Pod cast of 6th Forum available.
--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/21/2005
There is a website that has the pod cast of the 6th District up. There is a podcast also with commentary of the host of said site. Unfortunately his comments are borderline moronic, void of intellectual thought and true analysis. I am planning to breakdown HIS commentary on the show. Mr. Idusogie, as I said in my e-mail to you, you can call to defend yourself if you wish--320-251-1990--on Sunday. (Doug, do you do THAT to anyone that you criticize, or is this still cowardly?)
Peter Idusogie's foolishness starts out with his comment about the endorsment. Is it expected that all 4 candidates would hold to the endorsement? "Very surprising coming from the Republicans." What? The GOP has been very good in abiding by the endorsement. Only fringe candidates with zero chance of winning continue to a primary.
Next, Bachmann makes some strange remarks and Idusogie starts with those (as if these are representative of all Republicans). The question that Bachmann was answering was asking how would you prevent rioting similar to France where various cultures refuse to assimilate.
Idusogie: "We need to rise above trying to divide that country." Nope. WE are not dividing that country. They are dividing themselves by not compelling assimilation into their culture. We need to return to assimilation. If you come to America you should be, well, American. And you know what, there are cultures that are inferior. The "radical" Muslims, the Muslims who are Supportive of the "radicals" through their Silence, these are examples of inferior cultures. Idusogie then likens the French immigrants failure to assimilate to affirmative action. There is no comparison beyond both being bad policies. Affirmative Action is racist and France's problems are poorly engaging in nationalism. The discrimination in France (against non-citizens) is acceptable; the discrimination in America (affirmative action) is not.
Regarding the idea that media can incite rioting Mr. Idusogie and his little lapdog say, "I'm just stunned that cable TV is responsible for the rioting we have there." "There's a tendency by right-wing zealots to blame Al Jazeera for everything..."
"Or even the media"
"...or to blame the media, but even in America the media didn't do its job to scrutinize the administration before we went to war. So who are we to start blaming Al Jazeera? There's no question that Al-Jazeera has its own bias, Fox News has its own bias, CNN has their bias. Everyone has their form of bias. You know we criticize each other too much. Can't we all get along?"
Let's break this down. First, this charge that the "right-wing zealots" blame the media for riots...let's rewind back to Ruby Ridge (blamed on right wing talk radio)...no, let's rewind back to Janet Reno's attack in Reno (Branch Dividians blamed on the right wing talk radio). Forget it. How about we rewind to the Oklahoma City bombing where the President and his fellating crew blamed that on Rush and the rest of talk radio. Who is blaming whom for riots & violence?
Second, you bitch about people criticizing people too much roughly 5 minutes after criticizing Sen. Bachmann. I suppose the criticism is OK if it is against the right-wing but it is unacceptable if it is against the left-wing, right. Or are you simply speaking out of both sides of your mouth (like others I have spoken about recently)?
Finally, this idea that everyone has their own bias and thus should be accepted is, well, stupid (or for the intellectuals who make this claim: irresponsible). The Nazi party had their own bias. It was still something that should be condemned. Al Jazeera's bias is against America/the West and is for homicidal freaks known as "radical" Muslims. They deserve to be marginalized especially by the West. Only "radical" Muslim sympathizers would even think to justify their legitimacy of any sort.
On to taxes. Knoblach made a comment that he was just told that the army of the IRS is bigger than the US Army.
I did 3 minutes of fact checking (which is obviously 3 minutes more than Idusogie did before he spouted off about how full of himself Knoblach was) and found that a game of telephone must have occurred. The number of employees in the IRS was 115,000 and the number of military sent to the Middle East was "over 100,000". Lapdog boy did check some facts...but to make him look better he included the National Guard in his numbers. Any active duty member will tell you that there is a HUGE difference between the Guard and active duty. They are helpful, but they are different. They are support, not the military...until they are activated and then they become active duty. It is improper to include them in the numbers in this case.
He goes on to claim that tax cuts cause deficits. WRONG. It is the spending that does that and nothing else.
I think you get the idea. This guy is a gas bag with little substance behind his helium. His analysis of the forum is, well, the worst analysis possible.
Listen on Sunday for an honest breakdown of Peter Idusogie's hackery.
********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Daily Kos. In the interest of being fair, the post you just read was only PART of the analysis. The rest will be done on our show this coming Sunday. It will be truncated due to another issue with Inside Minnesota Politics which must be discussed. What is that issue? Go here to find out.
11 Comments:
Tony,
If you listen to the audio of Knoblach's response carefully he says "the regular army" and does not qualify that he means the army that is serving in Iraq. There are about 499,000 active duty U.S. Army troops serving worldwide. You don't even need to add the 700,000 National Guard and U.S. Army reservists to exceed the number of IRS employees (115,000).
At best, Knoblach made an honest mistake and didn't include the qualifier that he meant troops in Iraq. At worst, he was trying to drum up more support for his point by bending the facts.
