Here is an excellent document from The Nation. It might be useful to hand out the undecideds you might meet.
100 Facts and 1 Opinion:
Here is a link to a great PDF put out by The Nation – 100 Facts against the Bush Administration.
http://www.thenation.com/special/pdf/100facts.pdf
In case you want here it is in HTML as well.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts
Friday, October 22, 2004
The Non-Reality-Based Community
I keep asking myself -- Why do people support George W. Bush? According to a report from PIPA it's because they think he supports stuff he doesn't actually support but which they do support. They support Bush because they think(thanks mainstream media) Iraq had actual WMD, which, of course, they didn't. The believe that Duelfer discovered evidence of major WMD programs, which he didn't, and that Iraq gave substantial aid to al-Qaeda whci is untrue nomatter how many times Cheney says it. They also believe that world opinion was either behind the Iraq War or closely divided, which is hardly true, and that world opinion is either for Bush or closely divided. Read the article to understand how abosolutely clueless Bush supporters are and you may begin to lose that sense of utter disbelief when you see a BC04 sign.
THe New Republic endorses Kerry
Stolen from Kevin Drum:
The Washington Monthly: "TNR ENDORSES KERRY....If you happen to be a liberal who's nonetheless planning to vote for George Bush based on his hawkish foreign policy, go read the hawkish New Republic's endorsement of John Kerry first.
Bottom line: Bush simply doesn't understand the true nature of our war against radical Islamic terrorism, and his approach over the past three years has largely made things worse, not better. He has lost the support of our allies, he has made us hated in the Muslim world, he has polarized the American public, he has hideously mismanaged the war in Iraq, and he has done virtually nothing to genuinely promote democracy in the Middle East.
In John Kerry, conversely, we have a man who understands the nature of al-Qaeda and understands how best to defeat it. It's not possible to know how effective he'll be, of course, but at least he knows what we're up against. As TNR says, George Bush 'has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.'"
The Washington Monthly: "TNR ENDORSES KERRY....If you happen to be a liberal who's nonetheless planning to vote for George Bush based on his hawkish foreign policy, go read the hawkish New Republic's endorsement of John Kerry first.
Bottom line: Bush simply doesn't understand the true nature of our war against radical Islamic terrorism, and his approach over the past three years has largely made things worse, not better. He has lost the support of our allies, he has made us hated in the Muslim world, he has polarized the American public, he has hideously mismanaged the war in Iraq, and he has done virtually nothing to genuinely promote democracy in the Middle East.
In John Kerry, conversely, we have a man who understands the nature of al-Qaeda and understands how best to defeat it. It's not possible to know how effective he'll be, of course, but at least he knows what we're up against. As TNR says, George Bush 'has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.'"
He Just doesn't get it
Click on the following link to see an add that will soon be running in the swing states. I think it is very effective. It's rough and startling but I think it has to be. Somehow true sense of the tragedy we are experiencing in Iraq has got to get through to the sheep who are still insisting Bush and company are the right choice for the country.
Win Back Respect
Win Back Respect
Thursday, October 21, 2004
John Cleese Steps In
From William Gibson Via Mark Kleiman
Mark A. R. Kleiman: "How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
John CLeese responds:
None. There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn't work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness."
Mark A. R. Kleiman: "How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
John CLeese responds:
None. There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn't work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness."
Nader's Raiders come to their senses, endorse Kerry
Less than two weeks before the election, dozens of former "Nader's Raiders" and other former Nader associates have announced their own opposition to his candidacy and are launching ads in battleground states in an attempt to keep the "Nader Factor" to a minimum. The letter released today from Nader's former Raiders urges voters not to support their former hero, expresses regret that Nader has taken support from right-wing groups, and says progressive voters can be the key to the election, by voting for John Kerry.
