tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post7967932806415232250..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: Ruth Ann RespondsMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-63669972141221677162007-02-19T16:26:00.000-05:002007-02-19T16:26:00.000-05:00whigsboy, I know that Shribman responds to emails ...whigsboy, I know that Shribman responds to emails (often early in the morning). I don't know how much luck you'll have getting him on the phone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-65710105576492645912007-02-19T12:58:00.000-05:002007-02-19T12:58:00.000-05:00This does seem to be one of those stories where wh...This does seem to be one of those stories where whatever the truth is gets lost in partisan bickering. The opinion piece in the PG yesterday about evolution is another good example, where conservatives twist the truth about what science wants to say about evolution and load the argument with religious issues. A line from “An Inconvenient Truth” comes to mind as well. Gore was saying that of peer reviewed scientific articles, something like 3% presented the idea that there was some doubt about global warming, while either 50% or all the articles in the non-peer reviewed popular press presented both sides of the “debate” (I forget which). Where I’m going with this is that Ruth Ann and other conservative pundits have found that by repeating accusations and stereotypes over and over, they can make a lot of the muck stick. Liberals may do it too, but for the life of me I can’t think of an example (because I tend to believe Krugman, I guess).<BR/><BR/>I made the suggestion before that the Sergeant At Arms might be trying to score points with the new speaker by accommodating her or making the request, and I stand by that as a possibility. I'm not saying it is particularly improper, just that it could be a bureaucrat trying to make a bosses life more comfortable. On the other hand, the Speaker's position in the line of succession makes plausible the need for secure transportation. It is also possible Murtha made some rash statement. IMO, (and on another topic) he might have scared off some republican House support for the non-binding resolution with his talk about changing the upcoming Iraq budget request. But this is just my opinion of what could be, and should be viewed in the context of what has been six very partisan years, where democrats have been called traitors and worse (even recently). <BR/><BR/>Ruth Ann could have talked about how lobbyists are already finding ways around the new congressional rules, but she chose to go after an easy to understand issue that would likely resonate with Pittsburghers, the Speaker using a luxury airplane to fly home like our state legislature uses luxury cars on our dime. Conservatives will agree with her, liberals will disagree, apparently politicians are interested in other issues and meanwhile she lost the opportunity to make clear her reasonable point, that democrats as well as republicans sometimes take advantage of the system for their own gain.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-91986433940191245362007-02-19T08:36:00.000-05:002007-02-19T08:36:00.000-05:00Also, David, you tend to give Ruth Ann too much cr...Also, David, you tend to give Ruth Ann too much credit. I know you've had occasion to talk with her personally, but she is a serial liar and - regardless of whether she can be charming in person - is not deserving of respect. She basically admits in this column that she willfully omitted facts that would have discredited her argument. People like that are worthy only of polite dismissal at best and open disdain at worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-84975986665931292322007-02-19T08:29:00.000-05:002007-02-19T08:29:00.000-05:00This is crap. I called the PG last week and spoke ...This is crap. I called the PG last week and spoke with an editor who has some role with the opinion column. He told me to let Ruth Ann know about my concerns with the column and if her response was unsatisfactory, to go to the executive editor, David Shribman. <BR/><BR/>Well, I'm off today, so I'll be giving Mr. Shribman a call. One of his featured columnists just admitted that, for this Feb. 12 column, she relied almost exclusively on a Feb. 1 Washington Times article and that statements made by Livingood and Tony Snow somehow do not contradict the unnamed sources in the Washington Times piece. Hey, Ruth Ann, is their a rule against columnists picking up the phone and doing their own reporting? Count Novak does it all of the time e.g., that Plame thingy.<BR/><BR/>I'll report back on whether I get a response from Mr. Shribman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com