Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

gee I would have thought Craig would have issued an apology for the bogus post about the fraud he helped perpetuate. Guess not.

Apologize for what? McCain calls the woman. The Obama campaign issues a statement supporting her. They perpetuated the story, not me.

Obama issues a statement, give me a break. Of course they are going to issue a statement when asked about it. The second disgrace in this story is that both McCain ~ Palin rushed to call this woman who was perpetuating a fraud in order to stir up racial tensions. I can just see the two of them drooling wondering how they could exploit this story. That's the real disgrace of story.

The campaigns probably loved it. Another day of diversion....another day not to answer any policy questions.......yeah

if you want to go with that that is ok you have to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

Craig,
You commented on it....apparently the new rule is that you own it too.

Whatever compromise you may have made concerning your journalistic integrity with your last post was well worth it for the extended, rabid Brian hissy-fit. Very entertaining.

look folks, if a campaign is going to try and use a mugging victim to their advantage, i'm going to pay attention. and the fact that this woman's claim was bogus makes it even more of a telling story about mccain camp's desperation for an october surprise

It's been fun...have a great weekend all......

all well and good. You did not feel any need to say that you had been taken in? Sure seems like that to this Torpedo.

But that's not the way you wrote the story Craig, sorry I just really think you were way off base with this one. My last comment of this subject.

Craig.
thanks for the link to some facts - now lets see if CQ filters ..

Now why would you directly link this "women" to the McCain Campaign?

Retract?

I agree with Brian. Writing about it on teis blog was perpetuating the story, Craig. Nowhere in your post did you indicate that the story was not verified. You didn't even use the standard "allegedly" attacked phraseology in the title of yhe post.
"ATM Mugging Becomes Campaign Fodder" should have been
"ALLEGED ATM Mugging Becomes Campaign Fodder".
Sorry, Craig, but you goofed and you do owe your readers an appology.

desperate times for the McCain campaign....McCain beginning to sound like a balloon traveling across the room while the air is getting sucked out of it.

It's almost over....

Ping---from last thread

Ping

for the tenth time----what we need is a combination of the 2 isms, social, and capital, but since the only 2 political party's that we have are in the pockets of the large corps, whats the diff, you are just arguing differences that don't exit any more----we are living this proof today with the crises that we are in------no one in either party knew this was coming?????? they let it happen thinking that there were no limits,,,now it's going to be the D's way again until they over do it with their social programs that (some)don't work, but will get their side richer,,,,but i would rather have a D in there, they know when to stop---the R's don't,,,the S and L trillions, now this melt down,the D's can't possibly do this much even if they tried,,,,,you have a diff team shirt on than the D's and are protecting the same field,from the 50 yard line that you both start from,,,,,,the D's just won this coin toss that's all----a view from the peanut gallery, and indies that never get to play, cos we can't be bought, thats why you R's and D's sweet talk us until election day,then we go with the one that we think that will do the least harm,,,,but rah rah rah, zim goom bah,,,or somtin like that,thanks

Craig,

You just can't win this morning. Either you are a tool of the McCain campaign for reporting the story, or you are in the pocket of the Obama campaign for intimating that the tale teller is linked to that organization.

You might as well distribute Crawford dolls complete with a set of needles, so everyone can just stick in a pin when they are feeling grouchy.

Beautiful.

What October surprise – the surprise will be simply the ability for the American People to discover what Obama is really all about – does the facade built by the campaign get blown over?

We are now all agreeing to get to the facts and actual History of these two running for office.

Interesting to see the overall reaction when a story is not liked by the Obama – ites. Give me a break – you want to live on one way streets!

Time to dump the entire BS and reveal the best determining factor for future behavior is past performance and actions

Obama is not a bad guy – just do not agree that the socialistic liberal values are best for America.

Does not make me a bad guy…

oh cmon, nannymm, my simple point was that the presidential campaigns were engaged in this story, and it would be a talker today, as it was.

Going back to Ping's question about Mexico and Cuba and their economic situations... I cannot comment on Mexico because I do not know. But Cuba has been the victim of a total economic embargo by the United States for more than 40 some years. Closing off trade with the island has ensured that they could not develop a strong economy. Ping, were you just playing? I assume so because I know that you know the answer and that it is so simple. You got me on Mexico though... someone else will have to provide further details.

Oh yeah, the socialist party in Belgium is very active and often in the majority coalition in government (also when I first moved to The Netherlands, the main socialist party, the PvDA was in charge of the government and their leader, Wim Kok, was Prime Minister). Although small countries, they both have healthy economies and a strong social system. They are a mixed economy, capitalist and socialist and except for having to cow tow to American Multinational bullies, they do very well thank you.

yes, Jamie, 11 more days and maybe everyone can calm down

Craig: please really listen to what Torpedo and Brian and nannym are saying. A lot of us have been reading you for years, and your recent columns are neither objective nor fair.

what I was typing up as they weighed in ahead of me:

Craig: maybe Keith can ask you tonight if you are using your CQ column to audition for a new gig on Fox News.

