A whole lot of people evidently like to pretend they're getting news, when they're really digesting pablum disguised as news. (Sometimes ol' Vernam wonders if he's one of 'em.) New heights of self-delusion and/or mass hypnosis were reached this week when the Faux News Channel -- or "Fox," as you may know it -- achieved the highest ratings of all news networks during the GOP convention.
Meanwhile, thank god for the Daily Show. If you didn't catch tonight's coverage of yesterday's Zell Meltdown, it gets rerun several times in the next 24 hours, so set that Tivo. Even funnier, in light of Miller's ridiculous attacks on Kerry, is this page on his very own website in which he calls the Democratic nominee a "hero" and praises him for having "worked to strengthen our military." By providing plenty of spitballs, no doubt.
Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan posted a devastating dissection of Miller's "dixiecrat" dissembling.
I love being right (see the bottom of my 9/7 post). BTW, "evil looking stuff" equals forged national guard documents.
Posted by: Olamdom at September 11, 2004 08:19 AMI put some red meat out there for you to attack and you chose to evade. Smart choice! You must have read Sun Tzu.
Do you also agree with McCain's convention speech where he said, "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents."
Try googling "faux news channel". Guess what turns up as the top hit? I was checking to see whether Vernam had coined the term, which he had not, of course.
As for the Swift lies, I can't really add anything to John McCain's comment:
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. 'It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,' McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush'." [AP, 8/5/04]
Yes, I’m saying that “publicly announced” equals “made known.”
Kerry showed a picture of his fellow swift boat commanders in a campaign ad. His “band of brothers” as it were. Of Kerry’s 19 peers in the picture, 12 think him unfit to be CinC. 3 support him. The rest are dead or neutral. Four other peers, not pictured, see Kerry as unfit. Let’s review 16 say unfit. 3 support. Was Kerry’s use of this picture misleading? Doesn’t the picture imply that they served with Kerry? Don’t these vets have a right to correct the record?
Has Kerry said that Dr. Letson did not treat him? I haven’t heard him say that.
Did two of Kerry’s three purple hearts come from self-inflicted wounds? Do self-inflicted wounds meet the criteria for a Purple Heart?
Does Kerry claim to have a Silver Star with a “V” despite the fact that this award does not exist in the US Navy? Do three different citations, each with progressively flattering language, exits for Kerry’s Silver Star? Is it curious that Admiral Lehman, who signed the last citation, says, "It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me?" Who wrote that language? Doesn’t this sound strange to you?
Was Kerry in Cambodia around X-mas 1968? Was Nixon president then? What about “seared-seared?”
Why did Kerry include the lies? That being said, I agree with you that “the inclusion of blatant lies tends to undermine one's credibility.” I also agree that “we have reason not to trust “anything” said by a liar. The polls reflect this sentiment also.
Posted by: Olamdom at September 7, 2004 08:18 PM"Aired" is the same as "posted?" In the Internet age, "lie" is still synonymous with "fabrication." 8^/
"Much of what the Swifties said is demonstrably true." If so, why did they include the lies? If their tale was truly compelling, they wouldn't have bothered saying they "served with Kerry" when they hadn't, that one of them "treated Kerry's wounds" when he hadn't, etc. The inclusion of blatant lies tends to undermine one's credibility. It doesn't mean nothing the liar says is true. It means we have reason not to trust anything said by the liar.
Posted by: VC at September 7, 2004 06:03 PMIMHO the operative word is “Posted,” adj, publicly announced. “Aired,” adj, made known. I believe “run,” “posted” and “aired” are synonymous in the internet age.
The majority don’t think Bush lied. Kerry takes a risk if he goes for the “big lie.” I would see this as a sign of desperation. It might be the first time when a “Not dishonest … just misinformed” bumper sticker could win an election.
“Speaking of Clinton, he was impeached essentially because he also broke a bond; the morality one.” WOW!!! VC are you seeing this? Yes, Clinton lied, but his impeachment was purely political. Do you think he would not have been impeached if he was a Republican or if the Democrats had the majority? BTW, impeachment is, by design, a political process. So, Clinton got what he deserved by definition ... a little Alan Keys for you.
