece above somewhere ….. 178.
Comment by Spam Heap on 9/24 @ 11:08 pm #
Color me gone. Good luck with that fixation thing. Call when The Won, oh, gets another term.
Later.
Comment by Snowcone on 9/25 @ 12:19 am #
I mean, we could honestly take Darleen’s sentence “J. Cashill finds an especially delicious nugget about that book” and in light of the fact Cashill denied us all, re-write it to read “J Cashill planted an especially delicious nugget about that book”. Again, ugh.
“The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.” - Michelangelo
Comment by dicentra on 9/25 @ 1:40 am #
In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant
Sorry, that’s not conditional, that’s past imperfect. If I translate it into Spanish, I have to use the imperfect past conjugation:
A fin de cuentas, la contribución a Dreams from My Father de Barack sería significante.
The trouble with English is that we use “would” for both imperfect and conditional. Here’s how it would look in the conditional:
In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant if it were not for yadda yadda yadda…
Quoth feets: “I’m not sold that it expresses conditionality.”
On account of it doesn’t. Conditional requires that you complete the condition.
Comment by dicentra on 9/25 @ 1:42 am #
They’ve always struck me as nice people, far from the river of history
But awfully close to the Río de la Plata. You might want to look into that.
Comment by Rusty on 9/25 @ 5:07 am #
#271
In either case, you missed.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/25 @ 5:40 am #
Dicentra, I wish you would go to SEK’s site and challenge him on that point; you have so much better knowledge of these things than I.
Comment by Danger on 9/25 @ 6:06 am #
Bob,
Can you give me the Cliff notes on this SEK character I am feeling a little like Happyfeet (no on tells me nothing;)
It may be that I have run across a link to his site but it is blocked at work.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/25 @ 6:07 am #
I wonder if you can scuba dive the Admiral Graf Spee.
Comment by McGehee on 9/25 @ 6:51 am #
When SEK
Takes such pains
To shoosh us
We should assume
He’s being mendoucheous
Burma-Shave
Comment by sdferr on 9/25 @ 7:08 am #
Danger, this post and thread from Jeff’s archive will give you just about all you’ll need I think, though there are others, should you find it not enough.
Comment by JD on 9/25 @ 7:37 am #
Danger - Cliff Notes version. Once entertaining, now mendoucheous twatwaffle. YMMV
Comment by Danger on 9/25 @ 9:03 am #
Sdferr,
Thanks, I was mostly a lurker then but did follow that thread and had forgotten who SEK was.
Jeff, (If you’re lurking)
That little trip down memory lane reminded me that I was never more proud of you than when I saw how your stood up for Tony Snow. I hope to see more of that fire again soon.
Pingback by Jack Cashill responds to suggestions that he is Chris Anderson’s source on 9/25 @ 9:17 am #
[...] background, go here and follow the [...]
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/25 @ 9:27 am #
Cashill says he never spoke with Anderson. So the new claim has to be that Anderson read Cashill’s stuff and incorporated it without attribution.
Or else he truly has other sources.
Somebody should ask Anderson. I’ve already gotten a reply from Cashill, here.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/25 @ 11:18 am #
wow. A guy goes out to pick up bran flakes and all kinds of stuff happens.
shoosh us / mendoucheous is awesome
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/25 @ 6:08 pm #
jack kennedy rode a convertible
jackie wore pink
maic bullet makes graves
burma shave
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/25 @ 6:08 pm #
magic