‘Politico’ Reporters Invade Arkansas; Blogger Unharmed

Jonathan Martin was disappointed to learn that there would be no meat on a stick at the Clinton School event.
Jonathan Martin was disappointed to learn that there would be no meat on a stick at the Clinton School event.

Just back from the lunchtime talk by esteemed political reporters Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen of D.C.-based political pub Politico, who entertained a capacity crowd at the Clinton School for Public Service in Little Rock with observations on the 2008 presidential race.

A few stray notes:

Some post-mortem on last night’s vice-presidential debate, along with Martin’s prediction that in the weeks to come, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will fade into the background as more of the focus shifts to John McCain and Barack Obama. I thought Biden started fading into the background the day after his pick was announced, but maybe I missed something.

Noted: Martin argued that McCain’s pulling out of Michigan was actually the far more consequential political story from yesterday, as it shrinks the electoral map and raises the stakes in states Bush carried in 2004.

With the economic situation of the last few weeks, McCain’s campaign has been “in freefall,” Martin said, partly due to his own moves and partly due to circumstances beyond his control. Martin added that, with the passage of the financial bail-out package in the House today, the story may move to the business pages and off the front pages, and things could improve for McCain. (Paraphrasing Allen: If the average person knows the treasury secretary’s name, that’s probably bad news for McCain. That got a big laugh.)

All in all, a good talk, and informative.

During the Q&A session, one woman prefaced her question with the announcement that “I get all my news from ‘The Daily Show,’” like that’s something to be all proud of.

Look, if you’re getting all your news from “The Daily Show,” or “The Colbert Report,” or “Rush Limbaugh,” or The Arkansas Times, or The Arkansas Project, and you go around telling people this like it’s a bragging point, you are an idiot. You probably should not be allowed to vote. You probably shouldn’t even be allowed to drive a car. In fact, you should probably have your mittens pinned to your jacket and have to wear a safety helmet everywhere you go.

Please follow and like us:

12 thoughts on “‘Politico’ Reporters Invade Arkansas; Blogger Unharmed

  • October 3, 2008 at 3:51 pm
    Permalink

    Spoken like a true Republican. Always trying to reduce the voting pool. I think ONLY readers of the Arkansas Times Blog should vote.

    Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 3:55 pm
    Permalink

    Max,
    Hm, a world run by Arkansas Times readers. Would you hide me in your attic when Death by Inches sends his secret police to disappear me?
    D.

    Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm
    Permalink

    The Arkansas Times is a great source for the most one sided leftist propaganda I have ever seen. Where did this rag come from? The seem to be somewhat intolerant of conservative viewpoints. I don’t expect them to be accepting of conservative viewpoints but they are downright violent in their opposition. This Max B. acts like a somewhat immature guy for someone of his age. I don’t expect to waste any more time reading that blog.

    Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm
    Permalink

    Max, you are on another planet. You run your blog like a true fascist. If anyone opposes you and fashions a position that makes you uncomfortable your typical response is censorship. Not the image that you like the public to think a ‘good’ liberal espouses. The Brown shirts would love you.

    Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    Max, we like you, and always have. This blog is pretty sharp, too. We can’t even come close to what David writes here. Actually, we think we more often fall in line with what commenters say (just on the other side of the aisle.) Still, we enjoy it, and poking fun at Palin in every post.

    Reply
  • October 4, 2008 at 9:52 am
    Permalink

    Here is one of the differences between the Arkansas Project and the Arkansas Times. In the Arkansas Project the participants can take a left or a right wing view and not be censored. On the Arkansas Times, they don’t permit conservatives to remain on that blog.

    Reply
  • October 4, 2008 at 10:13 am
    Permalink

    Craig,
    You may give me too much credit. I’ve blocked a couple of commenters over the last few weeks — not for ideological reasons, but because their comments were offensive, puerile or generally tiresome. (“Blocked” at the ArkProject simply means that you can submit the comment, but it won’t publish immediately — it comes to me for moderation, and I decide if it goes up or not.) My policy is that this is my show, and I make the rules.

    In Max’s defense, not that he needs it or probably wants it, I think the same goes at the Arkansas Times. He doesn’t “owe” you a space to air your views — he can allow comments, or limit comments, as he sees fit. That’s his show, and he makes the rules.

    And really, if you don’t like that, we live in an era when the solution is pretty simple: Start your own show and make your own rules. Start up your own blog and start working the hell out of it. I’ll even read it and probably help you promote it by linking it from here and sending you some of my readers. But don’t waste energy complaining about what other media outlets do or don’t do.
    D.

    Reply
  • October 4, 2008 at 10:35 am
    Permalink

    If you define offensive as opinions I don’t like, yes, you make the rules. However, as a reader of the Ark Times I can tell you that the language is so offensive and vile that I doubt your standard is offensive. Again, the proof is in the pudding. Permitting vile language and censoring opinions you differ with pretty much speaks for what your real standard is. However, I don’t see that same standard with the Arkansas Project.

    Reply
  • October 4, 2008 at 11:28 am
    Permalink

    If you define offensive as opinions I don’t like, yes, they make the rules. However, as a reader of the Ark Times I can tell you that the language is so offensive and vile that I doubt their standard is offensive. Again, the proof is in the pudding. Permitting vile language and censoring opinions that they differ with pretty much speaks for what their real standard is. However, I don’t see that same standard with the Arkansas Project.

    Reply
  • October 7, 2008 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    Belatedly, I’m happy to see I juiced up the conversation. I thought I’d mention that I have in four years blocked a grand total of three Arkansas Blog readers for what I took to be excessively offensive remarks directed at other readers. And then the blocks were temporary. I welcome opposing remarks, as David does. But, sure, though I allow a wide latitude of commentary, there is a limit. Threatening remarks of a sexual nature are among those that I’ve deemed over the top. Since we don’t moderate remarks — they post automatically — readers need to understand that there IS a limit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *