Holy shit!


sorabji.com: Are there any news?: Holy shit!
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By Antigone on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 01:24 pm:

    Senate Republicans have been electronically spying on senate Democrats for a year:

    "WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe."


By patrick on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 01:57 pm:

    im officially adding that prick Novak to my list of assholes who's hash Id like to settle.


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 05:54 pm:


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:00 pm:

    by the way, why has everyone shit all over his Iowa speech? I thought it was hilarious! in a good way even. I was kinda iffy on him till then, now he's given himself this "Bulworth" type thing that makes me like him.

    I mean, compare that to John Edwards speech, which was so movie cookie cutter presidential 'hope' 'i have a vision' speech.

    I dont remember one word of what Kerry said. All I can do is look at him and say "man, with that face he should be an undertaker"


By Antigone on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:05 pm:

    It broke today with that Boston Globe article, apparently.

    Joe Conason's column in Salon picked it up:

    "Those memos were leaked to 'conservative-leaning' journalists, including the editors of the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page staff. Senate Democrats believe that they were also used by Novak to write a column last February exposing their strategy to defeat Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada. Novak published direct quotes and descriptions of meetings that appear to have come from the purloined documents.

    The investigation by the Senate sergeant-at-arms and the Secret Service has led to the seizure of computers from the Judiciary Committee and the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Whether criminal charges are eventually brought against anyone who misused the files may depend on legal interpretations. The Globe reports that the internal Democratic files became accessible because of a glitch in systems set up by a consultant hired in 2001 by then-Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vt."


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:07 pm:


By Antigone on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:07 pm:

    The press is in a feeding frenzy on Dean now. He can do nothing right. They're basically setting him up so that, if he doesn't win New Hampshire he'll be sunk.


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    both the alleged "conservative media" AND the alleged "liberal media" seem to be against him...

    you know, I think the Democrats are more afraid he'll take over the DNC then that he'll lose the race. They're establishment fucks who dont like that Dean is calling them on their pussy-ass behaviour and they simply dont want to change...

    even though its 'change or die' time for the Dems. for real.

    It really is like Bob Roberts vs. Brickley Paiste. The Paiste may be more qualified and smarter and finds issues complex, but he lacks character and wont fight back and thats why the Bob Roberts wins.

    And even if they get rid of Dean, I already know theres a nice load of dirt they can dig up on Kerry, some of it fair, and some of it very unfair.



    NO MORE FUCKING BRICKLEY PAISTES


By patrick on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:21 pm:

    yeah i dont get it. its fuckin Iowa. who gives a fuck. i could stick my finger in my ass, predict the temp in Moscow and be just as relevent as the Iowa Caucus. I mean christ, its fucking Iowa.

    couldnt agree more about edwards.

    Dean needs to keep from imploding right now. I thought his speech was hilarious.

    Just goes to show how fickle and sheep like people can be.

    reality is. Bush is in for 4 more. You know it.


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:28 pm:

    "I'm campaigning against a system where politicians will say anything just to get elected."
    - Howard Dean

    you cant say Dean is coached.

    You know, maybe the press backlash will have a backlash. I mean, the media fucking hated Gore but he didnt get this sort of treatment. I think people who actually see him speak will go "what are these assholes talking about?"

    hey sem, have you noticed that Dean looks like Hardcore Holly?




    You know, a month ago I'd have agreed Bush would win no matter what, but the jump he took after he caught Bin La....er... Saddam has already disappeared. Unless he drags out Bin Laden the week before the election, it could be close no matter what asshat (haha wisper hope you read this I used the forbidden term) they put against Bush. Even Sharpton. Even Kucinich. Simply because theres millions of voters out there who are going to vote against Bush just because its Bush.

    And then theres the 2.3 million people who lost their jobs who might blame him. Theres the 10% of the population who realize that he would put a constitutional amendment against their civil rights. Theres a youth movement of people who otherwise wouldnt vote. Yes, all it takes for Bush to lose is the right people to get out and vote.

    But not for Lieberman. Fuck that fuck.



    I heard this other conspiracy theory the other day that was rather brilliant. That Bush should have his cronies say the week of the election that terrorists are targeting the polls... heh.

    While thats one way to keep people home, wouldnt work. The only ones still buying that fear shit are the ones who'd vote for him.




    anyways, we'll see what happens with this Watergate-esque story. May not get covered. No reason why it shouldnt be, I'm just used to this sort of thing from your media outlets now.


By Rowlfe on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 06:34 pm:

    PS - I thought i'd add something inflammatory.
    just cause


    Bush's reelection at this point seems to rely on peoples fear for their own safety, their greed, their racist hatred of Arabs, and their hatred of gay people. Now dont take that to mean Bush himself is actually racist against Arabs, i mean he certainly has no problem doing business with them.. and etc. - but he is counting on these types of people to "re" elect him.


    With all the attacks against whoever will be made the Democratic candidate, they're all going to ask and accuse and wonder if this person is credible. What they arent going to ask is "but what makes him worse than Bush?"


By Rowlfe on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 09:28 am:


By patrick on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:26 pm:

    I just don't understand why everyone is up his ass about that squeel. Canidates get emphatic and enthusiastic on the campaign trail all the time. And if he's being labeled as "angry' i say GOOD!! It shows he has a fucking pulse. There's lots to be angry about considering what has happened in the last 4 years, and potentially for 4 years to come.


    I just don't understand that big deal. But then again, I dont wear a tie to work and havent for years.



By spunky on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 01:04 pm:

    Because, Patrick, he is running for the President of the United States, not President of the Fraternity.

    Before Clinton, there was actually some respect and prestige associated with that post.


By patrick on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 01:27 pm:

    oh give me a fucking break.


    times have changed.


    there's nothing to implicate disrespect to the office in his empassioned campaign rally speech.

    You can be professional and not be so ridiculously uptight at the same time.

    It was a campaign *rally* *RALLY*!!!! Ever been to a pep rally? The girls wear short skirts, the guys wear jerseys and people yell and scream. Its not like he was giving that speech in front of congress.

    But then again, maybe the Bruce Springsteen that constantly blares at any given politcal function is a bit too disrespectful of the Office. You know that Springsteen guy has holes in his jeans and wears bandanas



    Nothing. Much to do about nothing.


By dave. on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 01:50 pm:

    WISPER!

    ROWLF SAID THE FORBIDDEN WORD!























By Anitgone on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 02:39 pm:

    Odd you should mention the fraternity, spunk. The only fratboy in chief I can think of is Bush Jr.

    But I find it funny what conservatives find "presidential." It's presidential for Bush to be bumbling and a "good ol' boy." Shit, there was even a presidential spin put on him falling, hitting his head on a coffee table, while choking on a pretzel.

    But it's not presidential for Dean to be angry or enthusiastic about the issues?

    Riiiight.


By Antigone on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 02:41 pm:

    And, spunk, while you're here, any comment on the Senate Republicans spying on the Democrats? As a computer security d00d, would you condone such actions?


By dave. on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 02:59 pm:

    yeah. i know it's a different time and all but what about teddy roosevelt? talk about a red-faced, angry president.

    but now the way to get elected is to stay off policy topics. shit, look at arnold. he never gave any details about anything. bush is the same way. i dare him to discuss, in detail, what kind of systemic effect his administration's policies will have on all the different levels. dean could. gore could. clinton could. any of the democratic contenders could. bush? no way. he's a fucking window licker.


By semillama on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 03:19 pm:

    "window licker" - that's awesome.

    Don't forget Nixon, and heck, Andrew Jackson basically threw a kegger on the White House lawn when he won.


By patrick on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 03:20 pm:

    "bring it on"


    Presidential?


By Antigone on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 04:55 pm:

    And now, for some refreshingly different Dean coverage:

    Stand by your man '04
    Judy Dean's TV moment: She loves her work and her husband and doesn't love the spotlight. What could be more normal?

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Rebecca Traister

    Jan. 23, 2004 | Last night Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean was finally, inevitably wheeled out for closer inspection by the nation's television audience, in an ABC "Primetime Live" interview with Diane Sawyer that had been hastily thrown together in the preceding 24 hours. It seemed sad that it had come to this so soon -- that America couldn't wait even a few more weeks to set its eyes and sink its teeth into the woman who has dared to say "No thanks" to the idea of trading her medical practice and home life for a ride on the Dean campaign bus. Steinberg Dean has staunchly refused to sacrifice her Vermont patients or the time with her 17-year-old son for the excitement of her husband's presidential bid, which until recently had been shaking with the energy of a Bruce Springsteen tour.

    The television interview followed her surprise cameo in Iowa the day before the Dean upset, when it had looked as though it might have required the jaws of life to pull her from her examining room and deposit her on the podium. But on television for the first time last night, Judy Steinberg Dean -- forced to perform the humiliating task of introducing herself, explaining away her enthusiasm for her own career, and affirming for all of America that, yes, she does love her husband -- acquitted herself quite beautifully.

    It was 12 years, practically to the day, since Bill and Hillary Clinton had performed the same sort of public service for voters, appearing together on "60 Minutes" to explain away some nasty floozy rumors. Even Diane Sawyer felt compelled to make this meta-media comparison, asking the Deans whether this was a strategic repeat of that "Stand By Your Man" episode. (Note to Diane: ix-nay on the media transparency. Just smile big and remember that you kicked Couric and Walters' asses on this one.) But the vast divide between the Deans and the Clintons was clear as soon as ABC flashed a few seconds of that 1992 interview. There was dowdy old head-banded Hillary, sitting a chilly inch-and-a-half from her sexy hangdog husband. But wow, that un-chic Wellesley girl looked like a teal-clad, heavily rouged Baby Jane when flashed next to the comfy Doctor Judy, snuggled in a red sweater under her husband's arm.

