Jesus H. Christ!

Another GOP myth that has wormed its way into the conventional wisdom. The Republicans can't govern worth a spit, but they sure know how to fabricate stories to lather up their idiot base.

we all know...

We all know that Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. Anyone who still claims this is a grade-A moron.

However, what Al Gore actually claimed, that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," is 100% true and accurate.

Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, the two guys who really did invent the Internet, had this to say about Gore:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development... [As] the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Meme. Dead. Gone. Finished.

Let us not speak of it again.

link

link for reference:

Net builders Kahn, Cerf recognise Al Gore

"Let us not speak of it again."

This stuff should be spoken of... and often.

I'm not (*gulp*) afraid to admit I learned something... Whatever. Good link.

Would that we could . . .

so easily dispel the miasma the Repugnants have cast upon us, using the MSM as flying monkeys . . .

so long as Nixon, Ford, Ronnie Raygun, Bungle I & II, and every Repugnant running for the White House in my memory, has to bear the weight of innumerable personal and important lies;

the MSM will cast as liars every Democrat or Independent with even the potential to file a candidacy - regardless of truth per se, or context.

So, Al Gore will continue to be assaulted until the media oligarchy is overthrown. My favorite would be limitation to 33% of the nation, singular mode (i.e., newprint OR television OR radio), and seize any excess accrued whether by intent or accident. Not a fan of Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe a myth?

It may be a myth, and not what Gore meant at all........but his words certainly left the inference that he did invent the internet. He said he took the initiative in creating it - it's not a leap to take from that declarative sentence that he was responsible for it's birth.

And for any politician to say something that would even be interpreted that way.......well, they deserve the satirical, yet harmless, swipes because of it.

I think Gore recovered from it just fine.

I have to agree...

"...took the initiative in creating the Internet."

I'm not even sure what he meant by that? It's like saying, "I took the initiative in creating a ham sandwich". Maybe I got someone else to do it for me? But, I took the 'initiative'? Strange use of words, for sure...

Maybe if you don't know the history DARP/ARPANET.

Do you know that the internet started as a loose collection of research facilities joined together using military grants?

It was called ARPANET and it wasn't a fully public system. It was run by a unit of the Defense Department called DARPA. Gore was one of the Congressment who took the initiative to help turn ARPANET into the internet.

Maybe you have happened upon why some of us who know about DARPA and its history understand this smear a little better than most.

Settle down there, son...

No need to get testy. For those uninitiated... it's a poor choice of words by Gore. That's all I said.

His word choice was just fine

He described what he did. The media distorted it, ran with it, and repeated it so often that a lie is now safely ensconced as truth in the public consciousness.

Right wing echo chamber

It's a very effective technique for one commentator to lie, distort or misquote and then the rest of the echo chamber to quote the distortion as true.

Gore for Decider in 08. Wait, make that President. We've had too much of the present Decidership the last six years.

Algor grew up on a ranch, also--

the back 40 was, like, the alley behind the Excelsior Hotel in DC.

Another wealthy Socialist, never had a job, never wanted one, a pied piper of the gullible.

Electable (electible)?

a splendid description

of bush.

Couldn't agree

with you more. Elitists all.

Another stupid canard

Algor grew up on a ranch, also ... the back 40 was, like, the alley behind the Excelsior Hotel in DC.

Pfui. He spent summers working on his family's tobacco and cattle farm in Tennessee. The "back 40" was, like, the back 800. See, for example, here:

While many of Little Al's classmates were packed off to summer camp when school let out, he headed for the family's eight-hundred-acre tobacco and cattle farm about two and a half miles east of Carthage, Tennessee. The trips were less vacations than character-building boot camps designed by Albert Gore [Sr.] to give his privilege-softened son a taste of his own struggles in Possum Hollow. Ironically, Al Gore's Republican antagonists have seized on his recollections of the hard work he did on the farm as another bogus tale about his life. In fact, Gore was up at dawn tending to livestock and hosing out hog parlors...

Plus

"never had a job"? Not true. Even if you discount the time he spent in the Army (but why would you?), he worked for five years as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean.

Facts. Get used to them.

OK, he had a "job"

for five years. Had to quit that 'cause the right wing media was trying to control his reporting, I'll betcha.

You're just being silly.

Being a reporter on a daily newspaper is not a quote-job-unquote, it's a job. You said he never had one, but he did. Do you have a list of types of gainful employment that you don't feel are worthy of being called jobs, or is it just that anything Al Gore has done is ipso facto disqualified?

As far as I can tell, the reason that Gore left his job with the Tennessean is pretty straightforward: a congressional seat became vacant in the nearby 4th District, and Gore decided to run for it. Surely you don't object in the abstract to the idea of going into politics; this is something that even Republicans (and other people who aren't Al Gore) do from time to time.

