different voices
12 years ago
Monday, October 18, 2004
Fuhrer-prinzep
Texas-style: "This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker."
Friday, October 15, 2004
Dan Froomkin has the goods
A short while back I directed your attention to something Dan Froomkin had noticed; as he puts it: "every time President Bush says 'of course,' because in adversarial settings Bush seems to use that phrase whenever he's about to say something that supporters might find obvious -- but that his critics might consider a whopper."
Now here are some results:
Now here are some results:
"Here's every instance of 'of course' from [the Oct. 13 debate]:
-- 'Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden.'
-- 'Of course we're meeting our obligation to our veterans, and the veterans know that.'
-- Regarding his Social Security plans: 'And we're of course going to have to consider the costs.'
And here are the instances from last Friday:
-- 'Of course, we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already 75 percent of his people. And we're on the hunt for him.'
-- 'Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does.'
-- '[O]f course we've been involved with Iran. . . . Of course, we're paying attention to these. It's a great question about Iran.'
-- 'And of course he's going to raise your taxes.' "
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Dubya's dirty tricks exposed?
Employees of Voters Outreach of America, a GOP-funded voter registration outfit operating in Nevada, say they personally witnessed company employees shredding hundreds or even thousands of Democratic registrations. Now the same company (VOA) is being accused of destroying Democratic registration forms in Oregon....
Update: Click here for links to nine states where Dubya's dirty tricks have been committed
Update: Click here for links to nine states where Dubya's dirty tricks have been committed
Debate impressions
Kerry started off red hot and Dubya was in trouble 'big time,' as his running mate would say. Kerry was scorching him on Iraq, the economy, you name it and Bush was starting to lose it, his face contorting and his speechifying sputtering.
So his golfing buddy, moderator Bob Schiefer (who looks like the Count from Sesame Street) tossed some softballs Dubya's way and changed the debate from substantive issues to so-called 'wedge issues' (abortion, prayer) and navel-gazing explorations of 'personality' (faith, 'women in my life').
As with the Veep debate the low quality of the questions really detracted from the latter stages of the debate. After all, what US politician in their right mind is going to get up and denounce 'faith'? Kerry still came out of the softball questions on top, however, as his answers did not sound like something a homeless man may try to pawn off on you in his desperate attempt to gather enough nickles for another bottle of cheep hootch ('prayer gives me a calmness').
Overall, Kerry kept up the offensive and got in a few killers like "Bush on fiscal responsibility is like Tony Soprano on law and order." Bush, back on his heals early on, was not helped by attacks that overreached: "Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Massachusetts."
Damn, if you thought Dubya's credibility was in trouble to begin with then it landed smack dab in the toilet with that whopper!
That about summed up Dubya's grand strategy -- dump flip-flop for LIBERAL (a flip-flop in itself). Two kinds of name calling masquerading as strategy, and both doomed to failure when the stakes are so real for so many Americans. If this is Dubya's idea of a grand strategy no wonder we're in a quagmire in Iraq!
Tonight's the situation required Dubya to break Kerry's gathering momentum, not stand pat and hope that the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' would (once again) float him to victory. Playing defense for most of the night was not what Dubya needed, but it is essentially what he did. After all, if he hasn't wrapped up the evangelical vote by now, he never will. And his pandering to the them only turns middle of the road folk off -- as is reflected in the post debate polls, where Kerry whomped on Dubya by double-digit margins.
This debate will seal the narrative of the out-of-touch emperor strutting around without any clothes.
Did you like Dubya's answer on jobs?
No Child Left Behind
...hello, it is not my child who needs a job, it is me, f*ckface!
How Dubya's answer regarding discrimination:
No Child Left Behind!
Or his answer for outsourcing?
No Child Left Behind...
...and his answer for education...
failing to fund No Child Left Behind.
So, to sum up Dubya's domestic agenda in a nutshell?
A big middle finger for the middle class.
And don't think his dodging and weaving will be lost on folks trying to make up their minds. Kerry was resolute, specific, articulate, and decisive... he didn't have to run out the clock with bumber sticker slogans and when times are tough people look for someone who has a clue...
You see it at work all the time, the smarty may be mocked when everyone is fat and happy, but if there is a deadline and heads are going to roll, all of a sudden office politics goes out the window. Barring any catastrophic events, this debate portends that we'll be seeing something else go out the window this November 2.
So his golfing buddy, moderator Bob Schiefer (who looks like the Count from Sesame Street) tossed some softballs Dubya's way and changed the debate from substantive issues to so-called 'wedge issues' (abortion, prayer) and navel-gazing explorations of 'personality' (faith, 'women in my life').
