By Raoul

January 29, 2010 3:45 PM | Link to this

Sigh…..well it was worth a try, Alice.

By Alice

January 29, 2010 2:42 PM | Link to this

LOL - I thought you explained it to yourself why Watergate was a bigger story than Berger in your 4:37pm post. Anyway, my motivations are not personal or political… I find your (mis)statements to be representative of those given too often by concerned citizens and ultimately our legislative leaders that are driven by populist arguments and sensationalism. “Sorry to dissapoint you Alice, but I did absolutely no research.” (Raoul/8:18am) And yet you know enough to cry about liberal bias.

By Raoul

January 29, 2010 8:01 AM | Link to this

Alice, its always a risk to ask a liberal a yes or no question, but given what you know about Watergate and Sandy Berger, did the MSM report these stories without bias? If yes, explain why. If no, why are you arguing with me?

By Alice

January 28, 2010 4:57 PM | Link to this

Yes, Raoul, I wasn’t alive back then so I have no idea what Watergate is. I don’t read anything or watch anything and I had no idea that an American president had ever resigned. I thought that “All the Presidents Men” was about Nixon’s secret love of boys. What is Watergate anyway? Isn’t it some kind of salad? If it is, then I totally agree with you that the Berger story is WAY bigger than a salad. I’m still trying to find the interview with Berger in. Also, if the MSM is so liberal and biased, why would I, as a liberal, be worried about it leading me astray? Isn’t that the point of the whole liberal media argument? That they lead Real Americans astray?

By Raoul

January 28, 2010 8:18 AM | Link to this

Sorry to dissapoint you Alice, but I did absolutely no research. However, I urge you to research my one and only point; Watergate story vs. Sandy Berger story as reported by the MSM. Maybe you don’t remember Watergate, where for weeks on end the entire affair drug out on TV. Meanwhile, books and Oscar winning movies were made, and a President resigned. Compare that to Sandy Berger. Surely you don’t need Wikipedia to help you understand the difference, do you? Here’s a thought: try forming your own opinions based on your own observations. That way, the media, including those devils at Fox, won’t lead you astray. But I agree with you on one point. No chocolate on my burger!

By irishguy

January 28, 2010 2:29 AM | Link to this

Still waiting on all the details to emerge. I’ve read O’Keefe was filming it all on his cell phone. Also heard they were trying to do an expose on how the Senator’s people were not answering the phone of those calling to complain about the “Louisiana Purchase”. The complaint didn’t mention wiretapping. Seems a little odd to me. Funny how this story broke in hours, whereas the Acorn videos didn’t show up for weeks…..

By Alice

January 27, 2010 6:41 PM | Link to this

PS I think we should all get together for a Vickburger sometime… hold the chocolate.

By Alice

January 27, 2010 6:38 PM | Link to this

WOW! It only took Raoul three hours and six minutes to do some research to find out that 1/2 of his argument, about Watergate and Acorngate not being near as big a story as Bergergate, was completely wrong. I congratulate him on his discovery of Wikipedia. As for the other 1/2 of the argument about the big, bad liberal MSM (the same cry-baby argument conservatives like to make to re-enforce their victimhood status), I know that it’s been 4-5 years since the whole incident was even relevant and so it might be a little harder to find some coverage, Raoul… BUT while you’re on the Wiki page for Sandy Berger you can just scroll down to the bottom of the page and there is a list of articles and links to those articles under the big word that says “References”. Listed are links to articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, etc… Ironically, Fox is absent from the list of linked articles. They can’t list EVERY article ever written in the “References” so I am sure that Fox covered it… or did they? Wait… WHEN DID FOX BECOME A PART OF THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA??!?!? OMG WHO AM I GOING TO GET MY FAIR AND BALANCED NEWS FROM NOW????????

By Raoul

January 27, 2010 4:37 PM | Link to this

Not sure what you mean Null, except I am now jealous of both of you having enjoyed a Vick burger, (chocolate, Vick?)and I don’t even know where to get one (I’m guessing somewhere in Yellow Springs)?Vick, Bush was President when Sandy was ‘absent-mindedly’ stuffing those classified documents in his pants on over 30 occasions, presumably to cover someone’s (his boss Bill Clinton) a*s during the 911 hearings. I found out he was just being ‘sloppy’, so maybe that is why it wasn’t a big deal. Most of the Watergate guys went to prison. Sandy Berger got fined, and still has security clearance. By the way, I am no supporter of anyone secretly bugging anybody, but Acorngate was a real laugher.

By vick

January 27, 2010 3:04 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute! You can only make comments about books here. Haha. I had one of those burgers last Sunday before they closed for remodeling. Mine had chocolate on it….mmm.

By null

January 27, 2010 2:58 PM | Link to this

Seems like Raoul is jealous of someone doing their job. Since we’re not talking about books in this book blog, tried a Vick burger the other weekend. Had an egg, bacon, pine nuts and a couple of other things on it. Wow.

By vick

January 27, 2010 2:42 PM | Link to this

I’m not the only one. The Christian Science Monitor posted this headline 30 minutes ago: “Four charged in incident at Mary Landrieu’s office. Watergate 2?”

By vick

January 27, 2010 1:41 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Raoul. You have mentioned Sandy Berger before. Did that happen under Bill Clinton? The thing that sunk Nixon was his arrogance. The man was brilliant but his arrogance was a fatal flaw. He’s still my favorite president though. Funny thing-Bill Clinton is also brilliant and arrogant but I have never liked him. Nixon could scare some small children. Clinton might scare me if he was around any children. Clinton always reminds me of a shady used car salesman.

By Raoul

January 27, 2010 1:31 PM | Link to this

Vick, keep up the good work and write and post whatever the hell you want. And now I will say something that I want to say. Watergate was the most trumped up episode in the history of free press. In terms of wrongdoing and coverupedness, it is a molehill compared to the Sandy Berger episode at the National Archives. Both parties have long histories of spy vs. spy shenanigans and covering them up, but the ‘70’s were a time of sticking it to the ‘Man’, and Nixon bore the brunt. He only made it worse by being so thin-skinned. Fast forward to Sandy Berger, and please try to explain to me the total lack of interest from the maintstream media on that one. I have my opinions of course, but I don’t want to start sounding like Tricky Dick and Spiro Agnew.

By Insider

January 27, 2010 11:23 AM | Link to this

Some of that ‘interests’ me, too : )

By vick

January 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Link to this

You claim my column is rarely about books?! My column is almost always about books. Opinions are what this is all about. That includes my thoughts on politics. Sorry-methinks thou doth protest too much. Oh well. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Including me.

By Pharrell

January 27, 2010 11:01 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the response. I like your column, honest, but it’s rarely about books these days. I just think you undermine your point when it appears that you’re using the book nook as a platform for your political views.

By vick

January 27, 2010 10:21 AM | Link to this

I write about the things that interest me. That’s what I do. Thanks for noticing. Hopefully this subject will be of interest to lots of people. Thanks for writing.

By Pharrell

January 27, 2010 10:18 AM | Link to this

And once again you use the most tenuous of excuses to tie this column to the Book Nook blog. Vick, for Pete’s sake, just drop the pretense of a book blog and write what you want to write.