From yesterday's thread:

Obama's 'Righteous Wind' Claim Over the Top

By Craig Crawford | October 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (393)

Politicians who even hint that God is on their side make me squeamish.

Last night in Virginia, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama tipped about a 5.5 on my Cringe Meter, with 1.0 being an ultimate church-and-state separatist like James Madison, and 10.0 being the Holy Crusades.

"I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here," Obama told an estimated crowd of 35,000 cheering supporters in Lessburg [sic], Va., on Wednesday night.

Sure, that's well short of God telling him to invade a country. But a "righteous" wind at your back? That is definitely church talk, and of the scariest variety, suggesting that a political candidacy is a divine cause. Beware the politician who thinks God is voting for him. ...

"That's real responsible journalism, taking the quote, parsing it, and presenting half the story. Obama said, directly afterward, that there was still a lot of work to do and that people can't get complacent. Obviously you are one of those people who's bought into the tabloid journalism schtick.

Posted by: Timmy | October 24, 2008 2:47 AM"

"Did the "church talk" of Martin Luther King Jr. scare you Craig?

http://www.mlkonline.net/promised.html

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say that threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Posted by: Divalicias | October 24, 2008 12:50 PM"

=====

Obviously, Craig, it's your blog and you can do whatever you want with it.

Your readership has changed significantly over the primary season, and maybe you are now playing to your own "base."

But please do not congratulate yourself on being objective.

You have changed on us, or maybe you are just being more overt.

And consider -- maybe John McCain should have been listening to Mike Murphy and his longtime associates.

Critics, yes, but people who saw something in him that he is squandering, right and left.

Solar - Nice .... And we do agree you need both.. Just where is the line.

Also interesting is your point and connect to many that say we must have a HUGE correction to clean the system and recover back to allowing true fundamentals to return

I like your post

TV, why does Craig need to apologize and say he was taken in? You and the resident scold are doing a fine job of letting him and everyone who reads your posts know he was. The Obama campaign and McCain campaign also need to apologize for being taken in I suppose. I suppose The PPG and KDKA and every other Pittsburgh news outlet needs to apologize, too? I expect to see your scolding letters to the editor and your comments on KDKA.

Palin's wardrobe has been a story for three days, aint seen a thread dedicated to that!

So let me get this straight. Craig reports on a story most of us had seen and read about yesterday. Some of his readers implode with "HOW DARE YOU not mention the word ALLEGEDLY!!!!"

Then some turn around and say it was a McCain campaign trick, with no substantiation, and feel superior about their own "journalistic" skills.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

dog's eye, think i said once before in a similar debate, i am always hardest on the leader, so you should take heart

LOL- if there is anything to be feared it is Keith Olbermann's faux-righteous indignation!

The really scare thing is Champ agreed with me, I might have to do a rethink!

(oh lighten up Champ)

Obama is not a bad guy – just do not agree that the socialistic liberal values are best for America.

Does not make me a bad guy…
Posted by: Ping Pong | October 24, 2008 2:28 PM

I don't think you're a bad guy; I just think you actually believe that economics is a science, which time and again has been proven not to be, be it capitalist or socialist. I am both capitalist and socialist and the big U.S. corporations who continues feed like hogs in the trough are also as they are in synch with the government in protecting and increasing it's corporate welfare, designed and administered by the U.S. government and particularly the executive branch.

So you see, your notion of "free enterprise" is untrue and unwise... that is, if you agree with this definition of "free enterprise": "Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. also called free market." It's so hypocritical it stinks into the next universe.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/atm-mugging-becomes-campaign-f.html#comment-163081

Cuba has suffered from the embargo of trade with the US. Not to mention our government frowning on any of our allies dealing with them. Still a larger majority of the people are better off at a lower level than they were under an elite class of gamblers and crooks raking in all the goodies. Unfortunately, they all came here following the revolution.

It didn't have to go that way. Castro gave the US first crack at being of assistance once the dictator along with his thugs and friends were ousted,

Batista was one of our bad guys facing off against the Russian's bad guys so we just handed Castro to the Communists.

I just didn't see anything nefarious in what Craig wrote... he was simply commenting on how a "non-issue" can blow up into a major issue. Or am I totally reading this wrong? And since McInsane and Obama both commented on it, the story is already out there in the mainstream press in a higher profile than would have been if they hadn't commented.

Sorry again, Craig, but journalistic integrity requires you to admit the mistake. YOU wrote that headline and it was not written correctly No matter how you want to defend it, the headline should have made it clear that this woman's story was an ALLEGATION . I am not accusing you of being biased. But I am telling you that you made a mistake and should correct it for the record.