As with the Veep debate the low quality of the questions really detracted from the latter stages of the debate. After all, what US politician in their right mind is going to get up and denounce 'faith'? Kerry still came out of the softball questions on top, however, as his answers did not sound like something a homeless man may try to pawn off on you in his desperate attempt to gather enough nickles for another bottle of cheep hootch ('prayer gives me a calmness').
Overall, Kerry kept up the offensive and got in a few killers like "Bush on fiscal responsibility is like Tony Soprano on law and order." Bush, back on his heals early on, was not helped by attacks that overreached: "Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Massachusetts."
Damn, if you thought Dubya's credibility was in trouble to begin with then it landed smack dab in the toilet with that whopper!
That about summed up Dubya's grand strategy -- dump flip-flop for LIBERAL (a flip-flop in itself). Two kinds of name calling masquerading as strategy, and both doomed to failure when the stakes are so real for so many Americans. If this is Dubya's idea of a grand strategy no wonder we're in a quagmire in Iraq!
Tonight's the situation required Dubya to break Kerry's gathering momentum, not stand pat and hope that the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' would (once again) float him to victory. Playing defense for most of the night was not what Dubya needed, but it is essentially what he did. After all, if he hasn't wrapped up the evangelical vote by now, he never will. And his pandering to the them only turns middle of the road folk off -- as is reflected in the post debate polls, where Kerry whomped on Dubya by double-digit margins.
This debate will seal the narrative of the out-of-touch emperor strutting around without any clothes.
Did you like Dubya's answer on jobs?
No Child Left Behind
...hello, it is not my child who needs a job, it is me, f*ckface!
How Dubya's answer regarding discrimination:
No Child Left Behind!
Or his answer for outsourcing?
No Child Left Behind...
...and his answer for education...
failing to fund No Child Left Behind.
So, to sum up Dubya's domestic agenda in a nutshell?
A big middle finger for the middle class.
And don't think his dodging and weaving will be lost on folks trying to make up their minds. Kerry was resolute, specific, articulate, and decisive... he didn't have to run out the clock with bumber sticker slogans and when times are tough people look for someone who has a clue...
You see it at work all the time, the smarty may be mocked when everyone is fat and happy, but if there is a deadline and heads are going to roll, all of a sudden office politics goes out the window. Barring any catastrophic events, this debate portends that we'll be seeing something else go out the window this November 2.
the most damning lie
Bush stated that he never claimed to not care about ObL... let's go to the tape:
"Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]You can run, Dubya, but you can't hide!
BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]
Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him."
Kerry wins -- again
three for three
Early post-debate polls
Kerry Bush
CBS 39 25
ABC 42 41
CNN 52 39
The CBS poll was only among undecideds. The ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats. So in other words, you can add roughly 12% points to Kerry's 1% point advantage, which is in keeping with the other two polls.
Let's face it: one of the candidates is serious, smart, and focused and the other is a goof off who lives in a bubble and whose middle name begins with W...
Early post-debate polls
Kerry Bush
CBS 39 25
ABC 42 41
CNN 52 39
The CBS poll was only among undecideds. The ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats. So in other words, you can add roughly 12% points to Kerry's 1% point advantage, which is in keeping with the other two polls.
Let's face it: one of the candidates is serious, smart, and focused and the other is a goof off who lives in a bubble and whose middle name begins with W...
LA Times scoop
Wonder why the rest of the media won't touch it?
Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote: "The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi -- where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
'When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously,' said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity...."
Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote: "The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi -- where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
'When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously,' said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity...."
banana republic?
"There is no low to which the GOP will not stoop. Now, they are shredding Dem voter registrations in Nevada.
Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.
Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.
The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.
The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.
Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats...."
GOP: lie cheat and steal
"This is a bombshell accusation, so you'd sorta kinda hope that the reporter would follow it up a bit:
The former [Republican] governor and congressman says the national GOP is encouraging campaign workers to cheat. He says his ire is directed at the Republican Party's Victory operation, which helps register people and get them to the polls.
Janklow says his problem with the organization goes back to 2002 when he was a candidate for the US House."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
what did I tell you?
Checking the Facts, in Advance:
"...By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers."
"...By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
CNN spins for bushies
Here's the misleading headline:
CNN.com - Poll: Bush, Kerry even in 2nd debate - Oct 9, 2004
But here is the fact of the matter:
"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate Friday night found that respondents gave a slight, statistically insignificant [sic] edge to Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, 47 percent to 45 percent.