The letter, with 75 signatories including organizer Ken Ward, who has served as Executive Director of Rhode Island PIRG and New Jersey PIRG, and Robert Brandon, who served as director of Public Citizen's Tax Reform Research Group from 1972-1977, reads [in part]
"Dear Voters,
Many of us -- former Nader's Raiders and leaders of his organizations -- voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Many did not. This November, none of us will vote for Ralph. We believe there is nothing more important than defeating George W. Bush. Ralph argues that he is creating an independent political voice. In 2000, when he ran as the Green Party candidate, that may have been true.
In 2004, as the candidate of the increasingly reactionary, anti-immigrant Reform Party, and the recipient of financial and political support from right-wing funders and operatives, it is not credible. Unfortunately, Ralph is party to a disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states.
With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the election to Bush -- again. We do not agree with Ralph that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We know that the country cannot afford another four years of Republicans controlling the White House, both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire federal Judiciary. The price of a protest vote is too high for families who live from paycheck to paycheck, for those concerned about the realities of war, for those who lack decent jobs and access to health care, and for the environment. ....
Join us. Cast your vote for a progressive future and support John Kerry."
(via Salon)
The letter, with 75 signatories including organizer Ken Ward, who has served as Executive Director of Rhode Island PIRG and New Jersey PIRG, and Robert Brandon, who served as director of Public Citizen's Tax Reform Research Group from 1972-1977, reads [in part]
"Dear Voters,
Many of us -- former Nader's Raiders and leaders of his organizations -- voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Many did not. This November, none of us will vote for Ralph. We believe there is nothing more important than defeating George W. Bush. Ralph argues that he is creating an independent political voice. In 2000, when he ran as the Green Party candidate, that may have been true.
In 2004, as the candidate of the increasingly reactionary, anti-immigrant Reform Party, and the recipient of financial and political support from right-wing funders and operatives, it is not credible. Unfortunately, Ralph is party to a disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states.
With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the election to Bush -- again. We do not agree with Ralph that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We know that the country cannot afford another four years of Republicans controlling the White House, both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire federal Judiciary. The price of a protest vote is too high for families who live from paycheck to paycheck, for those concerned about the realities of war, for those who lack decent jobs and access to health care, and for the environment. ....
Join us. Cast your vote for a progressive future and support John Kerry."
(via Salon)
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Blood is thinner than Oil
This is encouraging! Here's a site of Bush's relatives telling why they are voting for Kerry.
Bush Relatives for Kerry
Bush Relatives for Kerry
Bush Relatives for Kerry
Bush Relatives for Kerry
Casualties - What Casualties?
Steve Gilliard highlights and article from CNN yesterday that points out that Bush was not expecting any casualties in Iraq.
Steve Gilliard's News Blog: "Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties
President's response: 'We're not going to have any'"
Steve Gilliard's News Blog: "Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties
President's response: 'We're not going to have any'"
Just Believe
Ezra over at Pandagon has a left coast take on the Suskind article that even makes it more scary, if that's possible.
Pandagon: Just Believe: "And the Iraqis will greet us with flowers and shiatsu massages, the tax cuts will result in more revenue entering government coffers while stimulating the economy, the Northern Alliance will do an excellent job securing Tora Bora, we know Putin is good because his soul said so, Ariel Sharon is a 'man of peace', our allies are materially unimportant because a small and maneuverable fighting force can easily carry out the mission in Iraq, simply requesting that companies consider the environment will be more effective than actual regulation...
Time and again, the Bush administration has placed their trust and crafted their policy based on a dubious or unproven assertion, and time and again they've found their faith misplaced, though not before the situation spun out of control to the country's great harm. This Administration's problem isn't that they're optimistic, it's that they're certain the world is similarly sunny. People are grabbing on to Suskind's 'reality-based community' quote, as well they should. But they're missing its point. The Bush aide is arguing that the Administration operates off the idea that they shape their reality, that they are history's forces, not victims. That's why, presumably, they only plan for what they believe will happen. The parallels to New Age spirituality would be funny, if they weren't so scary, and the idea would be admirable if reality didn't keep proving it wrong."
Pandagon: Just Believe: "And the Iraqis will greet us with flowers and shiatsu massages, the tax cuts will result in more revenue entering government coffers while stimulating the economy, the Northern Alliance will do an excellent job securing Tora Bora, we know Putin is good because his soul said so, Ariel Sharon is a 'man of peace', our allies are materially unimportant because a small and maneuverable fighting force can easily carry out the mission in Iraq, simply requesting that companies consider the environment will be more effective than actual regulation...
Time and again, the Bush administration has placed their trust and crafted their policy based on a dubious or unproven assertion, and time and again they've found their faith misplaced, though not before the situation spun out of control to the country's great harm. This Administration's problem isn't that they're optimistic, it's that they're certain the world is similarly sunny. People are grabbing on to Suskind's 'reality-based community' quote, as well they should. But they're missing its point. The Bush aide is arguing that the Administration operates off the idea that they shape their reality, that they are history's forces, not victims. That's why, presumably, they only plan for what they believe will happen. The parallels to New Age spirituality would be funny, if they weren't so scary, and the idea would be admirable if reality didn't keep proving it wrong."
Sucking Democracy Dry
Rick Perlstein's latest in the Village Voice. It's worth reading--here's a snip:
The Village Voice: Features: Sucking Democracy Dry: The End of Democracy by Rick Perlstein: "nce upon a time, not too long ago, the president of the United States declared that the war on terrorism was the most important issue in this year's presidential campaign.
Then every time his opponent brought up this most important of issues, George W. Bush cried foul, accusing John Kerry of hindering the war on terrorism. (America might be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the Democrat has a right to campaign.)
The president's campaign enlisted the taxpayers' servants as agents of his re-election, with Secret Service officers submitting attendees at Bush rallies to ideological X-rays, and election officials systematically suppressing the franchise of groups most likely to vote Democratic. Meanwhile the president, who earned some 500,000 votes less than his opponent, busied himself ramming through a radical legislative program as if he had won by a landslide�his congressional deputies all but barring deliberative input from the opposition party in order to do it and gaming the legislative apportionment system in ways, as the counsel to one Texas representative bragged in an e-mail to colleagues, that 'should assure that Republicans keep the House no matte[r] the national mood.'
In Washington, it has turned some once calm souls into apocalyptics.
Thomas Mann is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, noted for his deliberateness of manner, his decency, and his near religious devotion to the ideal of bipartisan comity. Now, he says, 'I see the damage to our system and our sense of ourselves as a democratic people as really quite substantial. . . . "
The Village Voice: Features: Sucking Democracy Dry: The End of Democracy by Rick Perlstein: "nce upon a time, not too long ago, the president of the United States declared that the war on terrorism was the most important issue in this year's presidential campaign.
Then every time his opponent brought up this most important of issues, George W. Bush cried foul, accusing John Kerry of hindering the war on terrorism. (America might be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the Democrat has a right to campaign.)
The president's campaign enlisted the taxpayers' servants as agents of his re-election, with Secret Service officers submitting attendees at Bush rallies to ideological X-rays, and election officials systematically suppressing the franchise of groups most likely to vote Democratic. Meanwhile the president, who earned some 500,000 votes less than his opponent, busied himself ramming through a radical legislative program as if he had won by a landslide�his congressional deputies all but barring deliberative input from the opposition party in order to do it and gaming the legislative apportionment system in ways, as the counsel to one Texas representative bragged in an e-mail to colleagues, that 'should assure that Republicans keep the House no matte[r] the national mood.'
In Washington, it has turned some once calm souls into apocalyptics.
Thomas Mann is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, noted for his deliberateness of manner, his decency, and his near religious devotion to the ideal of bipartisan comity. Now, he says, 'I see the damage to our system and our sense of ourselves as a democratic people as really quite substantial. . . . "
Bob Rumson's back
An entry from Bob's new blog, lifted whole:
"Bob Rumson, er, Dick Cheney is at it again.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat...
Only we, who ignored a daily briefing called Osama Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US, can protect you from the terrorists.
Only we, who have been so focused on Iraq -- which had no WMD -- and thus allowed North Korea and Iran to join the nuclear club, can protect you from the nuclear threat.
Only we, who were completely unable to anticipate that Iraq would spiral horribly out of control, have the vision to rule this country safely.
And there are actually people -- about 100 million of them, apparently -- who can believe this bullshit.
I say this again: AAAAAAGGGGGGHHH."
"Bob Rumson, er, Dick Cheney is at it again.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat...
Only we, who ignored a daily briefing called Osama Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US, can protect you from the terrorists.
Only we, who have been so focused on Iraq -- which had no WMD -- and thus allowed North Korea and Iran to join the nuclear club, can protect you from the nuclear threat.
Only we, who were completely unable to anticipate that Iraq would spiral horribly out of control, have the vision to rule this country safely.
And there are actually people -- about 100 million of them, apparently -- who can believe this bullshit.
I say this again: AAAAAAGGGGGGHHH."
Easy Money?
Glenn Reynolds accidently brings up a significant point concerning the interview in the New Republic by Nobel proze economist Edward Prescott.
Instapundit.com -: "In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.
'It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household,' Prescott said. 'We want those highly educated, talented people to work.'"
Excuse me but what country is Mr. Prescott living in where it is easy for a two income family to top 200K$. The median income, las time I checked, was 40K$ and that means you would have to have about 5 full time eage earners in the household. The Bushies are touting this as proof that Kerry is off base concerning roll back of the top wage earner's tax cut. This should get little more air play.
Instapundit.com -: "In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.
'It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household,' Prescott said. 'We want those highly educated, talented people to work.'"
Excuse me but what country is Mr. Prescott living in where it is easy for a two income family to top 200K$. The median income, las time I checked, was 40K$ and that means you would have to have about 5 full time eage earners in the household. The Bushies are touting this as proof that Kerry is off base concerning roll back of the top wage earner's tax cut. This should get little more air play.
Dumb Republicans - Nothing New
Via Corrente
Eric Margolis wraps it up in a nutshell so to speak. While it is clearly inexplicable why nyone, with the evidence at hand' would even consider voting to actually elect the current administration Eric gives it a try.
Yankees are Blind to Blundering Bush, By Eric Margolis
"How can Republicans remain so blinkered? Part of the fault lies with the sycophantic national media, which collaborated with the Bush administration in whipping up war fever. The media still are not telling people the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, or the so-called war on terrorism.
The media utterly failed to remind Americans that Bush, who loves to play war leader, actually claimed Iraqi drone aircraft were poised to fly off ships in the North Atlantic and bombard America with germs. Bush should have been laughed out of office for believing and promoting this comic-book nonsense.
Many Republicans simply don't see what the rest of the world does. So what if Iraq was no threat? Don't bother these golf club Rambos with details. They're delighted to see the U.S. pounding Arabs in revenge for 9/11.
Bush's core Republican support lies in the suburbs and Bible-belt rural areas, where many people rely on TV sound bites for their world view, and have little understanding of history, geography or foreign affairs. This is the new 'dumbed-down Republicans Party,' fertile ground for nationalist hysteria, religious extremism, and anti-foreign xenophobia."
Eric Margolis wraps it up in a nutshell so to speak. While it is clearly inexplicable why nyone, with the evidence at hand' would even consider voting to actually elect the current administration Eric gives it a try.
Yankees are Blind to Blundering Bush, By Eric Margolis
"How can Republicans remain so blinkered? Part of the fault lies with the sycophantic national media, which collaborated with the Bush administration in whipping up war fever. The media still are not telling people the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, or the so-called war on terrorism.
The media utterly failed to remind Americans that Bush, who loves to play war leader, actually claimed Iraqi drone aircraft were poised to fly off ships in the North Atlantic and bombard America with germs. Bush should have been laughed out of office for believing and promoting this comic-book nonsense.
Many Republicans simply don't see what the rest of the world does. So what if Iraq was no threat? Don't bother these golf club Rambos with details. They're delighted to see the U.S. pounding Arabs in revenge for 9/11.
Bush's core Republican support lies in the suburbs and Bible-belt rural areas, where many people rely on TV sound bites for their world view, and have little understanding of history, geography or foreign affairs. This is the new 'dumbed-down Republicans Party,' fertile ground for nationalist hysteria, religious extremism, and anti-foreign xenophobia."
Somebody needs to push this out.
Here's the link:
'It is shocking: The Bush Administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committee that mandated the study almost two years ago.'
This report is being suppressed until after the election is because it could destroy the Bush Administration. Needless to say, this report is of great interest to the public and is not being suppressed because of national security. How come the LA Times is the only media outlet I have seen this in?"
'It is shocking: The Bush Administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committee that mandated the study almost two years ago.'
This report is being suppressed until after the election is because it could destroy the Bush Administration. Needless to say, this report is of great interest to the public and is not being suppressed because of national security. How come the LA Times is the only media outlet I have seen this in?"
Bush gets the Iranian endorsement
I'm sure no one is surprised that Bush has captured the militant Islamic vote. I am sure they are proud of getting the endorsement of Iran.
Here's the link:
"'Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
'We haven't seen anything good from Democrats,' Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
'We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton,' Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. 'And we should not forget that during Bush's era � despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran � he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran.'
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
'We do not desire to see Democrats take over,' Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.' "
Here's the link:
"'Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
'We haven't seen anything good from Democrats,' Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
'We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton,' Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. 'And we should not forget that during Bush's era � despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran � he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran.'
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
'We do not desire to see Democrats take over,' Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.' "
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Bush and Mao
Juan Cole looks at the similarities between Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and the the thinking behind it and the faith based actions of Bush in Iraq:
Suskind on Bush: 'I can Fly!'
Ron Suskind's profile of George W. Bush reminded me eerily of Mao Zedong, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Suskind portrays Bush as filled with unwarranted certainty, sure that God is speaking and working through him, and convinced that decisive action shapes reality in ways that make it unnecessary to first study reality.
This approach to policy-making, it seems to me, should be called Right Maoism. The History Learning Site reminds us that in 1958 Mao initiated what he called the 'Great Leap Forward' with the aim of boosting both Chinese industry and agriculture, through the reorganization of China into over 25,000 communes.
' Mao had introduced the Great Leap Forward with the phrase 'it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.' By the end of 1958, it seemed as if his claim was true . . . However, in 1959, things started to go wrong.
In 1960 alone, as a result of Mao's faith-based initiative, 9 million persons starved to death. The total toll from famine, hunger, and illness in 1959-1962 was around 20 million dead.'
The above description of the way in which China fell apart under Mao sounds eerily like contemporary Iraq under Bush, since both situations were produced by the same mantra. Reality doesn't matter. Power creates reality. Suskind says that a senior Bush official told him, 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.' This official may as well have been quoting Mao's Little Red Book: ''it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.'
Suskind on Bush: 'I can Fly!'
Ron Suskind's profile of George W. Bush reminded me eerily of Mao Zedong, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Suskind portrays Bush as filled with unwarranted certainty, sure that God is speaking and working through him, and convinced that decisive action shapes reality in ways that make it unnecessary to first study reality.
This approach to policy-making, it seems to me, should be called Right Maoism. The History Learning Site reminds us that in 1958 Mao initiated what he called the 'Great Leap Forward' with the aim of boosting both Chinese industry and agriculture, through the reorganization of China into over 25,000 communes.
' Mao had introduced the Great Leap Forward with the phrase 'it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.' By the end of 1958, it seemed as if his claim was true . . . However, in 1959, things started to go wrong.
In 1960 alone, as a result of Mao's faith-based initiative, 9 million persons starved to death. The total toll from famine, hunger, and illness in 1959-1962 was around 20 million dead.'
The above description of the way in which China fell apart under Mao sounds eerily like contemporary Iraq under Bush, since both situations were produced by the same mantra. Reality doesn't matter. Power creates reality. Suskind says that a senior Bush official told him, 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.' This official may as well have been quoting Mao's Little Red Book: ''it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.'
How dare they?
Via The Campaign Desk
Spin Buster
October 18, 2004
How Dare You??
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz today brings us this tidbit: Stunned by the efforts of fact-check teams and "truth squads" in the press who are belatedly holding the claims and counterclaims of the candidates up to scrutiny, the Bush campaign has struck back.
In an extraordinary response to these recent stories, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt spoke thusly:
"The Bush campaign should be able to make an argument without having it reflexively dismissed as distorted or inaccurate by the biggest newspapers in the country."
The Bush campaign has evidently grown so accustomed to a campaign press that seldom fact-checked much of anything between March and September that it is downright indignant anyone would have the temerity to muse, "Gee, I wonder if that's right?" and then have the industry to actually ascertain the veracity of the claims and assertions contained in stump speeches and debate transcripts.
We wouldn't believe it if we hadn't seen it with our own eyes, but there it is in black-and-white.
"I subordinate myself without further ado to Herr Adolph Hitler. Why? He has proved that he can lead; on the basis of his view and his will,.... He and the party are one, and offer the unity that is the unconditional premiss of success." ~ Ernst Graf zu Reventlow, 1927.
Sound familiar?
Spin Buster
October 18, 2004
How Dare You??
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz today brings us this tidbit: Stunned by the efforts of fact-check teams and "truth squads" in the press who are belatedly holding the claims and counterclaims of the candidates up to scrutiny, the Bush campaign has struck back.
In an extraordinary response to these recent stories, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt spoke thusly:
"The Bush campaign should be able to make an argument without having it reflexively dismissed as distorted or inaccurate by the biggest newspapers in the country."
The Bush campaign has evidently grown so accustomed to a campaign press that seldom fact-checked much of anything between March and September that it is downright indignant anyone would have the temerity to muse, "Gee, I wonder if that's right?" and then have the industry to actually ascertain the veracity of the claims and assertions contained in stump speeches and debate transcripts.
We wouldn't believe it if we hadn't seen it with our own eyes, but there it is in black-and-white.
"I subordinate myself without further ado to Herr Adolph Hitler. Why? He has proved that he can lead; on the basis of his view and his will,.... He and the party are one, and offer the unity that is the unconditional premiss of success." ~ Ernst Graf zu Reventlow, 1927.
Sound familiar?
Monday, October 18, 2004
The Reality-Based Community
Matt, I think has found a unifying theme for the anti Bush forces.
Matthew Yglesias: The Widening Reality-Based Community: "it appears that the anti-Bush coalition may at last, thanks to an anonymous White House advisor, have found a unifying theme."...we are, proud members of the Reality-Based Community.
Matthew Yglesias: The Widening Reality-Based Community: "it appears that the anti-Bush coalition may at last, thanks to an anonymous White House advisor, have found a unifying theme."...we are, proud members of the Reality-Based Community.
Classic Stupid
I see in The Los Angeles Times a report in Sunday's paper on the deployment of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the "Blackhorse" for the stallion on its shoulder patch, to Iraq for a year of combat duty. The regiment has long served as as the opposing force, or "OPFOR", for units from other installations coming to train at the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif. This is obviously a sure sign of the desparation of the Pentagon. The 11th Cav is the major resource for training new troops for combat and taking them out of the training game and replacing them with National Guard troops is tatamount to disaster. Now all of out new troops will be even less able to address situations they face in Iraq. This is classic stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)