| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
Since last night's debate is going to be the topic du jour in the blogosphere today, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through the transcript and cull out what I think were the highlights of the debate for W.
You'll notice that Bush stayed on message and hammered home the idea that John Kerry can't lead in the war on terror because he's a dovish, anti-war, candidate who constantly shifts positions. Given that Kerry sounded about like Joe Lieberman in late 2002 and now sounds like Howard Dean part deux, I think that's an excellent thing to focus on.
Now, that's enough about what I think. Here are the debate excerpts and yes, the phrase "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" pops up more than once...
---
George Bush: "My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.
He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president.
I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
---
George Bush: "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place."
---
John Kerry: "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?..."
...Jim Lehrer: "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"
John Kerry: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering."
---
George Bush: "First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.
I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."
---
George Bush: "My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."
As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.
Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops."
---
George Bush: "My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.
Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."
---
John Kerry: "...When we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."
Jim Lehrer: "Thirty seconds, Mr. President."
George Bush: "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops."
---
George Bush: "The only consistent thing about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win."
---
Jim Lehrer: Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?
George Bush: "You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to pro Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.
I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy. Because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find Al Qaeda wherever they hide.
We must deal with threats before they fully materialize. And Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that we must spread liberty because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.
Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood. So you say, "Was it worth it?" Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it's worth it, Jim.
I think it's worth it, because I think -- I know in the long term a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, will set such a powerful in a part of the world that's desperate for freedom. It will help change the world; that we can look back and say we did our duty."
---
George Bush: "Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility.
You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.
One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.
The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do."
---
John Kerry: "...No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons..."
George Bush: "Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.
And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.
My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."
---
Jim Lehrer: "New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like."
George Bush: ..."(W)e signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.
And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.
As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.
And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China, as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il."
---
George Bush: "My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this campaign, I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war in Iraq. He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq.
You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.
And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president.
Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world."
*** Update #1***: Over at Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto has noticed something very interesting about many of the sensible remarks John Kerry made last night that makes you wonder if he really meant what he said. See if you can spot the pattern =D...
-- "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
-- "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
-- "We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
-- "I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
-- "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
-- "What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
-- "I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
-- "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
-- "I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
From the debate last night,
John Kerry: "...No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons..."
George Bush: "Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is that you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."
One of the many problems with John Kerry is that although he claims he'd never cede, "the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America," that doesn't square with what he says time and time again. I know -- a contradiction from John Kerry, who'd have ever believed it?
But look back to Kerry's first congressional campaign, back in 1970, when he said in an interview with the Harvard Crimson,
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Fast-forward to today.
Notice that Kerry constantly complains that we don't have enough allies, even though we have 30 right now. Kerry claims that we didn't do enough to get the UN involved, but W. spent months and months haggling with them and only moved after they absolutely refused to act. You'll also often hear Kerry moaning about the fact that we're not as popular as we used to be in the world. Of course, Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing things that made him unpopular in Europe. Would Kerry be willing to go against world opinion the way Reagan did? That's VERY doubtful.
And remember folks, I've said before, Iraq was low-hanging fruit. They had been thumbing their nose at us, the UN, and the rest of the world for more than decade.
So what happens if -- and this is entirely possible -- we come to the conclusion that the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a military strike? If that were to happen, let me tell ya', there wouldn't be 30 countries backing us taking action then. Would John Kerry be willing to move in to stop the "Death to America" crowd that runs Iraq from getting nukes? All available evidence suggests that the answer would be "no".
Then there's North Korea. What happens if we come to the conclusion that the only thing that will force that poofy haired little nutball Kim Jung-Il to give up his nukes, short of a military attack, is a blockade that would infuriate the North Koreans? Then suppose (gasp of surprise) France doesn't go along with it at the UN security Council? What does John Kerry do?
If you watch him, if you listen to him, if you look at his voting record, it is clear that if the choice was between letting North Korea have nukes or risking the disapproval of France and Germany, he's rather let the Norks keep their nukes.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't want an "internationalist" to be our President. I'm not a "citizen of the world," I'm an American and I expect our President to look out for American interests first and foremost. That doesn't mean the President shouldn't take what other nations have to say into consideration, but protecting America from terrorists who may be armed with nukes should be infinitely more important to our Commander-in-Chief than public opinion in France, Germany, or at the UN.
"Global Tests" are for UN Secretary-Generals, not for men who are entrusted with protecting the United States from attacks that could make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. George Bush understands that, John Kerry does not, and that's a very important distinction between them.
Hat tip to Cox and Forkum, who any newspaper editor would be lucky to syndicate, for the excellent graphic.
You know why that's such a great poster? Because Walking Tall, the original, not the pale imitation with the Rock in it, is such a great metaphor for the war on terror.
Read these excerpts from a review of the movie by Adam J. Hakari and you'll see what I mean...
"All Buford Pusser wanted for his family was a good, clean life. He gave up a career on the professional wrestling circuit to move his wife and kids back to his old hometown in McNairy County, Tennessee. But when he arrives, Buford senses that the place has undergone some changes. Townspeople are living in fear of the State Line Mob, whose business is booming in the county thanks to the various small-time casinos, brothels, and moonshine stills scattered about. The sight of all this vice and sin taking over Buford's childhood home makes the man sick, and he sets out on a quest to cleanse the town. But Buford finds himself on a solo mission, as he's the only man brave enough to take on the State Line Mob, dispensing justice with his brute strength -- not to mention a 2 x 4 club used to beat the bad guys up with.
