September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Gatten to DBS: Go away | Main | Moore's law »

Feb 26, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You do realize that website you linked to is a front for a rightwing attack group, right? Ask yourself ow they got Gore's power bills.

Ed Cone. Tool of the noise machine.


"You do realize that website you linked to is a front for a rightwing attack group, right."

And that of course somehow rationalizes Gore's hypocrisy.

That's assuming it was a true statement to begin with.

Ed Cone

Weak response, DFL. Spagnola weak.

The truth is Gore could be burning baby seals in imported oil and it wouldn't change the substance of the climate conversation. Whether he lives in a mansion or in a biodiesel-powered van down by the river is irrelevant to the facts.

And maybe he carbon-trades and greenifies his way to virtue.

But he's still open to some mockery by virtue of his lifestyle.


Actually, he's only "open to mockery" by right wing websites which gin up a controversy and manage to have reputable reporters regurgitate their crap on a daily basis.

Why did you feel it necessary to print this?

At least you included the response, I'll give you that, but the fact remains, 100% of the power used by the Gores is green power, and where they have not been able to eliminate carbon usage, they make up the difference in carbon trading.

Tell me, Ed, do YOU run an international political operation out of your house? Do you do so without using any power?

What is weak is the media. And for all your new-media holding-forth, stories like these prove that you are a bought and paid for member of the chattering class.


Wait a minute, I thought Ed was a bought and paid for mouthpiece of the left.


Ask yourself how it is possible that a website in Tennessee that has never even had any hits prior to yesterday, is suddenly linked by the entire wingnutosphere, mentioned on Fox and the Washington Times and then cited by "reputable" journalists like Ed, all in one day.

The story is there, but you guys won't talk about it.


Well, DFL, you have so far offered vague intrigue, inviting us to ask how they got Gore's power bills and telling us that the story is "there," but you are short on specifics. Instead of deriding Ed, why don't you spell it out for us--tell us exactly what it is you want us to know.

Ed Cone

Yes, I'm clearly the one constrained by an agenda here, DFL.

Does the substance of the reporting matter at all, or only the source?

A mildly amusing irony is pointed out. It happens to be about a Democrat. So...shoot the messenger?


You are not the least bit interested in how that little blog in Tennessee, that nobody had ever heard of before, happened to be simultaneously quoted on big media sites around the web?

Surely you don't doubt the existence of what has been called the Noise Machine. It's not "intrigue", Roch, and that is a typical journalists response to this criticism: belittle it as a conspiracy theory.

In actuality, it is a tendency on the part of the media to be LAZY, and to depend on press releases from organizations with an axe to grind, rather than doing actual reporting.

How else do you think the John Locke Foundation gets itself quoted in the McClatchy papers every day?

The right has a brilliant system designed to get stuff into the media, and it depends, in fact it could not survive, without a lazy and supine media.


last sentence should be "it depends on, and infact could not survive without, a lazy and supine media."

Jim Caserta

I think Ed hit it on the head with the strikethrough(reduce). Too much of our energy problem is that Americans drive cars bigger than they need and live in houses bigger than they need. Bigger cars use more gas, and efficiency held constant, it takes 10x as much energy to heat/cool a 20k sqft house than a 2k sqft house. I thought conservation was a real goal? Carbon trading just means that the rich can consume what they want and just pay a little more for it. If you've got a 20k sqft house, but have 10+ people living in it, then consumption per person is a little different, but I don't think that's the case. Lead by example.


he only has hybrids.


DFL, I'm not a journalist and I didn't belittle what you were hinting at as a consiracy, I just asked for some substance--but you are still hinting and I'm still waiting.


I'm not hinting at anything. It's a fact. THere is a network designed to get hit jobs into the media.

Small "think tank" (i.e. website or PR outfit funded by right wing money see also Pope) ----> Drudge ---> rest of right wing web ----> Rush ------> Washington Times ------> NBC

It works every time, because the guys at the top of the food chain are lazy. usually the facts are not facts. The hit is reported as "critics are saying...." and the truth is portrayed as "the other side of the story" or "a defense."

Instead of the media looking at the allegation and the source and calling crap crap.


Oh, that. So, it's not that you refute the substance, you just don't like the route the information took. Correct?

Ed Cone

The mechanics of the right-wing noise machine, including the use of just-add-water instant blogs, have been well-documented.

That does not mean that such channels will never cough up something worth discussion.

Like this Gore thing, which Jim Caserta frames well, and about which there is much to say.