“Anything goes” is as safe as the voters allow. A little St. Thomas Aquinas for you.
Much of what the Swifties have said is demonstrably true. You’re in denial and paranoid if your “truisms” only work against you.
I don’t think there is a message GHWB could effectively deliver without sounding maudlin. If Reagan were alive and well, you can bet he’d have spoken.
“I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “aired.” Who funded the website? “
The operative words are ‘potential ads.’ If you missed what those videos were all about, moveon.org asked people to create and submit videos to potentially air, on the TV. They were all made available to look at on the website, so people could vote on which ones were most effective. The submissions weren’t vetted, nor censored. An experiment in grass-roots engagement and free-speech, I guess; but hardly worthy of conspiracy theory status.
“Very Clintonesque deano.”
My taste in women is far better than his!
“Like VC, you have to get away from the “people are smarter than conservatives think" when they agree with you and “Pavlovian” when they don’t.”
I try. But I can’t deny the truism that the more anything is repeated in the media, the more it becomes part of the collective zeitgeist. Even complete falsehoods begin to take on a strange credibility. How many times have we heard “Well, they wouldn’t say it, if it wasn’t true?” That’s what Rovian tactics rely on – that general public naiveté.
“The question is: Do the people view Iraq as part of the war on terror, or not? If Bush can convince them that it is, then he wins. If not, Kerry should win.”
I don’t disagree with that; although it is more of a reduction than I would make. The ever-evolving reasons (excuses, lies?) for the war also raise questions about the manner in which he leads. I personally don’t trust the guy to be honest & forthright about much of anything important to his agenda now. He’s broken a bond between a big hunk of the population and the office. It seems he’s had the same effect on several key world leaders. Not good for the country, imho... and a potential reason some swingers could pop the Kerry chad.
Speaking of Clinton, he was impeached essentially because he also broke a bond; the morality one. He lied and was impeached for it. In Bush’s case, kids are dying. If the Kerry campaign really wants to nail this election, maybe they have to prove The Lie.
“O’Neill’s apolitical hate, not to be confused with VC’s ideological hate, has everything to do with his personal honor.”…you sound like a crybaby when you say, “Bush should renounce this!” Why should he? It seems to be helping him….It’s politics ... no good or evil.”
Maybe it’s only a very small minority of the population, I wouldn't know, but some of us are genuinely turned-off by the BS. I’m not naďve enough to suggest politicians will someday turn on a dime and raise the dialog above smear tactics. However, Rove et al are blazing new frontiers in crass this year. It's amazing to say that, given the Newt era; but I do believe it's true.
I’m not as sure as you that ‘anything goes’ in politics is an eternally safe rule. After all, we are a society based on puritanical mores… hypocrisy can only go so far, before some commandment gets invoked.
The Carvelle in me might even hope Bush doesn’t renounce the Swifts now. It’s late enough in the game that Bush could gain brownie points with the swing vote, by appearing in his compassionate conservative guise, over the ad. But I don’t like my inner Carvelle… that said, my inner Mary Beth Cahill is too wimpy. All I can do is get as many people registered, who agree with me, as possible.
Perot!?
Last, why do you think Bush Senior didn't get to speak?
Posted by: deano at September 7, 2004 01:57 PMWhat about this from the 6 January Washington Times:
“Jewish advocacy groups led an avalanche of sharp criticism yesterday against two potential television ads that compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler and were posted on a Web site run by MoveOn.org.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “aired.” Who funded the website? Very Clintonesque deano.
Like VC, you have to get away from the “people are smarter than conservatives think" when they agree with you and “Pavlovian” when they don’t. It’s so weak and self-serving.
This election will be about what people want it to be about. The electorate will sift through all the garbage and decide what the important issues are and who is best suited to lead this country.
I have seen nothing in this campaign, so far, that I see as unfair. If a Bush – Hitler ad was effective, then it must have struck a chord with some people. I think an ad like that would help Bush, not hurt him.
If Kerry wants to say Bush “lied” about Iraq, he can do it. Some might be turned off. Others might be turned on. Lately, I’ve heard Kerry say Bush misled us into war. He did not say “intentionally” which, I think, should be very effective. Why? Because I agree. The question is: Do the people view Iraq as part of the war on terror, or not? If Bush can convince them that it is, then he wins. If not, Kerry should win.
If the Swifties words hurt Kerry, then it must ring true to some. On the other hand, some may see it as a sour grapes payback for Kerry’s post-war antics. Please note that O’Neill’s vendetta began over 30 years ago, before he ever heard of GW Bush. O’Neill’s apolitical hate, not to be confused with VC’s ideological hate, has everything to do with his personal honor. The NY Times reported that O’Neill “has told friends he considers Mr. Bush an ‘empty suit’ who is unfit to lead the country, and says he voted for Al Gore in 2000, and for Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992" … not exactly a ringing endorsement. [BTW, TOF voted for Perot in ’92, but that’s another story.] In either case, it is absolutely fair game and you sound like a crybaby when you say, “Bush should renounce this!” Why should he? It seems to be helping him. If it starts hurting him, then he’ll renounce it. Believe me, if the Hitler-Bush ads worked, you’d see Kerry holding a comb under his nose and giving a “Zieg heil” at every train stop. [I believe VC is smiling right now. Please confirm.] If Kerry doesn’t close the gap soon, you’ll see a lot of evil-looking stuff. If Kerry takes the lead, Bush will probably start making public appearance with O’Neill. It’s politics ... no good or evil.
TOF:
" In like manner, I bet you don't view the $60 million in 527 ads that moveon.org have run against the President (comparing him to Hitler and saying that he purposely poisoned pregnant women) as unfair."
Tilt.
The "Hitler" ad never aired. Also, it was created and submitted by an individual - without any moveon financial backing. Not a reasonable counter-example, to the Swift ads.
Besides, the republicans lifted that Hitler ad and used it on the Bush website! The infamous "Faces of Democrats" video.
Which begs the question: who owns the IP to Hitler's image anyway?
TOF:
" Well, the people have heard what the Swifites have to say and it has hurt Kerry with likely voters. Why? Because people are smarter than VC thinks."
I'd answer - 'because people are Pavlovian.'
TOF:
"If you are unable to recognize the symmetry to our national political debate, then you will never understand it. I see very little evil or immorality on either side."
Even you must concede this election is hardly about policy. Unfortunate, but true. The debate is dominated by whether or not you believe Bush pulled the US in a very dangerous, and wrong, direction. If you believe he did, you may also believe he did so for reasons other than those serving the better interests of the country (God forbid he worry about anything larger; like, say, mankind).
That debate has all sorts of moral implications. Especially since waging unjust war is about as immoral an act as a government can do.
Of course, there is a percentage of the population who vote solely with their own selfish interests in mind. To them, there is no debate anyway.
Posted by: deano at September 7, 2004 12:46 AMamy,
Consider this post from VC (directed to me) from 21 August:
"Glad to see you're comfortable with the knowledge that you're responsible for putting that dim, lying SOB in the White House and apparently are quite content to do so again, despite the horror of his first administration."
Is this the high-minded debate you're looking for? Or was VC adding in personal touches of scorn and derision? Shouldn't VC refrain from the personal attacks? Did this offend you? Did this make you sick?
My guess is ... probably not. In like manner, I bet you don't view the $60 million in 527 ads that moveon.org have run against the President (comparing him to Hitler and saying that he purposely poisoned pregnant women) as unfair.
However, I bet you agree with VC that the Swift Boat Veteran ads are unfair. Am I right? VC has said that, "people are smarter than conservatives think." Well, the people have heard what the Swifites have to say and it has hurt Kerry with likely voters. Why? Because people are smarter than VC thinks.
If you are unable to recognize the symmetry to our national political debate, then you will never understand it. I see very little evil or immorality on either side. This is my main point of contention with VC, As I have said previously and on more than one occasion, VC thinks he's right and his opponent is immoral. I believe that there are important fundamental differences between the parties and several, less important, radical differences. I don't think anybody believes in every plank of their party's platform. To this point, the Republicans featured several pro-choice speakers at their convention. Did the Democrats feature any pro-life speakers?
I accept that both sides truly believe that they know and want what's best for the country. Both sides will go to approximately the same lengths to win the election (a tip of the hat to Nixon who pushed the envelope). Only the extremes of each party view this as good vs evil and both parties will pander to those extremes with red meat demagoguery when they need to. Elections are about winning. There are no points for second place. [Note artful military linkage]
That being said, this blog is to reality what Springsteen's writings are to Lincoln's. We had one recent substantive debate on tax cuts which ended with VC calling Greenspan a "political animal." Zell Miller is "nuts." Everyone who disagrees with this blog is "evil," "immoral," "liars."
However, if VC wishes to run a radical left blog and preclude posts from people who "clearly have differing ideas," then all he has to do is say so. I don't want people to get sick on account of me.
[Note: I had no problem, whatsoever, with VC's 21 August post]
Posted by: Olamdom at September 6, 2004 08:52 AMOlamdom,
Gee, I was just thinking "I can’t think of a more exemplary repository of hate than your posts on this blog" about *you*. Much like your public Republican cronies, you go personal when you can't sustain an argument, ie "[Y]ou see everything through the prism of populism and popularity", attempting to negate VC's point with an ad hominen attack. You appear to be guilty of the very things for which you denigrate Democrats ("blaming and vilifying"), especially when you wrap up your little tirade by accusing him of "'reverse discrimination'".
Perhaps VC enjoys your little attempts at debate when you actually stay on topic; that's really not for me to say. I'm also not sure of your motiviation in posting to this site when you clearly have differing ideas, adding in your personal touches of scorn and derision for his opinions (and, by extension, for him), instead of enjoying a healthy debate. So, debate away, but refrain from the personal attacks - it offends me and really, I'm just getting sick of it. Otherwise, some might call you "an asshat".
Posted by: amy at September 5, 2004 01:32 AMI can’t think of a more exemplary repository of hate than your posts on this blog. Look at your language: "evil," "immoral," “liars,” etc … hateful prose. You see everything through the prism of populism and popularity. Go back and look at your posts on Liz Phair or Chris Berman. You are unable to appreciate her music because she was raised in a wealthy neighborhood. You are unable to like him because he’s too popular (almost a Yogiism). IMHO, this reactionary mind-set stands in the way of fair-minded evaluation and grants anonymous people way too much influence over your thoughts and preferences. The name for this affliction is “prejudice.” Some might call it "reverse discrimination."
Posted by: Olamdom at September 3, 2004 03:35 PMWinning and hating. Let's not forget the hate. Until everyone in the world is just like them -- Christian, heterosexual, white (in mind, if not in body) -- the Republicans will go on hating.
I'm not blaming Bush, I'm defining him. He's the one who chose to run on his record as The Terror President. I honor his service, truly I do. If others choose to point out he's a dumb SOB surrounded by smart, evil SOBs, I can only call on them to join me in elevating the debate and putting an end to this partisan bickering.
Posted by: VC at September 3, 2004 12:37 PMFor me it’s all about winning (see Arnold’s speech for the definition) ... that’s why I’m a Republican. For you, it’s all about blaming and vilifying ... that’s why you’re a Democrat"
Posted by: Olamdom at September 3, 2004 12:17 PM>If this is your take, then the
>convention was more successful
>that I thought. What was Zell's
>motivation for doing what he did?
Because he's nuts? Because he longs to fill the void created by Strom Thurmond's death? Mission accomplished.
>Don't reply ... checkmate in three
>moves.
It's all about winning, isn't it? 8^|
Your boys still have to survive several debates, so don't go giddy over a minuscule lead in the polls. Edwards vs. Cheney will be a good warmup for the ass whoopin' that Kerry is going to lay on Bush in their matchups. (I'm doing my best to speak your language here.) It's one thing for Bush to have skated through the 2000 debates, quite another for him to defend his policies now in a roomful of people who weren't hand-picked by Karl Rove.
So bring it on. Gawd willing, come November you, Zell and the rest will remember this past week as the last highlight of your campaign.
Posted by: VC at September 3, 2004 11:26 AMIf this is your take, then the convention was more successful that I thought. What was Zell's motivation for doing what he did? Don't reply ... checkmate in three moves.
Posted by: Olamdom at September 3, 2004 07:34 AM