....While Buford's one-man assault on the mob, walking into local bars and starting up trouble with that d*mned club of his, can be seen as one vulgar display of unflinching violence after the other, others can see the meaning behind the bloodshed. Buford Pusser is a man who is truly appalled at how much has gone bad in his town, how much people have gotten away with and how others have let them get away with it. The only way to make things right in Buford's eyes is to do what the State Line Mob did to gain control, which is using as much force as possible (just see how tough things get in the final scenes, when Buford suffers a tragedy and really gets mad). And Buford doesn't just get a few scratches and a punch here and there. How the on-screen Buford and the real-life one survived these is beyond me, but during his quest, Buford is shot, stabbed, cut, and beat-up to the point of nearly losing his jaw. But the man keeps on coming, because he has a family and a town to protect, and he'll be d*mned if he lets them fall victim to Billy Bob and his moonshinin' crew.
...Walking Tall is about how, once in a while, you have to take the rough route to get to where you want to go."
The terrorists have already hit us and they may very well hit us again, but as long as W. is in the White House, nothing on God's green earth is going to keep him from going after them.
Hat tip to Free Will & Knowledge Is Power for the awesome graphic.
*** Update #1***: My movie review for the new version of Walking Tall featuring The Rock is here. The verdict? "(T)humbs up, just barely."
Since it looks like Mt. Saint Helens is going to erupt again, I sent my crack research staff to find out all they could about volcanoes. Here is what they found:
FUN FACTS ABOUT VOLCANOES
* Volcanoes are like mountains... but with a gooey center!
* What a volcano kills most people with is its lava... or is it its smoke. Well, whatever it is, just stay the hell away from whatever comes out of a volcano.
* Lava is molten rock. You have to heat rock pretty high to melt it. Like, my oven can get pretty hot, but I still couldn't melt a rock... and I touched the rock that wasn't melted as was like, "Ow!" That's hot!
* Where lava comes from within the earth. If you dig a lot, after getting through the dirt, you'll hit hot magma. And then China.
* If you dig a hole that flows magma into China, the Chinese will get angry. Stupid Commies.
* Why is it so hot in the earth as to melt rock? I have no idea. Seems like someone must be doing something crazy down there. We better find out who... or what!
* Many islands have volcanoes. This is much more dramatic because then you can't just drive away from the slowly moving magma.
* Those island volcanoes are bigger than they look because much of them is under water. If I were them, I'd go to Mount Everest and be like, "B*tch, you ain't the tallest mountain! You just the tallest thing that don't happen to be partially under water, foo'!"
* To stop a volcano, throw a virgin in it. Sluts only make it angrier.
* You can also use up a volcano's lava supply by causing a bunch of volcanoes around it to go off. Ha!
* You could also try throwing some ice in it. Wouldn't hurt.
* If the volcano you see is hollowed out, look out for evil geniuses.
* If you see a lava flow coming towards you, jump! Maybe it will cool to regular harmless rock before you hit the ground.
* In a fight between a volcano and Aquaman, the results of the fight wouldn't be known until ten thousand years later when Aquaman's remains are unearthed from the rock.
* If you think you see an erupting volcano, call the police. Someone should know about it.
* Whatever you do, don’t let your kids play on a volcano’s edge… unless it has railing.
* The site of Yellowstone National Park was once a giant volcano. If that ever goes off again, expect park services to ask for more money. They’re always asking for more money.
If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J, you can read more of his work at IMAO
-- From the Drudge Report, no other links yet...
"Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”
I agree. Neither candidate helped or hurt himself significantly in the debate which quite frankly works to Bush's advantage since it's he's ahead.
-- The left is getting nuttier and nuttier as we get closer to the election. First it was a "secret draft" and now Cameron Diaz is implying on Oprah's show that a vote for Bush is a vote for legalized rape...
"We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the..."
Lol, yes I certainly remember that persuasive piece by Charles Krauthammer called "Why rape should be legal" that ran last week at the WAPO and who could forget that rousing column by Ann Coulter, "Date Rape: It's OK if you do it to liberals"....
In all seriousness, is this what it has come to? Do I need to do a post on RWN explaining why there isn't a danger of rape being legalized if Bush is reelected?
These people are out of their minds...
-- September was RWN's best month ever. I finished the month with 240,725 daily unique visitors & 403,376 total pageviews. Keep in mind that my previous best for daily unique visitors was in August of this year when I pulled 202,452. It'll be interesting to see if RWN can continue to grow like this and how much, if any of the readers that I've gained will lose interest once the election is over.
-- You know the best thing about Wonkette's blog? The magnificently snarky beatdowns she lays on Tina Brown. Of course, if she added some bikini shots, that would be pretty nice as well.
Interesting side question: Is Ana Marie Cox the hottest blogger chick out there on the left?
-- Have you noticed that whenever a MSM outlet gets hammered for using anonymous sources they always defend it by bringing up Watergate? "Oh, they used 'Deep Throat' for Watergate and that was the biggest story ever, blah, blah, blah".
Let me buy these guys a clue: Watergate was broken more than 30 years ago. The fact that people are still trotting that out as a defense of anonymous sources, says a lot, especially given how many of these anonymous source based stories don't pan out.
Personally, I suspect that most of the controversial stories based on anonymous sources that run today probably wouldn't be deemed credible if people knew who the sources were. In other words, there are probably a lot of Bill Burketts out there behind these hot anonymous stories and not many "Deep Throats".
*** Update #1***: This post inspired Right Thinking Girl to put up a pic on her blog and let's just say that her boyfriend is a VERY LUCKY man and not just because she's a brainy, conservative, woman...
* So far Leher asks a question, Kerry ignores it and explains why Bush sucks or Bush ignores it and talks about his accomplishments. Blah!
* Did Bush just say 'vociferously' or 'fociferously'?
* Ooh, Bush is playing dirty now in the Democrat's eyes -- he's actually quoting Kerry when he was in one of his pro-war phrases =D
* The dog had to pee and when I came back, Bush was quoting the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" quote. I hope Bush keeps quoting Kerry's flip-flops & record throughout the debate. I think that will be effective.
* Hmmm, Kerry doesn't seem to be oompa loompa orange right now. Is that the lights or did they take some of that tanning solution off of him?
* How is Kerry going to pay for all of this? Good reply from W. after Kerry reels off all these fantastic things he's going to do.
* Christopher_Taylor says in the comments section,
"ALL DEBATES SUCK, why do people keep watching them then getting mad because they are boring and lame and the candidates didn't answer the questions. For crying out loud, its like watching a cow and getting mad it eats grass and craps on the field, what did you THINK you were getting?"
Sounds about right to me.
* Ooh, Bush is stinging him again on the 87 billion dollars.
* Lol, now he's talking about Vietnam and saying it was mistake to invade Iraq. Helllooooo Howard Dean...
* Why does Kerry keep blathering on about summits? Does anyone in the US care about that?
* Good point: Are allies going to come into Iraq at the behest of a President who thinks it's the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"?
* In the comments section Schroman2002 says,
"Funny thing is that I'm monitoring RWN and a liberal blog as they both update live, and they both seem to think their respective candidate is willing. Truth is, we won't know until the pundits get cranked up after it's over. The pundits make the debate..."
Actually these debates are for the most part big muddles that usually turn on minor points like Gore sighing or Reagan saying "there you go again". These aren't really enlightening debates. If you're in Bush's position you just hope not to make a mistake.
Is Bush winning? I think so, but not by much and not by enough to swing any voters....yet. More importantly, since Kerry is losing, I don't think he's winning anyone over.
* Kerry forgot Poland? Doh! You'll hear the talking heads hitting that point after the debates I suspect...
* Bush keeps going back and pounding Kerry with pro-war quotes and I think that's going to take a toll on Iraq. Kerry can say he has one position, but Bush keeps quoting JFK saying that things that contradict what he's saying today.
* "The only thing consistent about my opponents position is that he has been inconsistent". Exactly.
* How many times how Bush gone over time? When does that ultra-loud buzzer ring?
* Like maybe they guarded the oil facilities because like duh, it's the only significant revenue source in the entire nation.
* Almost one hour in and I don't think anyone has scored any major points.
* Kerry keeps hitting this "North Korea got nuclear weapons" point. They were believed to have enough material for nuclear weapons even back in 1994, before they signed a deal with Clinton (which they broke). It's entirely possible, although we don't know for sure, that North Korea has had nukes for a decade...
* Heheh, the "moo-las" in Iran...
* I have to wonder if the average people, who aren't really tuned into politics, have any idea of what's going on. It's...
Kerry: Let me tell you what's wrong with Bush...
Bush: That's not true, you actually said XYZ back then.
Meanwhile, I bet 80% of America has no idea Darfur is in Sudan...
* Theme for the debate...
George Bush: Kerry is sending mixed messages
John Kerry: Bush is wrong about everything
* Ha! I bet Barbara and Jenna rag on W. for saying he wants to put a leash on them =D
* Kerry has never wavered huh? His position has been consistent? What?
* Lehrer has done a decent job for a MSM guy. He has tried to trip Bush up a couple of times and I really think he has given Kerry pretty much a free pass. I don't think he has given Kerry a tough question yet. Still, if it's not like 75% tough questions Bush, all softballs to Kerry, that's better than you can expect usually...
* I'm sure the pundits will be trying to spin this as a huge win for either side, but I can't see that this is going to cause a significant move either way.
* Kerry is still hitting this "I can bring allies to our side"...Well, which allies? France, Germany, and Spain are openly saying they're not helping. What can they do for us? How is he going to do it when he's telling everyone invading Iraq was a mistake?
* Bush addressed the draft thing subtly with the "all volunteer army" quip in his closing.
Bottom Line: Neither candidate really said anything new to people who have been following the campaign closely, no one made any major mistakes, or scored any big points.
In effect, that means Kerry loses because he has to gain ground in these debates and Bush doesn't.
***Update #1***: I think John Hood makes a pretty good point here comparing Bush to Kerry overall on the war...
"Kerry's problem is that his message is inherently complicated and would be difficult to communicate effectively for anyone. The war was a mistake, but I'll fight to win it anyway, but it is a distraction, and I'll send more equipment, but we're spending too much on it, and I'll inspire other countries to join us, but the countries who are there aren't doing much worth commending, etc., etc.
Bush doggedly responds: you won't win if you waver. We will prevail. I'm realistic -- it's a tough, hard slog. But I'm optimistic -- we will win and freedom in the Middle East will be transformational. You don't have to be a slick rhetorician to win this kind of exchange.
Remember, also, the repetition is a good thing, not a bad thing. Let's face it: we are wonky weirdos. Most viewers probably came in and out of the room, they visited the little voters' room, they went to make a sandwich. You have to talk to the whole audience, including those who missed your key point the first couple of times you made it."
***Update #2***: Kathryn Lopez over at The Corner has the Gallup polling numbers for the debate. They look about how you'd expect them to given how the debate played out...
"***Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job Bush 54/ Kerry 37
***Likable Bush 48/Kerry 41
***Believable Bush 48 / Kerry 45
***Agreed with you more on the issues you care about Bush 49/ Kerry 46
***Had a good understanding of the issues 41/41
***Expressed himself more clearly Bush 32/Kerry 60"
I just finished up the David Horowitz / Peter Collier book, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the '60s. It's a good book, although it doesn't compare to Horowitz's phenomenal biography Radical Son, which covers many of the same topics and is easily one of the best books I've ever read.
In any case, Collier and Horowitz were big name Commie-libs back in the sixties -- since reformed -- who actually knew a lot of the big names in the anti-war movement like Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, the Black Panthers, etc and it was fascinating to see how little things have changed on the left in some respects.
Here are a couple of passages from the book that Collier wrote that I think will have an eerie ring of familiarity.
For example, you may know that Iraq was all about the oil, but did you know that Vietnam was all about the tin and the tungsten? For example, here's Collier talking about Jane Fonda, who he knew personally back then...
The next thing I knew, Fonda was involved in the G.I. Coffee House movement and making appearances such as one on the Dick Cavett TV show with Mark Lane, arguing a vulgar Marxist line about Southeast Asia. We were there because our imperialism required the natural resources of the area, she said, especially the "tung and tinsten"."
Back then it was "a vulgar Marxist line," but today it's part of mainstream liberalism. Back then, people who said this sort of thing -- like Fonda -- were shunned by much of the mainstream Democratic establishment. Today, people who say this sort of thing -- like Michael Moore -- are embraced by Democratic Party elites like Tom Daschle, Terry MacAuliffe, & Jimmy Carter.
Here's another quote from the book that I'm sure the wackos at the Democratic Underground -- among others -- can certainly relate too...
One day, not long after Kent State, David Horowitz and I were sitting with (Tom) Hayden on the porch of one of the houses the Red Family rented for its "cadre". "Well," Hayden said without any apparent regret, "there will be civil war soon." He said that fascism was inevitable under Nixon. On his advice, I bought a gun so I could be armed when the revolution arrived. I hid the loaded clip in one place and the gun itself in another, so that my children could not find them. I always forgot where the hiding places were and went for months unable to put the whole gun together if the FBI storm troopers had barged into the house to take me to the one of the concentration camps we believed they maintained."
Ah, the decades and the wars have changed, but the loopy left has stayed more or less consistent. Too bad the crazies have become so mainstream in these days and times...
The House has voted to make the oak the national tree. I guess that's all fine and good, but trees all look the same to me. Why not some more national things? Like, we have our national bird, but what about a national animal? I say the T-Rex... if it doesn't have to still be living. Here are some other national ideas:
National Amphibian: The American Hellbender, baby. Its name is wicked sweet.
National Fish: The dolphin.
National Factoid We Don't Care About: That the dolphin is not a fish.
National Firearm: I'm partial for the 1911, but I'm thinking it should be the peacemaker to piss-off all the Europeans who think "cowboy" is an insult.
National Country We Hate: France. It's part of being an American to hate France.
National Simpsons Quote: Lots of good quotes to choose from. Here's my suggestion:
Homer: Do you want it done right or do you want it done fast?
Marge: Like most Americans, I want it done fast!
National Action Movie: Die Hard. Taking out terrorists with a cowboy attitude. Yippee-ki-yi-yay, mother...
National Monotreme: Platypus or Echinda... how does one choose?
National Food: Stewed monkeys... or hotdogs.
National Attitude Towards Terrorism: Kill the B*stards!
National Made Up Kung Fu Move: Lunging Dragon Kick
National Blog: Right Wing News. It best represents America. If you don't like Right Wing News, you're a d*mn Commie!
National Insult: D*mn Commie!
If have any opinons on these or ideas for other national stuff, put it in the comments... the national comments!
*** Note: In the original article, Frank J. suggested making IMAO the national blog. However, I'm sure he was being harassed by monkeys or making out with his t-shirt model or something and meant to actually write that Right Wing News should be the national blog, because all good-hearted people love Right Wing News. So, I fixed it for him in the column because that's what friends, or more aptly, people who have full editorial control of what goes up on their own blog, do. You can thank me later Frank J.! ***
Also, if you enjoyed this humor by Frank J., you can read more of his work here.
Despite the inordinate amount of time that has been spent debating foreign affairs during this election season, particularly the situation in Iraq, there is a crucial issue that hasn't yet received the attention that it deserves. The ignored point in question is how John Kerry's over-the-top campaign rhetoric would make it almost impossible for him to successfully deal with Iraq.
While Kerry's position on Iraq has wildly shifted to and fro over the last couple of years, his most recent comments have been particularly outlandish and irresponsible.
Kerry has called Iraq "a profound diversion from (the war on terrorism)", opined that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and has called it "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". (Cont)
One of the loony left's biggest weaknesses is that they have such a burning, molten, hatred of Smirky McBushHitler AKA The AntiChrist that they genuinely have trouble understanding why everyone doesn't realize that he's the epicenter of evil. So they rant and rave and accuse him of doing everything raping Afghanistan for oil to letting 9/11 happen on purpose and then people read a story like this and realize that they're crazy....
"On our way out of the office we were to leave by the glass doors on the west side of the office. I was the last person in the exit line.
As I shook his hand one final time ... I then did something that surprised even me. I said to him, 'Mr. President, I know you are a busy man and your time is precious. I also know you to be a man of strong faith and I have a favor to ask you.' As he shook my hand he looked me in the eye and said, 'Just name it.'
"I told him that my step-Mom was at that moment in a hospital having a tumor removed from her skull and it would mean a great deal to me if he would consider adding her to his prayers that day. He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said, 'So that's it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it.' From the top drawer of his desk he retrieved a pen and a note card with his seal on it and asked, 'How do you spell her name?'
He then jotted a note to her while discussing the importance of family and the strength of prayer. "When he handed me the card, he asked about the surgery and the prognosis. I told him we were hoping that it is not a recurrence of an earlier cancer and that if it is they can get it all with this surgery. He said, 'If it's okay with you, we'll take care of the prayer right now. Would you pray with me?'