Cara Michele

I agree with Jim. The inconvenient truth is that Gore might not need to "carbon trade" if he focused more on the first of the three "R"s. (And on a related note, paging John Edwards...)

Live it.


Keep telling yourself that, Ed.

Ed Cone

Keep telling myself what, DFL, that Democrats can be criticized, too, and that stories should be evaluated on content not source, even when the source raises alarms?

Partisan hacks are boring, John. And counterproductive, as we saw the last time we danced this dance, when you were wetting your pants about my criticism of the Edwards campaign's craptastic web effort in '03. You remember -- it was right before the Edwards campaign acknowledged its craptastic web effort and then revamped it?


That link has a remarkable timeline of how this smear developed. This is EXACTLY like the swiftboating, which took a nugget of pseudofact (Gore spent a lot of money on power/Kerry may not have been in Cambodia on the day he said he was) and then blew it up, twisted it, and used it to undermine a leader without actually engaging his point.

Partisan hackery? It's called defending ourselves.

Come on, Ed, you know better than that. You can have all the selective memory you would like. But here's a link to my own website, from July 2003, where I was calling out the Edwards website for being stuck in 1996.

Joe Killian

Assuming the power (over)usage can be confirmed it would seem that whatever the source of the criticism, the criticism is valid. If it's a fact then it isn't a pseudo-fact (again, assuming it's demonstrably true) and, at least in this case, it would seem to go to the actual point.

If you've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and taken its message to heart it's more than ironic to find that the man who made the film seems to be doing exactly what he says Americans can no longer afford to do.

I'm not saying he goes to hell for it and he isn't running for anything, so I don't see how it damages him in any way than is more than a little embarrassing, but the suggestion that we shouldn't talk about it because the political right would like us to talk about it is a little creepy.


Joe, have you ever run a political organization and office out of your house?

Have you ever converted your entire usage over to Green Power?

Have you ever reduced your carbon footprint and then looked into trading to zero it out?

Gore has, and if there is a story, that's it. Not this "ha ha Gore's a hypocrite" crap we're getting. Because he's not. In fact, with the attention he has brought to the issue, he would have to open up an Iron Smelter on his property before he would begin to undo the good he has done.

Ed Cone

Selective memory, DFL? I don't have time to go find it, but your rant that I was criticizing the Edwards web effort because I couldn't stand to see a North Carolinian succeed and Edwards had left me behind was pretty unforgettable.

It was during your "Ed is covering Dean's web effort, so he must be a clandestine Dean supporter" phase.

Ring a bell?


Personally, I am shocked... SHOCKED!!! to learn that rich people have big houses.

To quote Chris Rock:

"All the stuff goin' on in the news, it's just a trick to get your mind off the war. That's all it is. A trick to get your mind off the war. Okay? I think Bush sent that girl to Kobe's room... Bush sent that girl to Kobe's room, Bush sent that lil' boy to Michael Jackson's house, Bush killed Lacy Peterson... Bush was f*****' Paris Hilton in that video! All to get your mind off the war."

Jim Caserta

At the end of the movie, and on the movie's box, Gore presents 10 suggestions to TAKE ACTION - with 9 being direction actions. SEVEN are based on reducing energy consumption. One is adjusting your thermostat, whose effect is counteracted if you double (or 10x) the volume of air being heated or cooled. Most of the actions listed pale in comparison to simply driving a more fuel efficient automobile. One effective measure has been CAFE standards, but besides the fact that they have been relatively constant since 1990, they have been weakened by the separate standards for cars and trucks. It seems disingenuious though to push for tighter mpg standards and then use Suburbans as the vehicle of choice.

The CA

Like I keep saying Ed, anytime, anywhere. Why not step outside the confines of your little world here and we'll see who is weak. The Emperor has no clothes. Why you have a fan club is beyond me. I'll bet you think that people go "oooh, there's Ed Cone!" every time you walk into a room. Pathetic.

The CA

"Partisan hacks are boring". Now that is funny coming from someone who takes the party line, advertises Democratic causes, and quotes from liberal bloggers 10 to 1. I suspect if Gore was the nominee, you wouldn't have said anything. Well, I take that back- you would take Dr. Frank's line.

Why must you always deny what you are? It seems to me that the N&R and Brad & Britt should identify you as a "Democrat activist" when they let you write stories or appear on their show, because that is what you are despite your denials. Your refusal to acknowledge as much while continuing to lament about "partisan politics" being exercised by others when they point this out is again pathetic.

