Tuesday, October 05, 2004

I hate this shit.  I just got this e-mail from the Kerry-Edwards campaign:   Fight the Republican spin. Tell the media how John Edwards won the debate tonight. Dear Robert, We're two for two. Tonight, in Cleveland, John Edwards showed real strength and conviction -- he was in command of the facts and in control of the debate and a powerful advocate for John Kerry. The American people saw John Edwards as somebody who is ready, if neccessary, to be president of the United States. Dick Cheney is totally out of touch with reality in Iraq and totally out of touch with the struggles of the middle class. This is nothing new to a man with a lifetime record of protecting the powerful and well-connected. He came across as smug, arrogant, mean and defensive -- but his trademark distortions and scare tactics didn't work. John Edwards refused to let him play the politics of fear and forced Dick Cheney to confront his administration's record of failure. Americans are tired of growls and scowls from our leaders, and John Edwards and John Kerry offer America hope and optimism. The Bush-Cheney campaign is already trying to spin the debate. I am here in Cleveland, right now, working to make sure that doesn't happen. Tonight my job is going to be a lot easier than my Republican counterparts for three reasons. First, John Edwards is our candidate for vice president, second Dick Cheney is theirs, and third I know that you are going to join me in this critical fight. Here is what you can do: 1) Vote in online polls The Bush-Cheney campaign has asked their supporters to vote in online polls. Don't let them distort the polls like they distort their record. CNN http://www.cnn.com MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com ABC News http://www.abcnews.com CBS http://www.cbsnews.com Fox News http://www.foxnews.com Also check you local newspaper and TV station's websites for online polls. 2) Call into talk radio http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout 3) Write local newspapers http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout John Edwards clearly won on stage tonight -- let's make sure he wins against unrelenting Republican spin. Sincerely, Joe Lockhart Senior Advisor Paid for by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. Look, I wholeheartedly agree that Dick Cheney is a world-class asshole and that John Edwards could do the job of president if he had to. (Shit, after George W. Bush, who couldn't be president? Has the presidential bar not been lowered to somewhere beneath the ground?) But I wholeheartedly disagree that Edwards was the clear winner of the mostly lackluster vice presidential debate (in the minds of the average viewer, anyway), and it's a bit hypocritical to send out an e-mail to Kerry-Edwards supporters within just a few hours after the end of the debate and to ask them in that e-mail to participate in the creation of spin -- and to say in that e-mail, "The Bush-Cheney campaign is already trying to spin the debate." As for the e-mail's suggestions: What the fuck is the point of the online polls as to who won the debate? They're totally unscientific, so why participate? Calling in to talk radio shows is an OK idea if you have something intelligent to say and if you're not just parroting talking points that you've been given. Writing a letter to a newspaper is an OK idea if you have something intelligent to say and if you have written it yourself, but overtly partisan letters are a dime a dozen, so don't expect your overtly partisan letter to get published. If you're participating in a letter-writing campaign and you write what you are told to write, especially don't expect your letter to get published; after two identical or nearly identical letters are received, if the editor is competent at all, none of the cloned letters will be published. (My bachelor's is in journalism, so I know what I'm talking about. Most press releases and most letters that newspapers receive never see newsprint.) And what I really love about these spin campaigns, whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats or another group that is orchestrating them, is the apparent belief that the media outlets won't fucking recognize that it's a campaign. They're suddenly hit with a ton of calls or faxes or e-mails or letters all at once, the message in them is indentical or very similar, but nooooooooo, they'll think that all of these people are acting independently. So these campaigns are just a nuisance to the media outlets. A bunch of zombies repeating the same talking points that someone has spoon-fed them doesn't do much for democracy, for independent thought or for improving the world. It seems to me that we already have enough sheeple in the United States of Amnesia and thus we don't need to encourage even more lemming-like activity. While I expect such tactics as outlined in the e-mail above from the Repugnican Party, I expect more from the Democratic Party. Telling people what to think and what to do to the extent exhibited in the e-mail above is condescending and indicates a certain amount of contempt and disrepect for those people. And do the people exist to do what the parties tell them to do or are the parties supposed to take direction from the people? Shit like this makes me want to run, not walk, back to the Green Party after Nov. 2... 9:51:10 PM    Discuss amongst yourselves []