I told him yes and he turned to the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to step back or leave.
He said, 'Bruce and I would like some private time for a prayer.'
"As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was prepared to do a traditional prayer stance standing with each other with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand and pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder. With his left arm on my mid back, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace. He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his prayer for Loretta and for God's perfect will to be done. I cried some more. My body shook a bit as I cried and he just held tighter. He closed by asking God's blessing on Loretta and the family during the coming months.
"I stepped away from our embrace, wiped my eyes, swiped at the tears I'd left on his shoulder, and looked into the eyes of our President.
I thanked him as best I could and told him that my family and I would cntinue praying for him and his family. He has a pile of incredible stuff on his plate each day and yet he is tuned in so well to the here and now that he 'sensed' something heavy on my heart. He took time out of his life to care, to share, and to seek God's blessing for my family..."
Is that a great story or what? And this isn't the first time Bush has done something like this, not by a long shot.
Whether you approve of the job George Bush does as President or not, he is at the very least a really decent guy...
Hat tip to LeftNuts for the story and Truth of Fiction for verifying that it's real.
BLUE COLLAR KERRY WOWS CHEESEHEAD BARFLIES
Kerry fared better in a late afternoon appearance in nearby Mt. Horeb, when he dropped in at the D&G Taproom to rub elbows with local voters. The candidate garned a loud cheer when he entered the tavern wearing a foam rubber cheese hat and a silk Packers ascot under his blue blazer.
"I say to you, who among us does not love the manly rough-and-tumble of the gridiron?" said Kerry, gesturing to the Packer game playing on the bar's big screen television. "Alas, if only we could be there, in person, amid the frozen penumbra of Rimbaud Field. Belgian ales for all!"
Unable to locate a keg of Belgian ale, D&G bartender Stacey Klein persuaded the cadidate to instead treat the patrons to Leinenkugel. Raising his glass, Kerry led the Packer faithful in a toast to the memory of Vance Lamborghini.
"And let us also recall number 66, the great linebacker Friedrich Nietzsche," added Kerry, hoisting a demitasse of Schlitz. "For truly he was an ubermensch."
After distributing free plates of Roquefort curds and bratwurst pate, Kerry exited Mt. Horeb astride a Polaris snowmobile, showering the street with sparks.
Despite the free beer and cheese, bar patron Brian Swenson said that he was still planning on voting for President Bush.
"Hey, I'm not that much of a drunk," he noted.
LOCKHART VOWS MORE DIPLOMACY WITH ALLAWI
Backing off his remarks last week when he characterized Ayad Allawi as a "third rate ventriloquist dummy," "Chimpy's Imperial Mini Me," and "the Muppet Show Starring Kermit the Flack," Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart said that the Iraqi president would enjoy the "full support" of a Kerry administration.
"John Kerry has said repeatedly that he is committed to diplomacy and building strong ties in the global community," said Lockhart. "If elected, he will work dilligently with our international allies to secure a safe exile location for Mr. Allawi after his sham government collapses."
TERESA SLAMS WAR, TESTS, MARZIPAN
Pueblo, CO - In a free-wheeling address today at the Speedway Gas 'N' Go on I-25, First Lady hopeful Teresa Heinz-Kerry leveled broadsides at the Iraq war, standardized college tests, former Gucci designer Tom Ford, and "chauvinistic, insubordinate gardeners."
"It is the twenty-first century, and yet there are men who still ignore the voices of strong, outspoken women," she said. "They give strong women that blank stare, and turn up their leafblowers, and pretend they don't understand English. But you know, and I know, and all strong women know, they do."
Heinz-Kerry saved her harshest critism for various foods, singling out iceberg lettuce and marzipan.
"I find marzipan to have a waxy, bad texture that I find personally annoying," she noted. "Honestly, do you know anyone who likes it? I do not."
"I now find this appearance to be tedious," she added, as she summoned a phalanx of campaign aides to escort her to a waiting helicopter.
While there were only four people in the store to hear the speech, campaign spokeswoman Grace Bernhardt called it a "smashing success." Bernhardt said that Heinz-Kerry will continue her 15-state western outreach tour, including tomorrow's rally at American Storage in Cody, Wyoming.
"This will be a close election, and is critical to the John Kerry campaign that Teresa be out in front of voters, whether they're in a Idaho strip mall or abandoned Montana rock quarry," said Bernhardt.
If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.
Face-off Overly Choreographed, Critics Charge
A full transcript of Thursday’s presidential debate between President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry was released today, sparking criticism that the debate has been overly choreographed by the committee representing the two major parties.
The transcript, full of pre-planned quips and sound bites from both candidates, is a verbatim reflection of what the actual debate will be on Thursday night, a committee member confirmed.
“We have shared the written transcript with both President Bush and Senator Kerry and warned them to stick to the script,” said Davis Loudon of the Presidential Debate Steering Committee. “If they stray one iota, we’re threatening to turn the heat in the room up to 71 degrees.”
According to the transcript, the debate will begin with opening statements by both candidates, after which Mr. Bush will turn to Mr. Kerry and ask, “Where’s the beef?”
Mr. Kerry, totally prepared for this witticism, will reply by saying, “I’ve got your beef right here,” to which Mr. Bush will reply, “Beef this.”
After Mr. Bush goes on to extol the legacy of Ronald Reagan, Mr. Kerry will respond, “I served in the Senate under Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was an enemy of mine. President Bush, you’re no Ronald Reagan.”
Jonah Traylor, the Washington correspondent for the Toledo Blade, said that having a written transcript of the debate a day in advance means that he can skip the event altogether: “I might TiVo it, but probably not.”
Elsewhere, after an earthquake in central California failed to cause any serious damage, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called the 5.9 temblor “a girlie quake.”
If you liked this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work here.
Boy oh boy, the stench of defeat emanating from the Kerry campaign is driving the lefties at the Democratic Underground out of their ever loving minds! In fact, there are so many nutty comments there right now, that I couldn't just stick to one thread. So here's a smattering of entertaining lunacy from all across the DU forums....
skjpm: "I am frightened by what I am learning about America during this election. I think that a majority have an irrational fear of liberals, and that if Bush wins, and decides to send liberals to camps for their "protection," most would support the move and say "About time too." There would be some dissent, but the majority of Americans see liberals as a threat, and nothing would be done. The press would hold debates, but people wouldn't care. I think that all Bush has to do is say the word, and we'll be rounded up. Who would stop him?"
JVS: "Lincoln was right to crush the South in the 1860's. Someone ought to do it again."
Melodybe: "I was reading the Bible and I really think that * may be the anti-christ. The Bible says that the anti-christ will claim to be a man of peace who brings the world to war. Bush has claimed to be a "peace" president, he also believes that peace is best accomplished by blowing up innocent Iraqis. AlQueda is now in 60 countries and we are on a brink of a World War. The seven headed beast fortold in Revelations is the media spinning their hurricane of lies. All I can say is Bush, the anti-christ is right on time."
matcom: "F*CK YOU If You Vote For * - I Hope You Get ALL That You Want hey freepers! (and lurkers and idiots of ALL shapes and sizes)
YOU GET 100% OF WHAT YOU DESERVE!!!
When they come for YOU - F*CK OFF
When they come for YOUR children - F*CK OFF
When YOU are unemployed - F*CK OFF
When the NEXT attack hits - F*CK OFF
I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU AND MY FIRST QUESTION WILL BE "WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR?"
If you say Bush, F*CK YOU
I don't care WHAT the situation.
I don't care HOW much you are hurting.
MY liberalism tells me to CARE about ALL PEOPLE! Guess what......
IT.IS.OVER.
I DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*CK ABOUT YOU IF YOU VOTE THAT WAY
*the.end.*
TOUGH SH*T."
TahitiNut: "When I consider the fact that the USSR bore the brunt of death and destruction of the Nazi regime, it causes me to wonder about the 'realpolitik' underlying the prosecution of WW2."
"Joanne98" responds in a thread called "The Pope thinks Bush is the anti-Christ": "Bush is really creepy. I just watched him on O'Reilly and EVIL Just reeks from him. I don't know why those stupid fundies can't see that. It's so strong that it's impossible to miss. He DOES have major blood lust. He's a sick, sick b*stard. If he's elected he will invade countries just to kill. Look at how he enjoyed putting people to death in Texas. I wish the Pope would say it LOUDER. Maybe these Christian Zombies would listen. I'm saving this article. I'm not even religious but I think the Pope could be on to something. Only greedy selfish stupid Republicans would vote for the Beast. It makes perfect sense."
If you think these people sound crazy folks, just wait until you see the reaction if, as expected, Bush wins in Nov...
As I was perusing Michelle Malkin's exquisite blog, I ran across this whiny column by ex-blogger Billmon of Whiskey Bar and I thought there were a couple of things in it worth commenting on.
To begin with, Billmon opines that blogs "are losing their indie cred man because they're being co-opted by the corporate machine"! Ok, he didn't say that exactly, but he might as well have...
"...The conservative bloggers who led the charge against the CBS story were hailed as giant slayers. And yet it's the blogging phenomenon itself that may need the last rites.
...Recently, however, I've watched the commercialization of this culture of dissent with growing unease. When I recently decided to take a long break from blogging, it was for a mix of personal and philosophical reasons. But the direction the blogosphere is going makes me wonder whether I'll ever go back.
Even as it collectively achieves celebrity status for its anti-establishment views, blogging is already being domesticated by its success. What began as a spontaneous eruption of populist creativity is on the verge of being absorbed by the media-industrial complex it claims to despise."
This sort of mopey, "dude, blogs just aren't cool anymore," whimpering reminds me of people I used to know who were huge fans of these indie bands that no one had heard of at the time like...geeze, do I feel old..."Hootie and the Blowfish" & "The Ben Folds Five". I knew people who loved these bands and talked them up to me incessantly, but then turned on them when they finally made MTV because they had "sold out". That made no sense to me at the time, but since then I've realized that's just how some people are. They just enjoy knowing about some cool little band, TV show, author, comic, some something, that no one else knows about and the moment it becomes popular, they lose interest. Billmon impresses me as such person, particularly since he cites no actual examples of blogs that have been "domesticated" by the MSM.
But, Billmon really screws the pooch when he makes a mistake common to liberals, assuming that the readership "pie" is only so big and every person who takes a bite out of it leaves less for everyone else...
"What began as a spontaneous eruption of populist creativity is on the verge of being absorbed by the media-industrial complex it claims to despise.
In the process, a charmed circle of bloggers — those glib enough and ideologically safe enough to fit within the conventional media punditocracy — is gaining larger audiences and greater influence. But the passion and energy that made blogging such a potent alternative to the corporate-owned media are in danger of being lost, or driven back to the outer fringes of the Internet.