The respondents included 515 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 38 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent."
Hmmm, now lets do the math: 6% more GOoPers than Dems, even though turnout typically gives the Dems a 4% advantage, so that adds up to a 10% stacking of the deck for Bush. Once we adjust the poll for that we find Kerry has a win of 12% -- well outside the margin of error.
But CNN doesn't report the facts, just the spin. Why don't you ask them why not right here?
CNN.com - Poll: Bush, Kerry even in 2nd debate - Oct 9, 2004
But here is the fact of the matter:
"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate Friday night found that respondents gave a slight, statistically insignificant [sic] edge to Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, 47 percent to 45 percent.
The respondents included 515 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 38 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent."
Hmmm, now lets do the math: 6% more GOoPers than Dems, even though turnout typically gives the Dems a 4% advantage, so that adds up to a 10% stacking of the deck for Bush. Once we adjust the poll for that we find Kerry has a win of 12% -- well outside the margin of error.
But CNN doesn't report the facts, just the spin. Why don't you ask them why not right here?
Who the hell is...
...that short "ANGER MAN" who is running all over the screen YELLING at people?
He's what? He's the most powerful man on the planet? Then why is he acting like a schoolyard bully who's sucked down too much Kool-aid too quickly?
[Go here to watch him flip out]
And people wonder why we have a virtual coalition of one?... would you want to play in the same sandbox with this little freakazoid? Or let your kid play near him?
He's the type to wait till people are looking away before pulling a sucker punch and then pretend that he doesn't know how his 'playmate's' face got pushed into the sidewalk.
Mistakes: 'HE DON'T MAKE NO STINKIN' MISTAKES'
Mistakes are for the 'little people' --like taxes (smirk)-- if he wants to make a mistake, he 'hires it done.'
The only mistake he ever made was hiring people who can't follow the party line and allow reality to intrude in their assessment of the state of the world.
Now why are we stuck in a quagmire again?
No way in hell am I voting for ANGER MAN. Let him go screw up his own sandbox on his own dime for a change.
He's what? He's the most powerful man on the planet? Then why is he acting like a schoolyard bully who's sucked down too much Kool-aid too quickly?
[Go here to watch him flip out]
And people wonder why we have a virtual coalition of one?... would you want to play in the same sandbox with this little freakazoid? Or let your kid play near him?
He's the type to wait till people are looking away before pulling a sucker punch and then pretend that he doesn't know how his 'playmate's' face got pushed into the sidewalk.
Mistakes: 'HE DON'T MAKE NO STINKIN' MISTAKES'
Mistakes are for the 'little people' --like taxes (smirk)-- if he wants to make a mistake, he 'hires it done.'
The only mistake he ever made was hiring people who can't follow the party line and allow reality to intrude in their assessment of the state of the world.
Now why are we stuck in a quagmire again?
No way in hell am I voting for ANGER MAN. Let him go screw up his own sandbox on his own dime for a change.
debate diary
Must read Internets:
"9:27 Bush is grinding his teeth into stumps. Oh, fuck: 'That answer almost made me want to scowl.' . . . Uhm. Yeah. I think I could hear crickets. I mean, that joke bombed. Bombed like a bad war.
9:29 Oh, yes. The rumors on the 'internets.' The interweb. Whatever. You have to excuse him. . . he mainly just uses it for porn.
9:31 Hmmmm. . . back door draft . . .
9:33 Good thing that no one really knows who Charlie Gibson is, or Bush steamrolling over him like a grumpy elderly driver would probably get noticed.
9:37 Shorter Bush: 'Stop fucking with me! Stop it! Stop fucking with me!'"
And the winner...
10:28 Q: Name three times you've made a mistake. A: I WAS RIGHT TO GO TO WAR. AND THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION. FUCK YOU.
"9:27 Bush is grinding his teeth into stumps. Oh, fuck: 'That answer almost made me want to scowl.' . . . Uhm. Yeah. I think I could hear crickets. I mean, that joke bombed. Bombed like a bad war.
9:29 Oh, yes. The rumors on the 'internets.' The interweb. Whatever. You have to excuse him. . . he mainly just uses it for porn.
9:31 Hmmmm. . . back door draft . . .
9:33 Good thing that no one really knows who Charlie Gibson is, or Bush steamrolling over him like a grumpy elderly driver would probably get noticed.
9:37 Shorter Bush: 'Stop fucking with me! Stop it! Stop fucking with me!'"
And the winner...