Associated Press photos  Dick Cheney and John Edwards debate tonight in Cleveland, Ohio. I would call the debate mostly a draw, in terms of swaying undecided voters, in that Cheney lies so much and so few people have the time to check out his lies that he is probably fairly successful among the undecided in neutralizing valid criticisms of him and the Bush regime with his lies.  Captain Hook vs. Peter Pan I'm watching the vice presidential debate. John Edwards' and Dick Cheney's dynamic is not unlike that of Peter Pan's and Captain Hook's, respectively. So far, Cheney has recycled at least two of the things that "President" Bush used in his debate with John Kerry on Thursday night: The criticism that Kerry has called the Bush regime's quagmire in Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" (um, it is all of those things) and the false charge that Kerry's criticism of the Bush regime's bullshit "coalition of the willing" denigrates those nations that the Bush regime did succeed in coercing and bribing into supporting its illegal, immoral, imperialistic and unprovoked invasion of Iraq in March 2003. To Edwards' pointing out the corruption surrounding Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Cheney countered that -- Edwards has had poor attendance in the U.S. Senate. OK... I don't give a fuck about Edwards' attendance record. (This is probably yet another Cheney lie, but since I don't care whether it is true or not, and since it's obviously a deflection of the Halliburton issue, I'm not going to bother to research it.) However, I am very concerned that the vice president of the United States would help push a bogus war so that the corporation of which he was CEO before he became vice president could war profiteer. And that's exactly what happened: Cheney was instrumental in the awarding of no-bid federal government contracts to Halliburton, from which he still receives more than $100,000 a year. However, Halliburton, which specializes in war, can't profit unless there is a war. So Cheney helped provide it with one in Iraq. It's pointless to write more about the debate, which continues as I type this sentence. Cheney is such a colossal fucking liar -- he was, for instance, still asserting the false 9/11-Iraq connection long after the other members of the Bush regime backed away from it -- that this debate cannot afford us much insight. Cheney is the member of the Bush regime whose image is so negative that it doesn't matter much what he says, such as his recent assertion that if the American voters choose John Kerry over George W. Bush, there will be another 9/11-level terrorist attack upon the United States. However, the contrast between the lying, corrupt, toxic Cheney and the peppy Edwards can only sway the undecideds more toward the Kerry-Edwards ticket than to the BushCheneyCorp ticket, even if only just a tiny bit. P.S. OK, one last thing. Cheney just stated that the most important quality of a vice president is the vice president's ability to assume the presidency if need be. OK, Dick, then please explain former Vice President Dan Quayle. P.P.S. Oh my God. I really thought that I was done with this post, but Cheney just used "Democratic" turncoat and nutjob Zell Miller's rabid appearance at the Republican Nazi Convention as "evidence" that the Bush regime has tried to reach out to Democrats, that "President" Bush has tried to be a uniter, not a divider. Fucking Cheney will fucking utter any fucking lie. Wow.   Update (Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004): Proving my point that "Fucking Cheney will fucking utter any fucking lie," the media reported today that although Cheney claimed during last night's veep debate that Edwards' Senate attendance was so poor that last night was the first time that Cheney had ever met Edwards, Cheney and Edwards had met at least three times before last night's debate. Reports The Los Angeles Times: WASHINGTON -- It was perhaps the most surprising tidbit of new information during the debate -- that Vice President Dick Cheney had never met Sen. John Edwards until Tuesday night. Except it wasn't true. "I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session," Cheney said to Edwards. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." It seems, however, the vice president's memory was a little off. Or maybe Edwards didn't leave much of an impression. Less than two hours after the debate ended, aides to Edwards and Sen. John F. Kerry distributed a photograph from the Feb. 1, 2001, National Prayer Breakfast showing Edwards and Cheney standing side by side. "Congressman Watts, Sen. Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning," Cheney said, according to a transcript. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt described the prayer breakfast photo as evidence of an "inconsequential meeting." Kerry-Edwards aides also pointed to news articles from January 2003, when Edwards escorted the newly elected senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, onto the Senate floor for her swearing-in by Cheney. Although Cheney is the Senate's presiding officer, he actually sits in the chamber only on rare occasions, such as to break a tie vote and to swear in new senators. He does attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheons to discuss party strategy. But only Republicans attend, and Cheney usually breezes into the building, goes to the meeting, then leaves without hobnobbing with Democrats. In fact, Cheney was teased by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) for only associating with Republicans when, in an encounter on the Senate floor, Cheney cursed at Leahy. A Cheney aide said after the debate that the vice president simply didn't remember meeting Edwards prior to Tuesday night -- and that he certainly had never seen the North Carolinian on the Senate floor. Cheney sure was sure that he'd never met Edwards before when he stated during last night's debate, "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." I submit that Cheney probably lied about never having met Edwards -- that is, he stated the falsehood knowing that it was a falsehood -- but that even if Cheney truly thought that he'd never met Edwards before, it is indicative of poor fact-checking to state that he'd never met Edwards before when there is photofuckingraphic evidence that he had: This is a still from the C-SPAN broadcast of the February 2001 prayer breakfast referenced in the Los Angeles Times article.  Edwards did not correct Cheney's false assertion during the debate, so perhaps Edwards did not recall meeting Cheney. I guess that Cheney didn't tell Edwards to go fuck himself during the 2001 prayer breakfast. Cheney's disregard for such basic truths as whether or not he had met Edwards before makes you wonder what hundreds, if not thousands, of other lies and falsehoods he has told publicly. Speaking of fact-checking, you gotta love it that Cheney, trying to show the youngsters that he's Internet savvy, claimed during last night's debate that the Web site "FactCheck.com" exculpates him from the scandalous Halliburton. Cheney meant to say FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org, The Associate Press reports, is "a nonpartisan site run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center." There is a Web site called FactCheck.com (it is "a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands," reports the AP); its server was inundated with hits, so FactCheck.com's owner redirected traffic from FactCheck.com to anti-BushCheneyCorp billionaire George Soros' anti-BushCheneyCorp Web site. Reports the AP: [FactCheck.com] decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits -- about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said [today]. "This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended. They picked Soros not only for his political views, Berryhill said, but because the billionaire could afford the costly deluge of hits the site would receive in the wake of the debate. Plus, the site administrators didn't want to point surfers to a candidate's site that was asking for money. ...Soros was not advised of the switch and did not know it had taken place until [today], said a spokesman, Jeremy Ben-Ami. "We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events but certainly encourage voters to visit both of these valuable sites," Michael Vachon, a senior aide to Soros, said in a statement. Soros' Web site's homepage carries this disclaimer: "We do not own the FactCheck.com domain name and are not responsible for it redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers of the Vice-Presidential Debate to FactCheck.org." On GeorgeSoros.com's homepage also is this message from Soros: This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. That is why I am sharing this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing. President Bush ran on the platform of a ‘humble’ foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle. Read More> Download Soros’ personal message> George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush should not be re-elected. This is the speech he delivered at the National Press Club in Washington on September 28. It's safe to say that this is not the message that Cheney wanted people to see... Even if people go to the Web site Cheney meant, FactCheck.org, they will see this on its homepage:   Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts 10.06.2004 Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan 10.04.2004 Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that. Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate 10.01.2004 Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton 09.30.2004 Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed. The "Willie Horton" Ad Of 2004? 09.28.2004 Republican group's ad shows Osama, Kerry. It appeals to fear, and twists Kerry's record on defense, intelligence, Iraq. Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq 09.27.2004 Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.   What does FactCheck.org say about what Cheney said they said? FactCheck.org says this: Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton. In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right. Probably not what Cheney wants people to see, either... Cheney should stick to what he knows -- lying and war profiteering -- and leave the Internet to the youngsters. 7:26:05 PM    Discuss amongst yourselves []