I don't know what the politics of the Tennessean's management were like in 1976, and neither do you, I betcha.

ARPANET != Internet

Hear, hear. Cerf, Kahn, Kleinrock and others including my friend and former boss, Charley Kline, were involved in the technical advances that made the ARPANET. The process of turning ARPANET into The Internet was a political one, and for that I do give Al Gore the bulk of the credit. He did take the initiative. I remember the many predictions at that time of the imminent death of the Net. With Al Gore's hard work to understand the technical issues, he worked out the political solution that turned a private network of defense contractors and universities into the popular phenomenon it is.

Like,

couldn't have happened w/o Algor?

In the 80's, when leveraged buyouts took off, people were instant millionaires just because they happened to be in the room when summa those deals were made. OK, fine.

Same thing w/ Gore. Coulda been (woulda been) anybody.

Get serious.

You have no idea what you're talking about

Just kneejerk stupidity.

Gore had the foresight to see that the Internet might be worth something. If anybody 'coulda done it,' then anybody woulda. I don't recall too many other signatories to the original legislation.

Why are you right wing types so incredibly lame? You're just nasty, nasty, nasty. If we opened your heads up, what would we find down there, worms?

According to your logic.

It would be quite difficult to give any credit to anyone at all. People just are standing in the right place at the right time.

Everything is just a mere coincidence I suppose then.

Are you a Calvinist?

As in...

either Calvin OR Arminius?

as in, "why don't you answer the question?"

If bill gates hadn't done it, someone else would have. If, God forbid, BUSH didn't do it, someone else would have.....right? No one can claim credit for any political acheivement?

You dont know what he meant?

That is easy. It WAS Gore who saw the commercial application for the type of networking the Defense Dept used in their Arpanet, he used his position in the Science and Commerce subcommittee to push for funds and reasearch to bring about the internet he is largely responsible for the internet being here today. Taking credit for such insight and action which helps people is what politicians do.

Very good, thank you...

I appreciate the comments and links. I still contend it was a poor choice of words. And I still think these guys need to be smarter than that. Maybe he did explain himself fully at the time. I don't know... Did he?

I do not doubt that the GOP slanderers took hold of this, ran with it and made much about nothing. But, if Gore wants to run in '08... he has to make better choices.

He was running for President

It was not a poor choice of words. He accurately described what he did. He took credit for something he deserved credit for. The rightwing turned it into a smear.

"I still contend it was a poor choice of words."

Despite the fact that multiple people have now shown you to be wrong.

Which isn't a surprise. That Right Wing Echo Chamber needs a brick wall to be effective.

Okay...

...so, now I've been labeled a conduit for the 'right wing echo chamber'. Whatever you say.

No

You are not rightwing, nor unreasonable. I do think you are wrong this time but hey disagreement is all it is, no venal motives. I think I agree with you 90% of the time.

Thanks, Solon...

I appreciate it. And, I obviously no less about his subject than most around here... But, hey! It ain't the first time I've put my foot in my mouth ;-)

uh...

...that should be 'know less'... oops.

No, you're just naive

It wasn't a poor choice of words. It was a precise description of what he did.

Need a definition of 'precise?' I know sloppy thinking is in style right now, but that's no excuse for evading the facts.

It should be remembered that Gore was the victim of a major hatchet job by the press, while Bush Jr.-- well, he just slid on by.

Remember all the commentators who giggled and rolled their eyes on camera whenever anybody pursued the 2000 election fiasco? One of the great things about 'Farenheit 911' is that it immortalized all of this inanity-- remember "Navy Seals Rock!!?

History will not be kind to the wingnuts.

Not to mention...bittermarv

I stated my opinion. I think his choice of words was poor. Never once -- contrary to what most here seem to think.... not once did I say I believed it or that was what I thought. Man... little too sensitive. I'll remember to go 'party-line' next time. Sheesh.

I quoted you.

"I still contend it was a poor choice of words."

Your words after multiple people posted multiple sources, including those quoting the creators of the technology behind the "The Internets". It might be an opinion, which you're welcome to, but it's incorrect, as has been shown over and over. And that kind of thinking plays into the hands of those who want to propogate these myths.

Republicans play dirty.

That is true. I don't blame Gore one bit, though. You can't go around qualifying every sentence ad infinitum and you can't look hesitant either. The Republicans are going to do this sort of thing. It is a given. The only option is to live your life the same as always, but be prepared to counter aggressively with the truth, citing objective sources like factcheck.org and asking factcheck to audit what you have said possibly (I don't know if they do that). Admit to mistakes and point out where your opponent is lying.

That kind of commitment to honesty would be admired.

Gore's only possible fault is that he apparently did not feel it was dignified to have to defend his remarks. I suppose I would fault him for that.

Agree...