"Craig: maybe Keith can ask you tonight if you are using your CQ column to audition for a new gig on Fox News. "

Oh puhleeze. It's not enough that posters who don't march in lockstep are thugged on a regular basis. Now it's the host.

The moral superiority reeks of fundamentalist mindset.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/why-not-the-issues.html#comment-163107

Well said Jamie, and absolutely true. The right wing will never admit it which is great irony since they tout the economic power and clout of the USA and yet deny that Cuba's economy stagnates because of the embargo.

I was in Dutch classes with a Cuban woman... she is great ! She married a Belgian guy and we laughed and talked about the USA and Cuba. She said that even with the economic pressure placed on them because of economic embargos, they did well with health care and housing and so forth. Ok, not the nicest homes, but at least a roof over their head. Yania said to me that the Cubans generally didn't hate the USA, but were pretty angry at how the people have suffered by the actions of the world's biggest power.

"So let me get this straight. Craig reports on a story most of us had seen and read about yesterday. Some of his readers implode with "HOW DARE YOU not mention the word ALLEGEDLY!!!!"
Then some turn around and say it was a McCain campaign trick, with no substantiation, and feel superior about their own "journalistic" skills.
Welcome to the Brave New World."
Posted by Patsi

I am the one who said Craig should have used the word allegedly and I most certainly DID NOT say "HOW DARE YOU." I was NOT rude or disrespectful in any way and you have no call to suggest that I was. And at no time did I say it was a McCain campaign trick or suggest that I had superior journalistic skills.
So, please, Patsi, don't put words in my mouth or try to mix up my points with those of others. I don't do that to you and I expect the same courtesy in return.

Here's MY final word(s) concerning the topic du jour:

First, I wonder if Craig can actually be considered a 'journalist', rather than a pundit? Does he actually investigate and break stories? He may; i'm not too familiar with his work outside of this blog, but from what I've gathered he's more of an 'analyst'.

Second, The way the post was written was unnecesarily provocative and sensationalist, with the races of the fake mugger and the fake victim identified and no real questioning of the veracity of the "story".

Third, Craig's very next post is almost an admission of the frivolity of the preceding one, in that it addresses the lack of substantive debate on real issues of policy in favor of media distractions such as...well, such as the hoax of the preceding thread. Are you running for office, Craig?

Excuse me, dog, but what a load of horse shit. Craig should ignore the story? Perhaps you and your buddies could send him a memo outlining which stories appearing in the news are acceptable for him to comment on or run the risk of offending the faithful. And defending Obama's church talk? Disagree with Craig's take on it, but realize you have no premium on what is and is not the truth regarding the statement seimply because you can't imagine that Obama would have meant anything religious when he used the word righteous. It's not a stretch to attach that connotation, and that word is used in churches all the time. Using MLK as an example? Try again. MLK was a minister, and he was not runing for office. You and the rest of the faithful better realize that this little incident is certainly not below the standards of the McCain campaign, expect more to come in the next couple of weeks and grow a little thicker hide. Your outrage is laughable.

Have a good weekend - I'm gone.

oh cmon, nannymm, my simple point was that the presidential campaigns were engaged in this story, and it would be a talker today, as it was.

Posted by: Craig Crawford

Ok, so where's your post on Sarah Palin's wardrobe and makeup artist? You're really showing your colors these days...

William Weld, former GOP governor of Massachusetts, has endorsed Obama.

CONCORD, N.H.—Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president on Friday, citing the senator's good judgment, "deep sense of calm" and "first-class political temperament."

Weld said he's never endorsed a Democrat for president before, but in the last six weeks or so, it became "close to a no-brainer." Obama has a history of bringing Democrats, Republicans and independents together and is the best choice at a time when America's standing in the world is at a low point, he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/10/24/former_mass_gov_william_weld_to_endorse_obama/

"Sorry again, Craig, but journalistic integrity requires you to admit the mistake. YOU wrote that headline and it was not written correctly No matter how you want to defend it, the headline should have made it clear that this woman's story was an ALLEGATION . I am not accusing you of being biased. But I am telling you that you made a mistake and should correct it for the record. "

I'd call that rude, considering Craig is your host. You are basically saying if he doesn't apologize to you he has no integrity. Spare me.

Nanny

If you don't like the way Craig writes his blog, don't read it. We are all guests here and demands for him to change anything, is just a little presumptious.

Fuss with the other guests if you want, but ordering the host around is a bit much.

As much as I like you folks, I really think you are all overreacting.

hey, anybody has a right to gripe about my posts anytime for any reason in any way they like. i took no personal offense (just don't accuse me of dying my hair, now that gets me riled)

"William Weld, former GOP governor of Massachusetts, has endorsed Obama."

Obama seems to be bring all the Republicans into the Dem party. Guess his tribute to Ronnie Raygun paid off.