10:28 Q: Name three times you've made a mistake. A: I WAS RIGHT TO GO TO WAR. AND THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION. FUCK YOU.
Friday, October 08, 2004
psychological quirk
Bush's 'I am about to lie' tag-line:
"Here's a debate-watching tip: Perk up your ears every time President Bush says 'of course' tonight.
Because if recent history is a guide, what's coming is a statement that his supporters might find obvious, but that his critics might consider a whopper....
Depending on where you're coming from, politically, [what he says is] either manifestly true or a Freudian slip exposing a significant falsehood....
Bush's views were being challenged that night, and his use of the phrase 'of course' sounded defensive in nature. So I decided to go back and look at how Bush used the phrase in other situations recently where he was confronted by tough questions...."
There is more, 'of course' (NOT a Freudian slip), and it makes for an interesting read.
"Here's a debate-watching tip: Perk up your ears every time President Bush says 'of course' tonight.
Because if recent history is a guide, what's coming is a statement that his supporters might find obvious, but that his critics might consider a whopper....
Depending on where you're coming from, politically, [what he says is] either manifestly true or a Freudian slip exposing a significant falsehood....
Bush's views were being challenged that night, and his use of the phrase 'of course' sounded defensive in nature. So I decided to go back and look at how Bush used the phrase in other situations recently where he was confronted by tough questions...."
There is more, 'of course' (NOT a Freudian slip), and it makes for an interesting read.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Cheney's lies
The thing abut Cheney's lies is that they are of a far different nature that the typical "stretching the truth" that we have come to expect from politicians. That is why it is fundamentally misleading to equate Edwards saying that we are $200 billion in the whole in Iraq (we have spent $120 billion and have already allocated another $80 billion that will be spent in the next year regardless of who is president) with Cheney's whole-cloth reinventions of reality "I've never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11" or "Iraq represented a nuclear threat."
If you consider what Edwards said to be an exaggeration or error of degree (and I don't, since that money is as good as spent right now -- who is going to deny the troops what has already been allocated and is necessary, even if only to extricate them from the quagmire?), then what Cheney says on a regular basis has to be considered something else, since it does not exaggerate or embellish -- it departs from reality absolutely. Arguing that Saddam has nukes, when he does not is not an exaggeration. Arguing that Iraq was behind 9/11 terrorists when they were not is not an exageration -- it is a fabrication, a lie. You cannot 'exaggerate' that black is white. And that is why most news services did the country a disservice when they equated what some might call Edwards' interpretations of reality with Cheney's whole-scale departures from reality. It both minimizes the true differences (and lends credence to the old saw: 'all politicians do it') and by so doing implicitly endorses what Cheney has to say, since it is 'no worse' than what Edwards said.
Or, in brief, Cheney has mastered the technique of the Big Lie and the press is still not on to him...
Or are some perhaps beginning to answer the clue phone?
MSNBC - Rewriting History: "With virtually all of the administration's original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night's debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill's first question, said that 'concern' about Iraq before the war had 'specifically focused' on the fact that Saddam's regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a 'state sponsor of terror,' that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an 'established relationship' with Al Qaeda.
But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda--a claim that is now more in question than ever--the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night's debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons...."
If you consider what Edwards said to be an exaggeration or error of degree (and I don't, since that money is as good as spent right now -- who is going to deny the troops what has already been allocated and is necessary, even if only to extricate them from the quagmire?), then what Cheney says on a regular basis has to be considered something else, since it does not exaggerate or embellish -- it departs from reality absolutely. Arguing that Saddam has nukes, when he does not is not an exaggeration. Arguing that Iraq was behind 9/11 terrorists when they were not is not an exageration -- it is a fabrication, a lie. You cannot 'exaggerate' that black is white. And that is why most news services did the country a disservice when they equated what some might call Edwards' interpretations of reality with Cheney's whole-scale departures from reality. It both minimizes the true differences (and lends credence to the old saw: 'all politicians do it') and by so doing implicitly endorses what Cheney has to say, since it is 'no worse' than what Edwards said.
Or, in brief, Cheney has mastered the technique of the Big Lie and the press is still not on to him...
Or are some perhaps beginning to answer the clue phone?
MSNBC - Rewriting History: "With virtually all of the administration's original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night's debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill's first question, said that 'concern' about Iraq before the war had 'specifically focused' on the fact that Saddam's regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a 'state sponsor of terror,' that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an 'established relationship' with Al Qaeda.
But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda--a claim that is now more in question than ever--the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night's debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)