Chasing one's tail perpetually is a lost cause. But, I would like to see these guys publicly denounce the liars... or, at least, explain their position better. Even if it is at a later date... Use a little humor, "...some say I invented the Internet?" Whatever...

Sometimes, I fear the Dems are too afraid to jump in there because they don't want to look... I don't know, too aggressive? ... or, petty?

Good observation, Greek....

Alexander Haig has showed good humor over the years when reminded of his "I'm in control here" declaration following the attempted fatal shooting of Reagan.

I think we look for a sense of humor in our public figures (politicians or even just entertainers) as indicative of a balanced phsyche, following a questionable statement. We forgive fairly easily.

As political strategy, it is essential.

There was no "questionable statement"

Got that?

"statement that was questioned"

then. How's that?

This is a reasonable criticism

The irony being I read reporters who travelled with Gore say he HAD a great sense of humor that when he was in a less structured setting he was funny and personable. I know he didnt show that as a candidate. He was wooden and stilted. I certainly think Gore would have been a good president, though I didnt vote for him in 2000 but he wasnt a great candidate.

I've heard...

...or read quotes of Gore himself joking about all this, saying he invented this or that.

Al Haig should have joked about his gaff, cuz, oh, you know, you kind of expect a Secretary of State and former four star general to know what the Constitution says about the line of succession. And he didn't only joke about it (assuming he did) he also defended his statement by saying "I wasn’t talking about transition. I was talking about the executive branch, who is running the government. That was the question asked. It was not, 'who is in line should the President die?'" (Wikipedia)

actually he did not

because it was part of the myth that the republicans created that gore was a liar. and the media was quite happy to go along with it, as they were the "dean scream".

did not recover

in answer to tommy.

I think you're right...

...however, how long will it take for the Dems to realize that the Republicans (yes, the Republicans) play dirty. It's a tried-and-true method for that clan. Yes, yes (I can hear the groans...) all politicians play dirty. Well, the GOP is ruthless... they will use anything and destroy their opponents. The way they threw McCain under the bus in 2000... disgusting.

Both Dean and Gore l... they should've known better. Doesn't excuse any of the bad behavior from the right wingers on either account. But, Dems need to play a smarter game of pool.

how should dean

have known better. he had just done poorly in iowa, he was addressing his supporters, and they were yelling loudly, so he was attempting to yell over them. i suppose he should have thought gee, fox is going to take a tape of this with all the crowd sound removed and try to make me look like a maniac, and the rest of the media will go along with it. is that what you mean.

Ummm...

...yeah. That is kinda what I mean.

I was not really aware of the degree, the level of nasty bs that is perpetuated by the pundits, GOP, etc... until I started watching this site regularly. MMFA is on the money most of the time. The Dems need to be tough and direct... Maybe yelling at the top of his lungs at a rally -- no matter how happy the vibe was -- wasn't the smartest thing to do.

I have said nothing about who Gore or Dean are as people or politicians. In fact, I like them both. Dean very much. I don't know. This is a really mean-spirited and nasty biz - politics.

he was yelling

to be heard over his supporters, who were yelling very loudly. reporters who were there in the room at the time said they thought nothing of it and were surprised when it turned into a controversy. it was the media that made something out of nothing. it had zero to do with being careful.

Okay...

And, he got screwed royally in the process. So bad, in fact, that it cost him the race (I think). I'm really not disagreeing with you though. I just don't know what the best course of action is against these extremely wiley and vile propagandists/smear merchants. I don't know what the answer is.

What happened to Dean will happen to Obama

You can already see the set-up: first the admiration, then the agreeable plausibility, then the "hard questions," then the naysaying, the ridicule, the hackneyed lies, the mirth at the mere mention of his name.

Dean

The scream did not cost Dean the race. Iowa was already in the books before that speech and Dean took it in the shorts by his own party. The scream probably led to him losing worse than he would have in the next few primaries but the die was already cast. Dean was done. The Dems didn't have the political stones to put up an anti-war candidate in '04.

Arguable.

"The scream did not cost Dean the race." --Bruce

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think that is arguable. I, personally was considering voting for Dean, but the scream sealed it for me. I thought he was a real loon at the time. Many talk show hosts and the news media played it ad nauseum. Of course, I never really found out the details until I happened upon this site a year or so after it happened.

Dean had a sizeable lead in some important states that managed to fade away to practically nothing after the scream. Of course that was coincidental to a poor finish in Iowa (as I remember --I'm too lazy to look everything up), so it may be difficult as you pointed out to lay it all on the scream.

The Dems Compromised

Dean may have been the candidate who most reflected Democratic voters values but voters were too pragmatic and decided to put up a candidate they thought would have a better chance in the general. Republican Lite. Republicans wanted to run against anti-War Dean as they saw this as a sure victory, whether true or not. (I think true).