"Ok, so where's your post on Sarah Palin's wardrobe and makeup artist? You're really showing your colors these days..."

How about we go back and spend some time on the FISA vote?

Yeah Patsi, Craig made his bed... He gets paid by CQ to do it because his television exposure brings eyes to their cite, it's not as if he 'hosts' the comment section out of a sense of civic duty.

Thank you, Craig. I certainly did not say that you have no integrity nor did I demand anything. I stated my position and will continue to do so as I see fit.
And Patsi, you failed to address my other points.

Craig - Can I claim this new thread and post is in response to my demand on the last one....

;~)

As much as I like you folks, I really think you are all overreacting.

Posted by: EuroTom Author Profile Page | October 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Well, you would know... you must have found my stash of Halcyon today.

You dye your hair?

*ducks*

"so where's your post on Sarah Palin's wardrobe and makeup artist? You're really showing your colors these days... --- Posted by: Politics of Utopia"

i haven't been too interested in Palin since predicting her crash: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/09/the-palin-syndrome.html

Halcyon, of course, the last piece of the puzzle drops into place.

Craig: fair point

Champ

You can tell you are rather new. This is either the third or fourth incarnation of Craig's blog. There have been so many moves over the past three years that I know of that it is hard to remember.

When he had the other locations, he just cross posted his CQ column for commentary every Thursday. Due to all sorts of technical problems, we eventually moved here, thanks to CQ giving us a place that didn't fall down everytime someone swang too hard hard from the chandeliers.

Unless he corrects my understanding, this is still his blog and he is under no obligation to CQ to keep us all entertained.

Brian did you take the 380+ 1? bet on?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/why-not-the-issues.html#comment-16312

Tell me Champ, how does it work for you?

oh c'mon, champ, i enjoy commenting with you guys, even on grumpy days like this one. no duty at all.

Tom jokingly accused me of being on Halcyon yesterday, Brian, thus the reference. I don't even know what it is, but I'm assuming it's a sedative due to its trade-name. Yes, I realize I could 'google' it.

Craig's blog is hosted here because it makes CQ money, Jamie. They wouldn't pay him if it didn't. The comments section drives a lot of that traffic. End of story.

ok group hug... I am off to watch Battlestar Gallactica

Craig: nice comment at 2:51.

Also: know you realize -- even if some others don't -- that those of us complaining would not do so unless (a) we cared about you and your blog -- and read the damn thing, (b) we thought you might actually read our comments and maybe even think on them and (c) you know from years of observation that being surrounded by yes-men, sheep and psychophants rarely keeps anyone sharp.

Craig is indeed a great guy when it comes to interacting with his readers. No doubt about it. I get the sense he likes to have fun and mix it up - even with readers like me who are constantly trying to point out a right wing bias : )

Yes Champ I was kidding.. and I am not sure that it was a good reference... so I take it back ...

It's cool, Craig... I just don't think it's necessary to give you undue deference just because you are the 'host' and on TV, and one thing I respect about you is that you don't seem to think so either. No danders have been upped on this side of the screen in a while. It's all silliness.

" They wouldn't pay him if it didn't. "

Champ. That is what I was trying to tell you.

They paid him long before we moved here. It isn't their blog and as far as I know, his salary isn't dependent on this blog or on us dropping by for a visit.

Well said, Dog's Eye.

......so: know you realize -- even if some others don't -- that those of us complaining would not do so unless (a) we cared about you and your blog

So what if Craig has more...um, is goodwill the right word?, for John McCain. He probly knows the man as a person, rather than just a politician. That doesn't mean he's a tool for the Rep. campaign.

Fire Fox , just crashed for the 3 time in the last 45 min, or so anyone else having this pain?

while true that this blog is my job, i am fortunate to make a living doing what i love. which is what i wish for all of you as well. i made a lot more money practicing law, but hated it worse than a sharp stick in the eye

concern troll:

yes. That is very true.

And I posted it under my own "name."

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/why-not-the-issues.html#comment-163145

that's probably true, rosiethecat, i've known McCain since the 2000 campaign and have always liked him as a person. very engaging and fun to talk to, he has a delightfully mischevious sense of humor. but haven't seen much of that person in this campaign.

dog's eye

You have no idea how much I wish everyone did that. Though the use of the "aliases" seems to have decreased a little of late.

Thanks you for posting that here Craig, saving me the effort of digging through the archives to prove Jamie wrong, which is always fun, but rather tedious.

Craig,

Have you had a chance to speak to McCain at all this season. From the primaries on, he just didn't seem like the same person from the previous campaign. He just seems so edgy and easily angered. Even when he is coming on stage all of the gestures seem a little faked as if he is going through "they told me to do this" motions.

I don't know just how close ya'll are, but it seems to me that after what W. did to him in 2000 with the robo-calls, he would be loath to use them now, or allow them to be used(did you see what Gulliani was saying) And it's hard to believe that his nearest and dearest wouldn't advise him about this.

not since 2007 summer, Jamie, when he was down and out with no handlers -- and seemed to having more fun than after comeback

Is it that Machiavellian piece of poo, Rove?

The Maverick sold his soul to win this nomination, now he's about to suffer one of the greatest loses in modern American politics, karma.

"And Patsi, you failed to address my other points."

Because your main point is that Craig somehow owes you an apology for printing a story that's had been circulating. That's just silly.

I have been amazed at the posts criticizing Craig once again. What he did was report facts - he did not, repeat not, say or imply the woman's story was true. He did NOT say this reflected badly on Obama. You don't believe me? Read on:

""A 20-year-old white Republican volunteer says she was mugged at an ATM, claiming that her black assailant carved up her face after seeing her John McCain bumper sticker, and both presidential campaigns get involved.""

He didn't say she was mugged - he said she says she was mugged. If anything, that seems to indicate the he was leery of believing her. That does not constitute a slur on Obama or any criticism of Obama.

If anything, it could be said to question the the McCain campaign.

Craig reported on something someone else said which might have become another annoying story. That's what he's supposed to do. There are so many questionable posts here that demands for an apology
from Craig are are laughable to me

If you are angry, be angry at the pathetic woman who concocted the stunt. Yes, she was playing to prejudices and she lost big time, but Craig did not suggest that any African American was responsible
for a horrible attack. He has been an equal-opportunity critic of both candidate.

Patsi,

With regards to your William Weld comment, he seems to bringing the more intellectual or fiscal conservatives into his camp leaving the freakus de Jesus or the wargazmos to support McCain...

This endorsement is deliciously shocking for someone who wants to make popcorn and watch the Republican Rome burn...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/mccain-adviser-endorses-o_n_137590.html

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/why-not-the-issues.html#comment-163152

Hardly the first time and since I'm aiming for at least 100, I doubt it will be the last.

"freakus de Jesus or the wargazmos "

Love the terms, Bear...

Bettyboo,
Craig's headline is misleading. Please note that it does not say "alleged" mugging. It clearly says, ATM mugging becomes campaign fodder. Anyone who just read that headline would not know that it was ONLY AN ALLEGED MUGGING. That is my point and no matter how you try to spin it, my point is correct. Read the headline for your self.

ATM Mugging Becomes Campaign Fodder

By Craig Crawford | October 24, 2008 6:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (251)

Craig....
you are a sweetie!....
IMO, you owe no one an apology.....

don't let those that have a problem with control bully you.....

Bear, Patsi

imo the weld endorsement is more important than the Powell endorsement. This is an old line conservative abandoning the party. If they leave you will see it as the final realignment of what began with the south in the 60's. The north will become solid democrat leading to the mythical permant majority

It looks a lot like what has been happening to Kansas the last 6 years

Jack

Brian, I think the greatest loss was the 2000 election.

OMG! Some of you (RR,patsi,Jamie, etc, You know who I am referring to) are ridiculous! You're acting like Craig is a hot house flower or some poor bullied kid who needs your protection, He doesn't. He's a grown man who can take a bit of well meaning criticism without crumbling. If he has something to say, he says it. And he can stick up for himself if he feels the need. Give it a rest! You're either pandering or azz kissing. Neither is attractive or necessary. In fact, it's sickening.

Whsky,

Weld is by no means an old line conservative. He was your typical Socially liberal, wall street Republican. Remember that when Bill Clinton tried to appoint him Ambassador to Mexico in 1996, Jesse Helms blocked it by refusing to hold hearing.
According to his wiki page, it was suspected retaliation because Weld had investigated Ed Meese during Iran Contra...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Weld

Moment of Truth-John Moody FOX News VP

"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jmoody_1023/

Hey Craig,

How much heat would you catch if during your appearance on Countdown tonight, you do did your commentary in the persona of Andrew Dice Clay? lol

Can dirty nursery rhymes be translated into politics in such short time? lol

Nanny

You have every right to criticize Craig or anything he writes. I was doing it yesterday myself. It was the demand that he apologize or alter what he wrote. Quite simply, he doesn't owe any of us anything and I thought you were out of line and said so.

"It looks a lot like what has been happening to Kansas the last 6 years"

Jack -- I think that the wack job Attorney General who tried to open up abortion clinic records did the Reps a huge amount of damage in Kansas. Even some of my most Republican friends were outraged by that guy.

Here's a great link...

Stars and Bars along with Obama/Biden signs...in the same yard...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-kark/obama-signs-and-confedera_b_137607.html

Craig as Andrew Dice Clay....I like it.

Might fit in with MSNBC's usual persona, too....

Jamie,

Craig does owe us something...

Complimentary, personalized signed copies of his books actually...with notes scribbled in the margins, food recipes too...lol

"don't let those that have a problem with control bully you....."

this is feeble-minded. I believe it's actually called fair criticism, and Craig, to his credit, recognized it as such.

hey Obots....

feast on this..... this is the best columnist in the Nation, IMO..... and I agree with this article....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/cockburn

Sorry, nannym - I usually agree with you completely, but this time I don't. Headlines are short and don't elaborate, and this one doesn't indicate the mugging was an accepted fact.

There are many ways posters could have registered their dislike of Craig's post - how about:
-----Craig, I wish you had made it clear that this crime is alleged.
-----Craig, your headline seems to suggest you are accepting this woman's story. I wish you'd clean that up.

Craig never talks to any of us like this:
"" Writing about it on teis blog was perpetuating the story, Craig. Nowhere in your post did you indicate that the story was not verified....Sorry, Craig, but you goofed and you do owe your readers an appology.""

""SHAME ON YOU CRAIG!""

""THIS THREAD IS DISGUSTING!""

Those are not all your posts, but my point is that Craig doesn't speak to us like that. To disagree with Craig is fine, but accusations and demands for apologies are way over the top to me.

Once again, sorry, cuz I usually agree with you.

I think it would be better if Craig Crawford became Uriah Heep for the Obama campaign. It would make the chat board so much nicer.

Since this thread is "allegedly" about issues, how about McCain's anti-veteran votes?

Here are a few examples of pro-veteran legislation that didn't get McCain's support:

• January 2008: McCain didn't vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, which included an increase in basic monthly pay for active military by 3.5 percent and permitted vets who are 100 percent disabled to receive both retirement and disability pay.

• October 2007: He didn't vote on another version of the Defense Authorization Act, which included billions of dollars in funding for veterans healthcare services.

• February 2006: He voted against the amendment proposed by Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, which would have appropriated the aforementioned $1 billion for hospital improvements at places like Walter Reed and also included: $14 billion for the Veterans Benefits Administration for Compensation and Pensions for 2006-2010; and $6.9 billion for the VA for medical care for 2006-2010.

• November 2005: He voted against an amendment that would've provided $500 million each year from 2006 to 2010 for "readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder."

• October 2005: McCain voted against an amendment that would've required that funding for the VA health administration be increased each year to adjust for inflation and the number of veterans served.

• March 2004: He voted against closing tax loopholes to create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in medical care for veterans by $1.8 billion.

Yea but you all do it in a pack,,,,i agreed with brians initial comments but not his tone,,,after brian was scolded for his tone, than more appeared,,there were others that did not agree with craig, champ was one of them but did NOT YELL AT HIM, the need to defend the leader was to strong a tempation?

Isn't Uriah Heep a southern rock band? lol

Gas in Burleson, TX is $1.96!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A full 50% drop in prices in the last 8 weeks!

Bear

Well I had to buy my own copies and Asilomar got cancelled so there goes the signature. I suppose I could jot some of his pithier remarks in the margins by myself.

If worse comes to worst, I'll just mug Tiptoe and get her signed plastic fruit.

The ATM story was a hoax? Man, I don't know what is real and what isn't real anymore! Regardless, I'm just glad nobody on this blog got upset over the mention of this bogus story.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/10/why-not-the-issues.html#comment-163182

Nope just a whole bunch of individuals having the same reaction to the same event.

Uriah Heep is a fictional character created by Charles Dickens in his novel David Copperfield.

The character is notable for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, and general insincerity.

and a defunct BRITISH rock band.

temptation that is----instead oftempation

Thanks...

I once tried to slam my head in a door after reading Great Expectations so my tolerance and knowledge of anything Dickens is thankfully low...

We all make mistakes. Here's my latest correction.

Uriah Heep is not defunct but has morphed into a European cult band.

Nannym - Once again, I disagree with you. In fact, i will say you are dead wrong.

I do not pander nor do I ass kiss, and I think you are even more out of line on this. Your name-calling is surprising to me - do you think you owe some apologies? No, of course, you don't because you meant what you said.

So do all of us who are taking Craig's side in this. I know full well Craig can defend himself, but I was criticizing your post, not defending him. He's probably bemused right now at all this argument re his story.

Whether he's the host or not, it isn't necessary to demand apologies from him or to name-call. The calls for apologies from Craig that arise occasionally
are strident and in-effective. As I said before, all these things can be said even better without insults.

You criticized Craig and you got criticized for the way you did it. That's what happened.

After reading Michelle Bachman talk about the french youth rioting because their welfare benefits are too low...

I think we need to riot here so Craig will give us free books...or at least a free plug on a TV appearance...lol

ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!

Corey..... LOL!

Patsi.... that's as damning a list against McCain as I've ever seen..... how does that man even think to call himself a friend of veterans......

Bear..... I love Dickens..... but I put him in the same boat as Thomas Hardy....
one must steel one's self against depression when reading.....

Bettyboo, a headline should accurately reflect what's in the story. It's all some people look at. I didn't make any accusations or demand anything. I stated my opinion that Craig erred and should apologize. That is how I felt then and still feel now. Look at it this way...any idiot looking to spread a false story could take that headline and say it's a quote from Craig. Spread that around along with other erroneous quotes and you have the potential for trouble. I have high regard for Craig; that's why I read this blog. But I do expect accuracy here, even in the title.
If you all don't like what I said, I guess that's your problem. My initial post was to Craig. He responded. You are the ones who felt some misguided need to defend his honor.
He doesn't need it. He speaks quite well in his own defense.

Another question for all of you: Which candidate's health plan will help this kid out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9GNmqLnUq0&feature=related

LOL,

Craig should have blamed the Libertarians, the “B” was obviously for Bob Barr !!

You would think that with High School Musical 3 opening in theaters tonight, everyone would be in a good mood today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1tBYV1cgU

count it up......it's nanny, dog's eye, and brian berating craig.........because they did not like his post.....why didnt they just do like Ping does and give him a Grade?

Noooo, that wouldnt do.......they have to go all obamadrama and throw crap all over the place...........

Buzzards of a feather.

Nannym - and I have said also, I felt no need to defend Craig's honor. I myself didn't like your response and feel you were demanding an apology. Your response belittles those of us who disagreed with youo and a few others.

As I said, also, I do not pander and I do not ass-kiss. Your accusation against people who simply disagree with you is far more egregious than anything Craig posted. As I said, once again, I do not pander or ass-kiss, and that goes for the other people you named.
Those names question the integrity of all you sling them at.

That's why I joke around a lot, Sturge. No sense in taking anything said about any candidate personally. That's what drove me crazy about Bush. People used to get mad as hell when somebody criticzed him. Any criticism of Bush usually was met with the response, "It's not as bad as what Bill Clinton did!"

nannymm....

I agree that Craig does an excellent job in his own defense.....
and yes...... this is a blog where free exchange of ideas and criticism is allowed by and of the host..... if I thought for one moment that this was a "fan club", I'd leave.....

the words "if you all don't like what I said, I guess that's your problem"..... applies to you as well.....

ok..... it's Friday night..... Rick and I are going out to dinner at our favorite Italian restaurant...... I will lift a glass of old vine Zin in honor of this blog....

Ciao!

Bethyboo: enough already.

There are two sides to this issue, and nanny has a very well reasoned one as well.

Agree to disagree and move on.

Loyalty is great, but honesty and fairness and being willing to listen to others are up there as good values too.

Sturge and Renee and Corey and pogo and others: you don't understand this, but there is a definite groupthink on this blog (chloe understands this point well, and works it).

Many of you have done your best to belittle -- in particular -- early Obama supporters and try to drive us away.

Note Sturge's point about "Obamadrama" and "crap all over the place" and buzzards. Nice.

Consider yourselves lucky -- really -- that some of us have not given up on Craig's blog, because it keeps it a livelier place, and a more honest one.

You do yourselves no favors when you drive away and ostracize your "dissidents" and then sit around and compliment yourselves on what a broadminded yet cohesive group you are. Imagine that.

You accuse those of us who spoke out on Craig's recent posts of "pack behavior" -- and it's not. It's recognizing something that is way out of kilter -- or, perhaps -- would have been way out of kilter a few months back -- and speaking up on the point.

It's when people won't speak up, at all, or have given up on the situation, that you have a real problem on your hands.

A Vegas night club is holding a Sarah Palin look-alike contest for strippers or chorus girls. The ones the showed on tv were parading in American flag bikinis - will have to debate. It sure didn't look pretty.

Cynthia McKinney is on CSpan - she looks good.

KGC - what's the story on Measure Q? Does every state have all the propositions and measures we do?

I understand that people taken offense at anything that takes a shot at Obama. If whatever is said is blatantly misleading, then the defense of Obama is stronger. I realize it's okay to bash McCain here, but not Obama. That's how it seems right now. I just think it's funny how personal people are taking this election here.

"I will lift a glass of old vine Zin in honor of this blog...."

Excellent idea, Renee. By the way, I emailed that vet vote list to a vet friend of mine who flirted with voting for Obama then moved to McCain because of his "support of the vets." His support ain't been much.

Dog eye said>>>>
Many of you have done your best to belittle -- in particular -- early Obama supporters and try to drive us away.

Dog Eye.....throw in paranoid also.

the only group think practitioners I've seen here are those in your little exblogiate group......how youre so looking forward after the election to coming in here en masse to "Gloat", for instance.

and my post was meant in no way imaginable to be "nice".......If I see buzzards, I'll point out: "Buzzards".

Ping, by the way, rarely gets a craig-post to go his way......does he bitch and raise hell? No....he gives out a grade and attempts to argue his points.......

" "crap all over the place" and buzzards. Nice."

Dog -- surely you jest. Sturge's posts when compared to your pal Brian's are mild. Not more than a few hours ago Brian said he had to get the "stink" of the blog off of him....and I'd rather be called a buzzard than repeatedly referred to as a racist old hag.

And I won't even start listing the name calling from above posts...

"Cynthia McKinney is on CSpan - she looks good."

Bethy -- a friend of mine works with Roseanne Barr, and was with Roseanne and Cynthia this week. My friend dropped Cynthia off at the airport, and told her that her friend in Tennessee had voted for her. Cynthia was very gracious, asked her to call me and thank me -- saying that hopefully some support for the Green Party might help build a third party.

Cynthia asked her if I was a Green Party member -- and my friend said, "No, she likes you because you punched out a Capitol Hill cop."

Cynthia cracked up.

Well, I'm off to have pizza at my sister's house. Go see her dog. Later all!

thanks pogo, patsi, jamie, bethy, and all you other alleged panderers and so-called ass-kissers out there for speaking so courageously words some of us quivering folk hesitate to say for fear of the inevitable abuse. please make room for me under that bus from which you were so violently thrown.

NEW THREAD

it's funny.....everyone commenting here this morning merely took craig's post and commented on it one way or the other......some (me, for one) thinking it was an obvious hoax....others maybe not.....( most seemed to think it didnt pass the smell test) but no one thought to sling crap at craig over it until Brian the Fierce showed up........then it was the "lynch mob stink" of the blog and cries of "for shame" etc.....( what brian would know about shame is quite beyond fathomization) I left shortly after that, but then as might be expected, the Two Musky-tears show up and (surprise, surprise), agree with Brian.........
How about you 3 just stuff it.

"Sturge and Renee and Corey and pogo and others: you don't understand this, but there is a definite groupthink on this blog (chloe understands this point well, and works it)."

I believe it is called using you f'ing brain and your right Chloe does an excellent job of it.

The other interesting thing about the group you listed is they can have a discussion and disagree without ever once calling anybody names or throwing a fit because they aren't winning the discussion. They are much more even tempered than I am. I tend not to suffer fools.

Jack

Dog - I understand your message, but i wnat to make the point again that I don't appreciate names being called. Disagreement is one thing, name-calling is something else.

As far as group-think goes, there are two groups here with a few "un-aligned", I guess you could say. The over-all point is that whatever you say about the group you disagree with is also true about the group you seem to belong with.

You feel Obama supporters have been targeted and attempts have been made to drdive them off - and I will add to that that the exact same thing is true for those who are not enamored of Obama. I have never tried to drive anyone off, and don't want to. You should also be grateful that many of us are still here...."" because it keeps it a livelier place, and a more honest one.

"""You do yourselves no favors when you drive away and ostracize your "dissidents" and then sit around and compliment yourselves on what a broadminded yet cohesive group you are.""

Those same points apply to you, but I guess you don't think so.

I saw no one accuse any of you as using pack mentality - I sure didn't. In fact, I'll mention it again, I called no one any names.

Both groups have slung a lot of anger and insult and screaming around. Neither group can claim to have been more insulted. Read what you said about how Obama supporters have been treated, and then substitute "non-Obama fans" for "Obama supporters" and you will see how the other group feels.

If you can't acknowledge that it has been a two-way street, that's too bad. If you can't see another point of view then conversation isn't worthwhile, and I like to think that's the point of this blog.

I understand nannym's point re the headline but not the demand for an apology. I absolutely don't understand the point of calling our disagreement pandering and ass-kissing. Those are foul and disgusting words in my book, and I was astonished at nannym's using them. So don't feel like the Lone Ranger - group Obama has slammed out insults as well as group not-Obama...and most of us are voting for Obam.

I suggest that in order to not cause eruptions that you and nannym excerise you perogative and ignore the postings of anyone you feel is pandering and ass-kissing. I do.

I see Weld was mentioned earlier. He is a carpetbagger and an opportunist. As for his politics, he is a RINO. Also suspected to be frequently intoxicated and a known Deadhead. This will help him when he runs for office in New York. Sorry I forgot, he already tried that. Perhaps he want to succeed Ray Flynn as Ambassador to the Vatican or maybe Ireland.

Bettyboo,
For the record, I did NOT demand an apology or a retraction. I simply stated that Criag owed his readers an apology. That was, and still is, nothing more and nothing less than my opinion. No one addressed my point about the main issue I raised...Craig's headline, except you. The rest just chose to accuse me of attacking Craig. At least one even suggested I no longer read this blog, prompting Craig to defend my right to be here. So, please, enough. Let's just agree to disagree. That's life.

Duncan Hunter of Obama, "nice smile, good teeth..."

WTF?!!