....Media exposure, in turn, is intensifying an existing trend toward a "winner take all" concentration of audience share. Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
...To be sure, there are still plenty of bloggers out there putting the 1st Amendment through its paces, their only compensation the satisfaction of speaking the truth to power. But it's going to become more difficult for those voices to reach a broad audience. If the mainstream media are true to past form, they will treat the A-list blogs — commercialized, domesticated — as if they are the entire blogosphere, while studiously ignoring the more eccentric, subversive currents swirling deeper down. Not the most glorious ending for a would-be revolution, but also not a surprising one. Bloggers aren't the first, and won't be the last, rebellious critics to try to storm the castle, only to be invited to come inside and make themselves at home."
As someone who has been running a political webpage since mid-2001 and who has been involved in the blogging community since early 2002, let me say that it has NEVER BEEN EASIER to build traffic and make a name for yourself than it is right now.
I say that because 2 1/2 years ago, just about the only blogger on the right side of the net who could send any significant traffic your way was Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit.
Back then, a link from the Professor was worth around 2k new sets of eyeballs hitting your page tops, 1000 more typically, or only a few hundred if it was part of one of his posts where he linked multiple blogs. There were very few other blogs capable of sending over more than a couple of hundred readers back then and most of them focused more on content than linking.
But today? Although the Instalanches are a lot bigger (I think the last one I got was around 10k daily uniques), there are now dozens and dozens of blogs capable of sending over a few hundred plus sets of eyeballs if they link you.
Just today for example, Michelle Malkin sent me more than 1000 readers. Her blog didn't exist a year ago. Then there's Betsy's Page. I can remember when a link from Betsy was worth only 15-20 hits. On the other hand, today I've gotten over 360 hits from a link on Betsy's Page. I could go on and on like this over the course of a month.
Now, will the mainstream media pick certain blogs and pump them up with traffic? Sure, but the rest of us in the blogosphere still benefit from it.
For example, Power Line, Allah Is In The House, and Little Green Footballs are flush with new readers sent by the MSM because of the fine job they did of covering the memogate scandal. So does that mean they benefitted while the rest of us got screwed? Not at all. Because they have plenty of new readers and when they link the rest of us, those new readers will trickle down. In other words, they're not becoming "a big fish in a small pond," they're helping to grow the pond for the rest of us as they expand....and that's a good thing.
So contrary to what Billmon seems to think, the blogosphere doesn't need "last rites" by any stretch of the imagination. As a matter of fact, us bloggers are barely getting out of our diapers at this point....
John Kerry's ultra-liberal mentor, Ted Kennedy, has been out on the campaign trail talking about the war on terror and George Bush.
Kennedy has been, as per usual, wrong about almost EVERYTHING...incidentally, what does it say about John Kerry that he has an ultra-left-wing dove out on the stump enunciating what he thinks about Iraq?
In any case, I wanted to discuss this particular remark that Kennedy made...
"It's a campaign of anger and insult and the most egregious examples are the examples of Vice President Cheney. When he even goes on to suggest that the al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win, that is the most outrageous charge. It's the most anti-American — it's McCarthyism of the first order."
First off, let me point out that Dick Cheney has never said that, "al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win". However, that being said, I'M SAYING that, "al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win".
And why wouldn't they?
It's not exactly a tough choice, is it? Let's see, there's George Bush who has dedicated his entire presidency since 9/11 to going after terrorist groups with international reach and the nations that support them and then there's John Kerry, who says he opposes everything that Bush did in his first term and thinks it's vitally important to suck up to the French and the UN.
Why is it so wrong to point out the obvious: that George Bush is 100% committed to fighting terrorism and John Kerry isn't?
Who's more likely to retreat in Iraq and let the country collapse into Civil War? George Bush who'll be judged by history on how well it turned out or John Kerry, who now says he never would have invaded in the first place?
Who's more likely to keep security measures in place that'll make it tougher for al-Qaida to strike in the US? George Bush who pushed the Patriot Act and wants the Patriot Act part 2 or John Kerry who wants to strike down part of the Patriot Act and has legions of supporters who think any new security measure is the next step towards putting them in camps?
Who's going to keep fighting the war on terrorism? George Bush who invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, strong-armed Libya out of the WMD business, blew off Arafat, and has slaughtered terrorists across the globe or a liberal Senator from Massachusetts who was a useful idiot for the Soviets during the Cold War, opposed invading Grenada, voted against the Gulf War, opposed funding the troops in Iraq, and who tried to slash military and intelligence budgets over and over again?
These are not hard questions to answer, but a lot of people don't want to bring it up because they're afraid they'll be accused of "dirty politics"!
But what's "dirty" about pointing out the obvious?
Think back to the Civil War. Who do you think the South was rooting for when Lincoln went head to head with McClellan? Gee, there was Lincoln who intended to prosecute the war to the finish and then there was McClellan who in essence wanted to call it a draw. Boy, that would have been a tough call huh?
How about a more recent example? Think back to 1984: do you think the Soviet Union wanted the most dedicated anti-Communist ever to inhabit the White House, Ronald Reagan, to come back for a second term or do you think they were really terrified of wimpy liberal, Walter Mondale? This is not hard to figure out.
The reality is that if you want a Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy type of candidate in office who's more concerned about whether the French & Germans like us than defending America, then John Kerry is your guy. But, he's also al-Qaida's guy because there's nothing they could use more right now than a 4 year long break to catch their breath, rebuild their organization, and pursue weapons of mass destruction. If John Kerry's supporters were honest about what they want and expect him to do when he gets in the White House, they'd admit that what I'm saying is the truth. If you want a candidate who's going to fight the war on terror, you're voting for Bush, not Kerry...
John Kerry's selection for running mate has been out of the public eye for the latter part of the campaign. Democratic supporters are beginning to show their concern if Edwards will be able to perform as second in command.
"Edwards is as involved in this campaign as he can be." Said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "He is currently fulfilling a groundation assigned by his parents for breaking a curfew. We expect John to rejoin the campaign shortly."