I think untrue

Neither of us will ever know for sure. I do think overall you are right about a whole lot of people voting for Kerry because they thought him most electable and thinking the most important thing was getting rid of Bush. Kerry wasnt really anti war given a real anti war alternative might have made a difference.

I see your point...

.. about "should have known better" but what do you do when your opponent plays dirty? They are going to take everything you say or do and pick it apart, use it out of context, and even, as in this case, change words to change the meaning and intent of a statement.

I've heard people say that Dean's mistake was in addressing a room full of supporters (with his "victory" yell) instead of addressing a national audience. That may be a mistake in strategy. But it doesn't warrent tagging the man for life as a maniac. The problem lies with the dirty trixters, somewhat with those befallen by those tricks (but nobody is perfect), and probably mostly with those that accept these bogus explanations as fact, or use them as a basis for making important decisions like those about who will run our country.

The problem...

... isn't the Democratic candidate. It's the echo chamber on the other side. Democrats have nothing like the umpteen "commentators" and "comedians" on the other side grabbing onto these non-issues and repeating them ad-nauseum until the lie becomes the "fact."

Bush has stuck his foot in his mouth countless times, and has stepped on his tongue countless other times. The man can barely get a full sentence out of his mouth. And somehow that doesn't (or at least didn't) detract from his image as the "guy you wanna have a beer with." We've now suffered through six years and counting of an imcompent dry drunk as President, and the reason? Gore supposedly took credit for something he didn't do. Gore actually accomplished things. Bush had to be bailed out of his messes time after time.

It's really sad that less than half the voters in 2000 were suckered by the Right Wing. Particularly when the Right has competent candidates.

And, for that...

... the Democrats must be extra careful (my original point). I'm not sure why the chips are stacked so high against the left wing or the Democrats. But, right now... it's pretty bad.

Really, folks...

that Dean screaming incident raised Dean's stock in my eyes. It was just high spiritedness. Your impression ( that it was a negative) I have never been able to figure. I don't think many on the right actually thought that was a negative. Maybe got a kick out of the media replaying it and replaying it...

I think everybody eventually gets drawn into thinking like a political strategist.

Seriously, is it any worse than the way the media replays and replays Bush's (or anybody else's) gaffs?

Long story short, for every imbalance, or bias, MMFA points out, there is easily one or more on the other side to balance it.

Media's JOB is to stir the pot. Not that I want to see this site disappear. I've learned a lot (kicking and screaming) from all of you. Just don't expect me to go easily.

Where's your statistics?

Republicans lie more than Dems because it's all about money and expedience-- that's the value system, and it's why things work out for many of these people-- when expedience is your only tool, and you've been raised this way from birth, everything you do is easy to justify.

Combine that with hate, privilege, loathing for others, and a mystical, crumbling religious ideology, you end up having a very potent force at hand.

Democrats don't believe that buying and selling is the ultimate expression of human life on earth. It sounds corny, but it's true now, because the Repubs. have painted themselves into such an ideological corner these days.

Face it-- the people in the media nowadays didn't get there by being contemplative or battle worn individuals. They got there solely through ruthless ambition, all competing against a huge number of other people equally determined. That's going to reduce the brain pool quite a bit-- and any innate empathy for others.

You described SOME...

on the right, but you describe some on the left at the same time. Where do you get such ridiculous bias?

"Priviledge, loathing for others..." Never thought of myself as priviledged, don't loathe ANYBODY (life's too short)... it's just interesting to wonder what life experiences have brought you to this mindset.

The same adjectives can be used to describe members of any political party, any group of ample size, I suppose. I'm just sad you haven't met good people (there are many on both sides of the aisle) on what you consider to be the "right".

dorraine

just landed from mars? the dean scream was jumped on by all the right wingers as proof dean was nuts.

they took "the scream" from the sound board with no crowd noise

and every right wing talker had that scream on a little sound machine and they would push the button every time his name came up.

and we all said, "okay, now he seems unpresidential" and had to give up on a potentially very viable candidate.

just like Kerry looked too french and Gore invented the internet.

Republicans frame the debate.

They have been successful in convincing the American voter that these absolutely superficial matters are important for choosing a President.

I never bought it as evidence...

of anything. It might have scared some Dems (from a political strategy standpoint) over to other Dem(s), but all I saw was campaigning as usual (it WAS in a noisy setting--he was trying to be heard).

The media playing it over and over didn't change my mind on anything--I expect the media to do that to ANY candidate, and they do.

I dont believe the medias job is to stir the pot

I think it is to bring the truth to and inform the electorate. As Jefferson said "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

also

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

I concur on what

the media's job IS. I was referring to the role they have assumed, and looking at the history of the media under regimes where they are given free reign, they have a dismal record for staying objective OR truthful.