You are either a coward, ashamed or severely insecure about who you are.

Cara Michele

"I'll bet you think that people go 'oooh, there's Ed Cone!' every time you walk into a room."

CA: I totally do that. Every time. Except it's more like, "OMG, isn't that the legendary Ed Cone?" And then I usually pass out. P.S. The "g" stands for "gosh" because I was raised Southern Baptist and I'm not a pagan.

Jim: Ann Coulter was making a similar (good and reasonable) argument the other night on FOXNews, but then she just ruined it by being a bully to Darryl Hannah and obsessing about candles. (I mean, who bullies Darryl Hannah?) But yeah, you're right.

David Boyd

This trading to zero out one's carbon footprint is an interesting concept. As I understand it, you enter your energy usage, get an average and then you generate credits by reducing said energy usage. Presumably if you can't get to zero or whatever level you want, you buy credits from other people who have reduced their energy usage and have spare credits to sell (presumably not everyone has a desire to get to 0 or below).

Yet, in Gore's case if you start with a 10,000 sf house using X amount of energy and you reduce that amount by 10% and then buy credits, have you released more or less carbon than if say you started with a 1,000 sf house and reduced your energy consumption by 10%? Buying credits or not, seems that you're still using more energy and doing more 'damage' than your fellow citizens.

Carbon credits. The cardigan sweater of 2007.

David Boyd

Like I keep saying Ed, anytime, anywhere.

Good lord, Sam. Let's keep it together, man.

The CA

I'm together quite well, David. It's just annoying that Ed loves to insult people under the protection of his own blog. Yet, challenge to match wits in a neutral forum and he wilts like a violet. Hell, it's not even a challenge anymore, so I suppose you're right in that I should stop making the offer. It would be a waste of my time.

The CA

Cara, a legend in his own mind and a few deluded hero worshippers. The legend is far greater than the man.

Cara Michele

Oooohhhh... my bad, Sam. I thought we were saying silly things.

NRL, when I see Ed (and/or his lovely wife Lisa), I generally smile and say hello. Occasionally, there is jovial huggage. I think that Ed is quite the decent fellow, your grumpy characterization of him notwithstanding. ;)


You're a waste of time, alright.

The CA

Exactly, Molson. Without cheerleaders like you, Ed can't survive. That's why he won't leave the safety of this blog and debate in a neutral forum. This blog and people like you give him the illusion of superiority and esteem. The crowd always cheers for the home team, that's why they never want to play away. Even when they suck, the Redskins still sell out with a wild crowd cheering them on.


I find it amazing that this of all posts could trigger an "Ed is a partisan-democrat-hacktivist" outburst.

The CA

Stew, did you miss the part where I said NOTHING on this thread at all, and Ed characterizes someone's argument as "Spagnola weak"? Maybe someday you will see what I have said all along- I didn't start these fights. Ed insults me. I respond. The Ed Cone Fan Club attacks me and criticizes me as being a troll or otherwise provoking incivility. I said I wouldn't break the peace two months ago. I didn't. Cone did a few weeks ago, just like I said he would.

Please look at reality for a change instead of buying into the "Ed Cone is such a reasonable guy" myth. He's arrogant, and he does exactly the things he accuses others of and then whines about it when someone points it out. Having cheerleaders who can see no wrong in the man only makes it worse.



Tirade against Ed for lobbing an unprovoked insult: Makes sense in this thread. Go for it.

Tirade against Ed for being a partisan-demo-hacktivist in the thread where he criticizes Gore's hypocrisy: Makes no sense at all.

The CA

Stew, actually it does.

Gore's hypocrisy is no different than that of John Edwards. In fact, Edwards' is worse.

Edwards gave a speech a few weeks ago about energy conservation simliar to what Gore has done. Meanwhile, Edwards builds a 28,000 square foot house for THREE people to live in. Question how much energy Edwards is wasting.

Next, Edwards preaches about the "Two Americas" being divided between the wealthy and the poor. Yet, he builds a 28,000 square foot house for THREE people to live in. Utter hypocrisy.

Did Ed say anything about that? No. But somehow he finds it necessary to post the Gore story. Why? Because Ed is quite clearly and Edwards guy, and the last thing he wants, or any other Democrat committed to another candidate wants, is for Gore to get into the race. That's why I said if Gore was the nominee, Ed would take Dr. Franks line and take the position that this is a "right wing" smear job. His loyalty is to the candidate first, then the party of that candidate.

He is the one who brought up the subject of partisanship in this thread when he said "partisan hacks are boring" when in fact he is a partisan hack himself despite his denials. It goes back to sincerity. Why should anyone care what you say if you aren't willing to be upfront about what you believe and where you stand? Why should anyone care what you say if you are guilty of what you accuse others of and then whine about it and act as if you are as pure as the wind driven snow?

I'm telling you guys, the sooner you realize that OZ is just a little man behind the curtain, the better off you will be. Most of the posters here (even the one's I disagree with vehemently on a number of subjects) are smarter and make better arguments than Ed. Why there is this constant defense of him and hero like worship is beyond me. He's just another blogger. Sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad. But he sure isn't right all the time and is rarely more insightful than anyone else. "Ed Cone" is a brand that sells more on name than substance.

Ed Cone

Let me parachute in only to say that I am not committed to any candidate; that I am baffled by Sam's assertion that I have ducked some sort of debate with him -- where? when? under what auspices? -- that seems to have existed only in his imagination; and that everything else he says about my awfulness is pretty much entirely true.


Ok Sam, whatever. Keep in mind that you also have Cara Michele and Boyd here essentially telling you you've gone a little over the top - are they liberal Cone groupies too? Rhetorical question, please don't bother to answer.

The CA

"Ed Cone, Official Blogger of the Edwards Administration". Nice ring to it, huh?


I wasn't cheering for Ed. I was taking a dig at you. If Ed's the center of your universe, I guess the lenses just stay fogged.

The CA

Rah, rah, rah! Go Team!

Joe Killian

I'm telling you guys, the sooner you realize that OZ is just a little man behind the curtain, the better off you will be. Most of the posters here (even the one's I disagree with vehemently on a number of subjects) are smarter and make better arguments than Ed. Why there is this constant defense of him and hero like worship is beyond me. He's just another blogger. Sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad. But he sure isn't right all the time and is rarely more insightful than anyone else. "Ed Cone" is a brand that sells more on name than substance.

I feel like maybe there's this whole universe going on that I'm unaware of. Ed has a well-trafficked blog, certainly. That's largely because he updates almost constantly and talks about local and state subjects (and subjects close to the hearts of bloggers) rather than a lot of the marginally interesting drivel you'd find on a lot of blogs (including my own) that is interesting to only a handful of people outside of the author.

This description of hero worship and total deference is just bizarre and not, in my experience, terribly accurate. I've been in a room with Ed maybe three times in my life but I've seen less deference and awe in those rooms (even when they're filled with bloggers who might rightly be impressed with what he does) than you'd generally see when some local TV reporter walks into a room wearing the news team windbreaker.

Like a lot of other popular blogs in the community (JR's Editor's Log, Sandy Carmany's blog, Hoggard's place, etc.) there's a lot of bickering here. Much of it's directed at Ed or based on things he says. The point that the conversation generated is more important to the blog than what Ed posts is, to my mind, the point of most blogs and not a terribly cutting observation.

I've got a temper myself and can go off half-cocked...but this fit of rage and torrent of insults just seems completely detached from any kind of objective reality.

Jeffrey Sykes

Global warming is a serious issue that should rise above the "politics of personal destruction."

Our children will judge us.

The CA

Like I said Joe, most of the people who visit here are smarter than Ed. Is Ed included in your list of purveyors of insults? He certainly started it here on this post. That is an objective reality.

Joe Killian

I think Ed clearly threw an elbow with "Spagnola weak" but you two sort of do that to each other a lot.

I thought the reaction -- if it was a reaction, I'm just speculating because you brought it up as irking you -- was a little out of proportion.

The CA

I always said my retaliation would be twice as hard.

Hidden not so well in the invective are two on topic points:

1) The discussion about partisanship was not instituted by me and started from the very first threads, I merely commented on what I see as duality on the subject.

2) The question about why Ed chose to post on this topic began from the very first thread and went on well before I got involved. I offered an explanation- the Edwards theory.

Do these two reflect badly on Ed? I think so, but either way, they are in fact germane to the discussion that was going on before I got involved and were not some off topic rant against Ed. Some might not like the presentation, but we all have our ways.

Your responses have been quite good, Joe. I'm happy to see that you realize that what happens here between me and Ed is very frequently a two-way street.


I, for one, was highly insulted by the "Spagnola weak" comment. I've seen the man try to rap, I know what "Spagnola weak" really is.


The comments to this entry are closed.