Political Punch

GLOBAL WARMING will serve as one of the excuses for the Trilateral Commission's main goal -- to do away with our (that of the United States of America) sovereignty, and that of other countries' in this world.

Watch out people!!! A good cause (as that of the environment surely is; humans will have indeed raped this earth into oblivion by their very end) can and WILL be used for surreptitious means, -- PROTECTING THE MONEYED CLASSES'"golden eggs" [as, a world without real sovereign countries, makes fully possible (more completely than the trade agreements of the 80s and 90s)that their precious capital flow rapidly, fluidly, and seamlessly from one part of the world to another, in order that any real large capital losses occur, and therefore these capital pools "escape", whenever any number of a sleuth of catastrophes awaiting the human race, will begin unfolding, - several, due to start in the very first quarter of this century).

Obama will not saves us; Clinton will not saves; nor the "maverick". All these support the free trade. Free trade will necessitate that our country abide by laws foreign to our constitution. Wake up people!!!

Mr Tapper says: And again, I think the larger point -- bigger than me, bigger than one president's comment is is what would it cost to take action against global warming?
No, the larger point is: is it acceptable for a journalist to print something so totally dishonest.

Mr. Tapper,

Why don't you just admit that you made a basic error of interpreting plain English? Making a mistake is not nearly as bad as pretending you didn't. If after thoughtful reflection, you still don't know how badly you erred, I'll have to re-evaluate how much you can be trusted to be accurate on anything else. This is Reporting 101.

The longer you go in denial, the worse it will get for you. This will make a great post for the growing list of accounts on my blog about media errors. (And I'm a reporter, btw.)

If you were so concerned about the debatable issues surrounding global warming and the economy, why put up a headline that so grossly misrepresents what President Clinton said? I can't believe you won't just apologize for this and move on. Wow.

To write that you've taken "some heat" about your attempts to examine and clarify what ex Pres. Clinton was trying to say is indeed a masterpiece of understatement, Jake. It's like saying the Chicago Fire was a marshmallow roast!

Tapper wrote:
"I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy."

This is false.

Curbing global warming is a triple-bottom line WIN. It speeds up the economy, delivering savings across a broad spectrum of industries/budget categories.

It may be true that one industry--say coal-burning power plants--bears some increased costs. Yet that's more than offset by new markets for pollution-curbing technology (etc.). The increased business for these companies is a greater gain than any reduced profits in other sectors.

What's the deal with pretending fighting global warming will slow down the economy generally? Simply not true. Please, do your homework.

The question is..."Why did you lie about Bill Clinton's remarks?"

Answer that one.

It's easy Jack: statements that follow the word "maybe" are hypotheticals. Statements that follow the word "but" address the shortcomings of the previous statement.

It's called "English" and is usually considered a useful skill for a reporter in an English-language publication. ABC obviously feels otherwise.

This is so much fun reading some of these comments. How dare the media take something out of context? That's what the Liberals and the mainstream media have been doing to Conservatives for the past 20 years. Remember the TV ads and Democrats quoting what Newt Gingrinch said ABOUT Medicare in 1995: "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

BUT what he actually said was: "What do you think the health care financing administration is?" Gingrich asked. "It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Newt Gingrich was referring to the health care financing administration withering on the vine. NOT MEDICARE! Yet during the 1996 Presidential Campaign the Clinton Administration and every Democrat and the mainstream media used this erroneous quote to scare senior citizens into believing that the "nasty" Republicans wanted to do away with Medicare. And Bill Clinton won re-election!

Thanks Buddy! We appreciate your help in defeating the Clintons. Thanks to ABC for that 911 movie too! ;)

Sorry, but no. Clinton's remarks were entirely clear, and you could easily have made your own point about global warming and the economy without distorting what Clinton said.

Jake, I have had a number of my posts deleted after hours and on the weekends. On occasion, I have attempted 2 and 3 times to no avail. The most frustrating is when someone has asked me a specific question and my answer is deleted. And at least twice I replied to a comment only to discover later that my reply remained intact but the original comment to which I replied was deleted.

NOTE: This was deleted TWICE last night. Tell me where this comment warrants deletion!

I rest my case.

Scrubbed a 12th time, reposted a 13th:

Oh my, even other MSM outlets are calling you a hack Jake:

"Tapper appears to have gotten the story backwards. He wrote that Clinton "characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: 'We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.'" Clinton actually argued the opposite."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/31/politics/animal/main3775556.shtml

I used to work for Kaplan, teaching people how to take standardized tests. The ACT, SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT all have a substantial reading comprehension component. The construction Bill Clinton used today fits in one of the topics I covered in classes.

"Some people say X. However, Y." What is the author's point of view? Clearly it is Y, and the views of "some people" are introduced for contrast.

Now Clinton's opponents are pointing to your article and essentially claiming, "Bill Clinton said X!" Can't you see that you bear some responsibility for this serious misinterpretation?

I love how journalists complain that bloggers cheapen the accuracy of journalism. Except that it's the bloggers that are the only ones who don't slap quotes out of context and serve up an obvious misleading passage which will soon become accepted as truth. If you're too busy or lazy to do the job right, then don't do it and let the bloggers do the work for you.

Even right-wing sites are admitting you hatcheted Clinton's comments so far out of context as to be misleading.

Posted that correction yet, Jake?

I Lost my wife....She moved out because of the money thing.Do you really think that Bush or Congress Reall cares about Seniors like US living on $ 2.50 Dollars a day...OUR economy destroyed my marriage CHOICE between bills,gas,food and so much more.NO one of them cares about SENIORS...

Seriously. Why even have comments? Down the memory hole, Winston. Zero accountability. Zero credibility.

A false attack like this can do serious damage particularly in the run-up to a big election like Super Tuesday. Drudge picks it up and runs with it. Other media pick it up, people start to talk about it. After all, it fits into the narrative that Bill Clinton is doing it again -- he's out there making statements that are hurting Hillary. Only one thing -- it's a complete distortion and fabrication. And then it's used as a vehicle by the writer to slam Clinton again for the Lewinsky Scandal. Terrible. How unprofessional and petty.