Absolutly

I completely agree

I kind of agree

...that Democrats in general need to be more intelligent in how they approach the media, but I don't like anything taking away focus on the concerted smear job the media (liberal and otherwise) did on this decent, intelligent man.

The "invented the internet" smear, the "earth tones" smear, the "grew up in a fancy hotel room" smear, all these contributed to getting Bush elected in 2000, which led to us getting stuck in Iraq, and even Jon Carry kant hepl us now.

I absolutely agree...

...And, again... my comment (one lame comment) was not meant to detract from the fact that the GOP plays by some nasty rules. It's about the win, by whatever means necessary. If Gore were President now? He probably would've been sued by some Republican, or dragged through the mud, or whatever....

But, the world would certainly be a better place. That's for damn sure.

Well...

... we sure as hell wouldn't be in Iraq, that's for sure.

You can't be serious.

"but his words certainly left the inference that he did invent the internet." --Tommy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all, Gore cannot "le[ave] the inference". An audience infers. A speaker implies.

Secondly, the use of the word "invented" is hugely deceptive. It is obvious that Gore didn't "invent" the internet and never claimed to. So use of that word is for the sole purpose of marginalizing what he really did say.

Tommy, I love yah. You're my bro, but you couldn't be more wrong on this one.

Gore

implied he CREATED the internet. He didn't say he supported and worked to pass legislation (signed by Reagan and George H.W. Bush by the way - guess they created it too) in making the current internet a reality. He said he created it. You can't create something other people already created. Just as he was prone to lie and exagerate to whatever audience he was speaking to ala his buddy William Jefferson Clinton, Gore brought it on himself. His pattern of wreckless exagerations and trying to cater to his crowd was legendary.

Her is a personal favorite to tobacco farmers:

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.

Then he tried to claim he was anti-tobacco.

By the way, he also said he could barely turn on a computer let alone use one. Kind of hard to believe the "CREATOR" of the internet couldn't use a computer but that's our Al.

LH (sigh.)

"He said he created it." --LH

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No he didn't. "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Since you have once again (Surprise. Surprise.) demonstrated an utter lack of either reading comprehension and/or disingenuousness, you might want to quote people verbatim from now on.

Man that was weak. The actual quote is in the above article for God's sake!

Gore is not

a tobacco ho and shame on you for sayin' it.

Off topic

Go and spread your tobacco spin somewhere else.

His words

Gave the impression that he did something, which he in fact DID DO. He is largely responsible for the internet coming along when it did. Even Newt Gingrich and the person who wrote the code for searching which makes the internet what it is have admitted this

Nope - Tom..

I am but one of many who believed this criticism of Gore was true. So Yes it was harmful to Gore, me and others.

Thanks for telling me the truth though. It's nice to finally know that he didn't say or mean that at all.

All this time I've been wondering about the poor guy. Now I know the truth. - Thanks Y'all.

No leap for the smear-merchants

>>>it's not a leap to take from that declarative sentence that he was responsible for it's birth.

Certainly not a "leap" for those who wished and still wish to do Gore political harm, and to perpetuate a myth long after it's been debunked, whether it's sheer stupidity, laziness, or outright malice.

Gore didn't mean he "invented" the Internet, and hasn't deserved the harmful so-called "swipes" he's had to endure for six-plus years, thanks to folks like Tommy.

The power of invention

Tommy, can we put this in perspective. Gore's wording was clumsy at best. What he should have said was he "...took the initiative in introducing the legislation that created the Internet." Gore left no indication that he was responsible for inventing the Internet and he never used the word to describe his efforts associated with the actual program. It might be true to say Gore has "recovered from it"...that's not what is at issue in the MM article. The MM article is stating that the media, even in contradiction of their past statements, are simply re-introducing the urban myth and running it up the flagpole again. Like Jimmy Carter's "malaise" remark (he never said that in his speech) or Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" ( he never said that either) this is the same right wing short attention span stupidity that has to stop. By contrast in the 2000 debate Junior gets up there and says he is good man for bipartisan work because with his efforts the Texas legislature passed a patients' Bill of Rights. The media never called him on the fact that he vetoed the bill when it first got to his desk and it was passed in the next session by such a wide margin that Bunnypants had no choice but to let it become law. That kind of resume inflation by Bush was never called by the press. Gore's work on the internet started in 1986 with the Super Computer Technologies Act (based on the French model...sorry, had to bring it up) and the system was finally approved by Bush's father in 1991. Bush's father then tried running the following year taking credit for the system.

You don't GET IT!!

Gore's wording wasn't "clumsy at best."

By buying into this lie, this phony premise, you've already lost the argument.

The Right lives by phony premises. You have to destroy them at the start. There's nothing more infuriating than watching a Dem 'rebuttal' start by saying to some wingnut misstatement, "Yes I agree, but..."

Once you buy into the premises, all you can do is argue about the logic. Often their logic is sound. It's their PRESUMPTIONS that are in error, "at best."

Just keeping you honest...

Not taking issue with your overall post, but Clinton DID utter that famous sound bite. This is off the Purdue web site:

[link to web.ics.purdue.edu]

Maybe, but not cut and dried.

"In mid-1992, in the midst of the presidential campaign fever, then-Arkansas governor and presidential hopeful William Jefferson Clinton declared the now famous statement, “I feel your pain” to a prospective supporter who was dealing with personal problems. With this succinct soundbite, the former president touched on the essence of the difficult idea we call ‘empathy.’ Clinton’s troubled family life – both in his youth and his (mature) adulthood – and ‘down-home’ rural upbringing won him fans and emotional support across the nation, and he is now known as one of the most compassionate leaders in United States history. At left, Clinton is pictured surveying flood damage in Davenport, IA., on July 4, 1993.1 He claimed to ‘feel the pain’ of those who suffered."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hate to nitpick, but there are no references I could find in that paper that cited a credible source. It just says he "declared" it or he "claimed" (according to whom?) it without citation. You may be right, he may have said it, but your source does not provide evidence to back up that idea that I could find and I am a big Boilermaker fan BTW.

That begs the question then...

Where did it come from? On the surface it seems fairly innocuous. You never know in the political cycle what will be used against you.

As is the case in these matters...where there is smoke there is usually fire.

Disagree.

"As is the case in these matters...where there is smoke there is usually fire." --hogprint

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually I have seen the opposite is the case enough of the time that direct quotes from reliable sources should be expected (if not demanded) before anything can be taken as truth.

In the past, I have tried, often unsuccessfully to chase down original sources for quotes. It can be very difficult to do. It seems that few people document their sources. They often cut and paste things from questionable sources or I have also seen people turn paraphrases (often inaccurate or misleading ones) into direct quotes.

Many times it seems the smoke is just coming from a smoke machine. No fire at all.

Overused but appropriate

I didn't invent the phrase "it must be a slow news day at mmfa" but I'm going to use it.

Out of nowhere comes this thread about a retired politician and current environmental activist...about a controversy that is years old. Keerist, is this how the staff at mmfa spend their day...dreaming of past glories and slights?

Brings to mind the great hit by Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen...Lost in the Ozone.

A lie is a lie.

It is not a slow news day. This lie persists even though it has been thoroughly debunked.

Gore may be a Presidential candidate in the next cycle. It is always better to clear up this lie (controversy -- as you call it) and give other posters amunition to fight against it when it inevitably comes up again. (Many conservatives just can't seem to help themselves.)

This is probably one of the most vicious political rumors in the way it has unjustly ridiculed a man who should be admired for his obvious intelligence and visionary views.

Gore says otherwise

- “I’m not running, I’m not planning to run, I’m not thinking about running. I’ve found other ways to serve" - Gore, June 06.

- I don't know all of his reasons - but I know that he has no plans to run in 2008...the way he always says it is, 'I don't see any circumstances under which I would run for president.' - Al Gore III - Dec 06

- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said on Monday he would not run in the next presidential race, despite rumors that he might..Asked whether he had plans to stand in the 2008 election, Gore ruled it out, adding: "I'm involved in a different kind of campaign." - Jan 07

I guess I'll take him at his word and stand on the assertion that this thread by mmfa is not very relevant.

try try again

it's relevant because it's media misinformation. it's not the we support gore for president site.

I feel sheepish.

My bad. You are right. I shouldn't have fallen for an apparent cheap trick by Wesley. As I said before. A lie is a lie. That is all the relevance needed. MMFA is here to address this very sort of thing.

i wasn't criticizing

anything you said. i agreed with you. it was directed at wesley.

I disagree it is not pointless because

It is a perfect example of an undead talking point. One of those rightwing talking points that is immortal there is no way to drive a stake through its heart. No matter how often or how thourougly it is debunked, no matter how completely it is shown to be absolutly wrong, it keeps coming back like that guy in the hockey mask in one of his movies

Like Goldwater

cutting a Social Security card in half ('64 election--Democrats' TV misinformation.)

That image, served on the gullible, defeated Goldwater.

Who slams Goldwater these day?

Your analogy is foolish. The Dems gave that up, what, FORTY YEARS AGO? There's no comparison between that and the continued mirth over Gore's remark. None.

You're kidding right?

Goldwater was destroyed in the election you are claiming that was solely because of that political stunt? The people wanted a continuation of the Kennedy programs. The didnt want what Goldwater was selling. I remember Goldwater. I still respect the mans career. I didnt agree with him but he was an honest politician and spoke his mind. The electorate had a lot more against him than that cheap stunt which I would decry today. He was never going to beat Johnson

Thanks for the info.

Looks like our loss.

However, MMFA's mission is to point out conservative misinformation. It would stand to reason that correcting these recurring seemingly pervasive myths from time to time fall directly within MMFA's mission statement. Would you prefer people remain ignorant? What cause would that serve?

MMFA can't help it that some people are apparently so ignorant, intentionally misinformed and/or thick-headed they haven't heard the truth.

There are also some liberal posters apparently who did not know this myth was false.

Maybe you are one of the apparently few conservative posters who already knew this information was false. Good for you.

Al Gore misinfo

- correcting these recurring seemingly pervasive myths - open-mind

No problemo...mmfa chooses whatever topic that suits them.

There seems to be a myth that Gore is going to run for president in 08. He has been adamantly on record stating that he is not running.

My response was simply to set the record straight. Since he says he is not running...the thread appears irrelevant to me...nothing more...nothing less.

No thats not all you did

You said this thread isnt very relevant. I dont think Gore will run either, but that doesnt mean this thread isnt relevant.

Keerist indeed....

>>>a controversy that is years old. Keerist, is this how the staff at mmfa spend their day...dreaming of past glories and slights?

A person concerned about accuracy in the media (hint: it's not you, obviously) could have chosen to send a note to the Wash. Post, LA Times, or AP to ask why they continue perpetuating a lie that is "years old" (your words).

Instead, you post a derisive comment to Media Matters. Which only goes to show that you'd be quite delighted for the Gore/Internet myth to go on and on for years and years (like most right-wing smear-minded people), while you write little irate remarks to anyone who dares disturb you by raising the issue.

hmmm...

Then why all the fuss about that Reagans documentary a few years back? He was a retired politician too. Were you all just trying to relive past glories? Or were you all just making a lot of noise over nothing?

Easily as much bias...

old and new, on the other side of the spectrum. The right just hasn't caught on to how to make a (non-profit, oh yeah!) living out of sanctimonious BITCHING about it, yet.

BS

I call BS. The MRC has been around for years, that's a perfect platform for exactly what you're talking about. They've got the money and the resources, yet come up with very little misinformation from the left. It's not from lack of trying.

Incidentally, there's plenty of sanctimonious bitching on that site, except there's not nearly as much cause for it.

You misstate what the MRC is about.

From their website:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

Nothing is mentioned about misinformation.

They document bias, slanting of news.

A perfect example from today, about the NY Times report tha today over 50% of women live without a spouse. Like Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story..." "Women" includes 15 year olds. Imagine that, 15 year old "women" living without spouses! We can thank MRC and Newsbusters for pointing out what is behind the headline.

Exactly.

"Nothing is mentioned about misinformation.

They document bias, slanting of news." --Missourishowme

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with you. MRC and their related sites are admittedly more devoted to speculation and reading the minds of newspeople than worrying about silly things like factual misinformation.

When a newsperson seemingly raises an eyebrow or frowns at an important part of the story, MRC is on the spot to interpret for us what it all means and how conservatives are ultimately being given the shaft by it.

Which MRC site are you reading?

When a newsperson seemingly raises an eyebrow or frowns at an important part of the story, MRC is on the spot to interpret for us what it all means and how conservatives are ultimately being given the shaft by it.

.

Fair enough.

"If it is Newsbusters, why not link to the frown you find misinterpreted[?]" --missourishowme

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Firstly, I did not write it was necessarily "misinterpreted" so I will ignore your last three words. That is a moot point and you put words in my mouth to begin with. Whether someone's interpretation is right or wrong is purely subjective for the most part as well. I hope you will also agree that such characterizations move the argument towards the individual or are ad hominem in nature and away from the actual argument or the words. Mrc.org doesn't say someone was "apparently" frowning either. They say he WAS frowning. Mind-reading. Just utter silliness.

Now, back to your question: "If it is Newsbusters, why not link to the frown...[?]":

The examples that came to mind were at mrc.org. Here is an example which shows how mrc.org mentions its interpretations of gestures instead of only focusing on the actual words of Bryant Gumbel:

'A disgusted Gumbel frowned and he ended the segment: "Jack Skeen, thank you, it’s 14 past, let’s check the weather.'

or another one about Gumbel a week later:

"Gumbel then let loose on the August 22 CBS show with his disgust for Helms: "Helms is, let me pick my words here, an unapologetic right-wing conservative, I guess we could say. Is his departure good news for all but hard-right Republicans?" (Between saying "right-wing" and "conservative" Gumbel hesitated for a second as he frowned.)"

or this from a R. Brent Bozell III apparently emblematic column about how great the (IMO --lapdog) press was after 9-11 in apparent contrast to the way it was before:

"One cannot overestimate the importance of [the press'] work, either. All of America was hanging on to their every word during the attacks and in their aftermath as it began to crawl out of the wreckage. The press responded with fierce professionalism. Gone was the cynicism -- the upturned eyebrow, the sophisticated grin, the pithy rebuttal – meant to signal to the public it shouldn’t really believe the spin it’s hearing."