    Steinberg Dean is toothy; she doesn't seem to use much hair product; her face shows her age. It was both fun and horrifying to imagine her dismay at being set on by a team of eager ABC makeup artists, dying to go where only Noxzema has been before. It was also sad to watch her being forced to look at a photo -- the only photo? -- of Laura Bush in evening wear. Sawyer, who didn't even bother to disguise her doubts, wondered aloud how the doctor might feel about having to dress up or look pretty in public.

    But when Steinberg Dean opened her mouth to reassure Mrs. Mike Nichols, who was pretending to be confused about that crazy "feminist who uses her maiden name professionally and her married name personally" thing, "I'm Judy Dean," it was clear that Judy was going to be just fine. Yeah, her voice is nasal and straight out of Long Island. She sounded like my mom's best friend Diane, or as one friend said, "she's like my gynecologist from high school."

    For someone who has never been in front of the camera before, she was remarkably cool. She giggled, and smiled a warm grin that lit up her whole face, exposed her healthy overbite, and had nothing in common with the icily perfect smiles of Elizabeth Dole or Nancy Reagan. She knew to look at the camera steadily; she didn't stammer or stutter; when she spoke to or about her husband, she looked at him. When cornered about whether or not he was "overcoming his reluctance" to ask his wife to join the campaign trail, he said he'd done that when he asked her to come to Iowa; he said he'd noticed that she'd actually had an OK time, and it looked like she agreed with him.

    Dean should have been nervous about trotting this shy, untrained fawn into the blinking TV lights. He should have been worried that she would screw up; he should have been eager to maintain control of the interview. But he didn't interrupt her -- he let her talk until she was done with whatever she had to say. He looked at her with respect, nodded in agreement, and always checked to see if she had something to say before beginning to speak himself. It was clear that Howard Dean trusted his wife.

    None of Judy's answers was exactly polished, or particularly politic. She confessed that the YEEEARGH! tape "looked kinda silly." And when asked why she'd decided to appear, instead of announcing that it had been her idea, she honestly replied, "Howard asked me to do this interview." But her lack of savvy made her other declarations, like, "I'm not a very 'thing' person" -- after being unaccountably quizzed about having accepted and been pleased by a rhododendron from Dean on her birthday -- ring true, even for the most cynical viewer.

    As for the squashed cupcakes and family bike rides: I think we have no choice but to believe the Deans. Who would make up something so deeply geeky? And seeing the good doctor walk and talk makes it clear that this is not a wife who is going to take to media coaching. Can you see her before the interview, surrounded by a pack of cutthroat campaign advisors, urging her, "Whatever you do, bring up the cupcakes!"? No, I think it's fair to say that every year, when Judy Steinberg's birthday rolls around, her family goes on a bike ride and eats cupcakes.

    But all the cupcakes and rhododendrons and unmailed important packages were window dressing. What Howard Dean's wife apparently cares about, what she got animated discussing, was her work as a doctor. "I love my job," she said simply, repeatedly. "I love Howard too," she said once. Her hands remained cupped on her lap, waiting for his paw to return to its cradle after he was done gesticulating. When she said that if her "husband calls on a Saturday" and she can make her schedule work, "I'll be there on Sunday," he reached over and scratched her right shoulder in thanks.

    As eager as we all may be to turn Judy Steinberg Dean into a symbol of something -- to tattoo "cold careerist bitch," "feminist role model" or "passive-aggressive wife" onto her body -- it turns out that she may just be a boring, sweet, smart Jewish girl who loves her family and her work. Journalists like me and Jodi Wilgoren and Maureen Dowd -- people who obviously like attention and are fascinated by power -- cannot fathom why a woman wouldn't be thrilled to be in the center of a political lightning storm. We try to cast her and re-cast her, chew on this mystery meat until we can name her. But that exercise apparently reveals more about us than it does about our subject.


By Antigone on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 05:38 pm:


By Rowlfe on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 06:16 pm:

    I read the Globe and Mail today and they had used an article from New Hampshire covering Dean..

    Three times in the short article they called Dean's Iowa loss "disastrous".

    Whats disastrous about coming in third? someone has to. Dont these fucktards know that only half the time whoever wins the first caucus ends up getting the nomination? "turning his campaign around"? WTF?

    Its all perception and these attacks have nothing to do with what he's actually saying..

    you know, i really think there could be a backlash against the Dean coverage, because already even more than Gore's "exaggerations", this is a smear campaign, and I was only so-so with Dean a weak ago, but now I hope he wins the nomination out of spite for the press.


By wisper on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 06:17 pm:

    forbidden word?

    Hardcore Holly?

    ?


By Rowlfe on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 06:21 pm:

    think of the forbidden livejournal word dear


By patrick on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 06:36 pm:

    heh. livejournal.

    come find me.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact