Just like an IV

[Lanya]

via Kevin Drum:

BARTLETT ON THE WINGOSPHERE....This is hilarious. Texas Monthly interviews former White House flak Dan Bartlett in its current issue and the conversation turns to bloggers. Who would you give an interview to if the choice were between Chris Cillizza, who blogs for the Washington Post, or Dan Balz, who writes for the print edition of the Post? At first Bartlett says the answer is Balz, but then he adds a third option:

 [Bartlett]  Now, the question might not be as much Chris versus Dan as maybe, "Is it Dan Balz or one of the guys at [the conservative blog] Power Line?"

    Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?

[Bartlett]    That's when you start going, "Hmm . . ." Because they do reach people who are influential.

    Well, they reach the president's base.

 [Bartlett]   That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

Italics mine. What makes this especially precious is that it comes right before Bartlett argues that the Bush White House didn't really treat Fox News any better than any other news outlet. So the right-wing blogosphere now has a new motto: Even more credulous and slavish than Fox News. It's a proud moment for them.

Via TPM.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com

[BT]

That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

or they respect context when quoting a source. Nothing wrong with that. It is the way reporting should be done.

Not surprising TPM has a problem with that.

[sirs]

That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

or they respect context when quoting a source. Nothing wrong with that. It is the way reporting should be done.  Not surprising TPM has a problem with that.

So true Bt.  So much the better to take terms/quotes completely out of context to apply one's own predisposed agenda....Iraq's imminent attack upon America, with nukes none-the-less, being a prime example.  The whole distortion on Mission Accomplished, being another.  GOP "code words" being yet another

[Xavier_Onassis]

I feel that there should be a distinction here.

If the blogger says "Dick Cheney believes that Iraq will attain democracy in January, 2008", that is the correct way to quote Dick Cheney.

On the other hand, if you say that you believe this to be true because Dick Cheney said it, then you are probably NOT using your own personal sense of reason, and it is rather worthless for anyone to take any special pains tp read your blog.

[BT]

If the blogger says "Dick Cheney believes that Iraq will attain democracy in January, 2008", that is the correct way to quote Dick Cheney.

No.

The correct way to quote would be:

At the press conference  today at his office, Dick Cheney said "I believe that Iraq will attain democracy in January, 2008"

[Lanya]

The winger blogs are evidently unquestioning stenographers.   
No wonder they're being "cultivated" by the White House!

[BT]

Compared to the lefty blogs who make it up as they go along?

[sirs]

 

[hnumpah]

Actually, I think Cheney said he didn't figure the Iraq war would go on more than sixty days, tops, and it would be financed with Iraqi oil revenues.

Note - after looking around, I see 'twas Rummy who said he didn't think the war would go beyond six months, and Wolfie who made the comment about the oil revenues.

Though Cheney does have his own fair share of misfires. There were the definite ties to Al Qaeda, proof of WMD's, the 'last throes' of the insurgence, and so on.

Here's a goody, though, one he was right about. "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place?" Mr Cheney asked. "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

That was in 1994, after the first Gulf War.