I came across a significant amount of mind-reading in my brief research as well that I had mentioned earlier. I can share some examples of that as well if you would like. It is pretty fun to cruise their archives. This little gem for example (right before the Iraq invasion) was absolutely hilarious for how wrong the premises were at the time and how awful that made the conclusions and the reasoning. The article actually ridicules what turned out to be much of the correct reasoning.

When mrc.org mentions mannerisms, it belittles their arguments. Why do they have to go ad hominem?

Thanks for replying

You clarify that what you really are objecting to is Newsbusters MENTIONING the frown, eyebrow raise, saying it detracts from what the person said. I see your point, but disagree. One of the problems people have with me in my responses here is that they think I am angry, but I truly am not. People cannot see the smirk on my face, and I dislike that lack of communication. At times I add a little hehe to indicate that I am not red-faced and angry, more amused.

An official transcript is one thing. But for ordinary retelling of what someone said, I would prefer to read of their body motions than to leave it out.

Again, I say that all of the things you cite are mentions, not interpretations. I see how you can be annoyed, and in our free marketplace, you can vote against Newsbusters by not frequenting their site, their loss.

A Finer point.

"You clarify that what you really are objecting to is Newsbusters MENTIONING the frown" --MOshowme

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all, let me say, I haven't ever gotten the impression you were angry. I apologize if I have said something to bring that into the argument. It wasn't intentional. You seem to be a reasonable poster for the most part. I respect your opinion. We just disagree on some things and I am fine with that. I may come accross as more angry than I am as well. I try to be respectful (although I admit I fail at that often).

As to your quote above, I would say "the alleged frown". It is apparently used to color the supposed thoughts of the speaker. Someone could watch Gumbel all day and think he is frowning the whole time. Others may believe he is just thinking hard at times or whatever. Maybe its just gas? By assigning a definite gesture to him as they do, MRC is assigning thoughts and/or motives (they couldn't possibly know for sure) that go along with it. It is simply playing dirty.

It reminds me of a scene in Fahrenheit 9-11 where George W. Bush is shown on the screen for the 7 minutes after he was told a second plane had flown into the WTC. Moore was mocking the President, by saying sarcastically stupid supposed thoughts that were going through the President's head. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. Perhaps it was another part of the movie. I just couldn't help, but think what a cheap shot it was. The MRC is largely doing the same thing.

It would be nice if the conservative sites like mrc &al could provide an alternative to MMFA and/or FAIR that was a little more professional and did not resort to such questionable tactics.

It appears that liberal sites like MMFA and FAIR.org generally would rather critique words and arguments and let us decide for ourselves what gestures mean what if we choose to care about it, whereas conservative sights are apparently more interested in the tricky business of telling us what people really think, not based solely on words, but often on less distinct and more arguable things like gestures, body language, (frequently dubious) perceptions and assignations of nefarious hidden motives.

The approach of the MRC and others deeply degrade the public discourse.

You have not claimed I was angry

No, you have been one of the more straightforward posters on this site, and I appreciate your comments.

Others have somehow gotten this impression that I am angry (or whining) when I post, and I have tried to dispel it: I could post rah rah agreements on other sites, but find it more interesting to engage people with differing views than mine.

Sorry that I have to run, and this will probably be archived by the time I return.

Take care.

so...?

I didn't say that was their mission statement. I'm saying they could post liberal misinformation if they thought there was anything to post. The idea that there's no website for this because conservatives haven't figured out how to do it is simply beyond absurd. As open mind points out, the vast majority of the items they have are quite weak, if not downright dishonest.

Incidentally, the item you posted is technically misinformation, since 15-year old girls are not women. What the nefarious liberal purpose of that misinformation is supposed to be is a bit of a mystery, but still you pulled the rug out from under your own argument.

If you want to call it liberal misinfomation, you are empowered!

[link to newsbusters.org]

The above is a link to the Newsbuster article about this NY Times article.

I think I can speak for the entire vast right wing conspiracy in saying that the New York Times uses (abuses?) statistics for its liberal purposes, such as praising the successes of feminism. Read the link with details about where the NY Times thinks the line is drawn between girls and women.

The orignal document refers the folks involved as "females", no bias there. The NY Times then calls them "women" in a headline. You may call it misinformation, MRC calls it bias. My rug remains just where it should be.

Oh, and congratulations about meeting MMFA standards and not hurling insults in your comment title, like you did yesterday.

Continuing off-topic

"Read the link with details about where the NY Times thinks the line is drawn between girls and women." --MOshowme

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Times apparently just used the best data available that apparently did not differentiate between a 50 year old (or more) fem