I listened to it carefully. He is repeating what he admitted to be 3rd hand knowledge. In other words, as I said, a game of telephone had occurred.
And my point still stands...his facts were not correct and likely were supposed to be about the troops in Iraq.
AND, it was unfair of the lapdog on the stream to include the Guard to further exagerate his point.
Again, if you listen carefully the National Guard/Reservist numbers were broken out separately before the total was given.
The real issue here is Knoblach's use of facts and figures. If he knowingly omitted that he was talking about the army in Iraq, then he was trying to decieve. If he was repeating third hand information that he had not checked out, then he obviously is prone to using misinformation that supports his view of the world. This is not an unheard of trait for politicians (Dems and Reps), but is really not something that should be condoned, encouraged or defended. We all have the right to our own opinion on an issue. However, we do not have a right to have our own facts. When you want to be a U.S. Representative accuracy counts.
The larger point is that the idiots on the podcast were trying to make a big deal about what was admitted to be 3rd hand. I have witnessed how it works...during the meet & greet someone shakes a candidates hand and says, "by the way, I heard [insert fact that is not necessarily correct]." The candidate goes on to say something like, "You don't say."
Then during the actual event the candidate says "Someone just told me..."
Yes, most speakers do it. I find it onerous that Peter & his little lapdog try to score partisan points on that. I'm also willing to bet that the same criticisms will not be levied on Democrats (who play looser with facts more often) by Peter and his little henchboy.
The posting is about how horrid the analysis was. I have alread gone through the forum itself. You see, the analysis from the little podcast partisans was so biased (dressed up as objective) that people in the coming months should be aware they cannot trust the spewing from Inside Minnesota Politics with Peter Idusogie.
If you're willing to bet the podcast doesn't criticize Democrats, than you've already lost that bet. The podcast has also pointed out the errors the DFL candidates for U.S. Senate has made.
Listen to the analysis of the DFL Senate Candidates forum and you'll hear how Patty Wetterling apparently didn't know what NAFTA was, how Ford Bell hadn't even considered what committees he wanted to be on and how Peter thought all three candidates were trying to win votes by appeasing peace activists. On Wetterling's call for withdrawing troops immediately from Iraq Peter said "it looks so easy to say that, but we are not thinking about the long term consequences."
The errors, both minor and major are pointed out.
With all due respect the two podcasts were different. The Democrat forum review did NOT start out by ridiculing candidates or the Democrats in general. The Republican forum review did.
Your effort to rebuild the "objectivity" of that sad little lapdog and of Peter is interesting. The GOP forum review was a more hostile tone. The DFL forum review was simply a review to help differentiate carbon copies of each other. Benefit of doubt was given to the DFLers (review their possible strategy for answers, appeasing/catering to constituencies, etc).
That was NOT the case with the GOP review. Peter and his fellating lapdog did not give any benefit of the doubt to Knoblach or any of the candidates. Though they did whine about the shots the Right takes at the media. If you read this blog I am very upfront about my bias. That little broadcast ought to either be upfront about their bias against the right OR stop bitching about the Right calling the media bias for the harm it is.
Back to their biased analysis.
Such biting criticism of the DFL: "[Wetterling] is the only [candidate] also who has lost to Mark Kennedy."
That was the overall tone of the criticism. Nice.
And, oh, those other criticims you just mentioned were given in passing. Hardly qualifies as being on par with the attacking that was done on the podcast.
Credibility denied! Objectivity unproven.
I'm beginning to wonder...are you the lapdog on the podcasts?
And to further emphasize my point...
The lapdog on the podcast looked for (actually fabricated) any reason to go after Krinkie. He just could not bring himself to say something positive about Krinkie. Peter then just kept on going with the non-stop attack. That's fine, but don't let the facts get in the way, huh.
Peter just drools over the supposed "research" that was done to attack the GOP...and was conspicuously absent from the DFL forum.
Mike, just admit the hard-left slant...DURING the podcast.
Or people like me will be forced to belittle your little podcast.
Call in if you want to defend your show. Show up at the studio if you are brave enough to defend yourself in person.
IMP...
BOOOOOO!
Are you really that stupid?
Tax cuts without balancing spending cuts CAUSE DEFCITS!! Period!!
The fuckers you regularly defend have drilled this country into a fiscal hole. Just like your fav fuckers did in the 80's. Spend spend spend. Cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes. Then sit there like a moronic 10 year old and wonder why we have deficits.
That's okay. Once again, those horrid libruls will have to come in a fix your fucking mess.
BTW.. When someone gets up in public and speaks. It is inherent on them to GET THE FACTS RIGHT!! PERIOD.
Stupid little SFB
Hey "genius", how do you "Pay" for tax cuts? I mean, specifically where does that money come from?
If you can answer that then we can have a discussion about budgets, deficits, spending, etc.
Until then we will have to assume what you are showing us...that you have no clue what you are talking about. Your time here sure does not represent Maine's intellect very well.
I hope there are some from your home state that can do a more, uh, cerebral job.
Post a Comment
<< Home