Sources claim Edwards had been given a 9 pm curfew during the campaign. This is an extension from his previous 8:30 curfew prior to his V.P. selection. Edwards, who was campaigning in Ohio, had apparently lost track of time and did not return to his hotel until 11:19. This was followed by restriction to his room until he can learn to follow directions.
McAuliffe continued to assure voters John Edwards will have no obstacles restricting him in assisting the management of the nation. "Edwards has been giving permission to ride his bike alone on Pennsylvania Avenue, he may attend overseas conferences as long as he has a signed note, and during times of crisis he will be allowed to extend his bedtime by 2-3 hours."
If you enjoyed this satire by Steve Tanner, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.
If you're as big a fan of Lileks as I am, then you'll appreciate this year's worth of his quotes that I compiled from his columns on Jewish World Review. Read em' & enjoy 'em...(Cont)
Poor David Broder is looking out over the scorched earth left behind by the memogate scandal and he's not particularly excited by the new world that the mainstream media now inhabits...
"As the path from the White House and political campaigns to the slots as TV anchor or interviewer or op-ed columnist or editor was trod by more and more people, the message to aspiring young journalists was clear.
The way to the top of journalism was no longer to test yourself on police beats and city hall assignments, under the skeptical gaze of editors who demanded precision in writing and careful weighing of evidence. It was to make a reputation as a clever wordsmith, a feisty advocate, a belligerent or beguiling political personality, and then market yourself to the media.
These hires were made by executives who themselves had little commitment to the solid and steady journalistic values that come from working a beat for a sustained period of time. They were looking for quick fixes for their circulation or ratings -- and they thought the star system or the "big story" would save them.
But to their dismay, TV news show ratings continued to decline, newspaper circulations slumped and the fickle public -- whose wishes editors now took as their command -- switched to even more sensational outlets: the cable talk shows and infotainment formats that put argument, gossip and amusement at the top.
When the Internet opened the door to scores of "journalists" who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.
Time was when any outfit such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that came around peddling an ad with implausible charges would have run into a hard-nosed reporter whose first questions -- before he or she ran with the story -- would have been, "Who the hell are you guys? What's your angle? What's your proof?"
What a condescending snob Broder must be to write a column like that. He reminds me of one of those old Roman Emperors from the movies, being fed grapes from a slave and sneering at his generals who suggest that Rome itself might be endangered by the Barbarian hordes that have been raiding across the border...
Emperor David Broder: "Bloggers doing real journalism? Ha! Remember when it was just ABC, NBC, CBS and the papers running the show, before talk radio, and these internet peons came on the scene? Now those were the days!
Back then, we picked the important stories, we set the agenda, and we called the shots. Now we have these impudent bloggers daring to question us? What arrogance, what...slave....did I say to stop feeding me grapes? Continue or I'll have you flogged!
Don't these bloggers know who we are? Who do blogs like Little Blue Baseballs think they are anyway? What kind of name is that for a news organization? And what is this Right-Thinking From The Left Coast? They even have Right Thinking in their name! They're obviously not balanced and unbiased like the New York Times or CBS? Oh and don't even get me started on Allah Is In The House. If I had someone at the Washington Post suggest that as a name for a column, I'd have them flogged!
These barbarians even harassed poor Dan Rather so much that he took obviously fake documents from a madman! He....slave! Why am I not being fanned and where are my dancing girls! Your emperor is becoming angry!"
Guys like Broder don't get it, they never have and they never will. The reason the blogger barbarians are at the gate is because the "stars" of the old media, people like Broder, Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Hersh, Helen Thomas, Dana Milbank, etc, etc, aren't all that impressive if you get right down to it. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's anything that sets any of those people apart from conservative bloggers other than the fact that they have bigger microphones, more resources, and they're biased in a different direction.
That's not to say that we bloggers will be able to replace the old media though. We may be able to take bites out of the MSM's readership and continue to undermine their credibility when they don't do their homework, but it's likely we'll never have the resources of an ABC, NYT, or Chicago Tribune.
Still....there are plenty of readers and loot left in the old media empire and they're ripe to be plundered by us new media barbarians. Maybe we'll never eat off golden plates in the palaces of Rome, but that's not to say we can't build small media kingdoms of our own while the old media continues to decline. And who knows? Maybe someday, somehow, one day long in the future, we bloggers will trample the old media empire under foot and create a better media of our own. Stranger things have happened as I'm sure the Romans from days of yore would tell us if they still lived...
Hat tip to the fine folks over at Bressler.org for coming up with this one.
Washington, DC - CBS News is reporting that records obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that President George W. Bush skipped the annual Houston Kiwanis Pancake Breakfast on January 25, 1972. This occurred at a time in which the future President was a member of the Executive Board of the Houston Kiwanis.
"George Bush was AWOL in 1972," said Democrat challenger John Kerry last night during a campaign rally in Massachusetts, a key battleground state in Kerry's attempt to top Walter Mondale's 1984 electoral vote tally. "While I was pretending to throw away my medals and meeting with the Viet Cong in Paris, George W. Bush was skipping out on his Kiwanis obligations. Well, the American people won't stand for this. And when I am President I promise that I'll show up to work every day in order to undermine the efforts of our brave men and women in the Armed Forces and to give aid and comfort to the enemy."
In related news, the Politburo of the People's Republic of Vietnam announced today that it is renaming the city of Hue to John Kerry City in honor of the senator's efforts to promote the victory of international communism
If you enjoyed this satire by William Grim, you can read more of his work here.
It has been more than 4 long months since the last time I used Alexa to rank the top 125 political websites on the net and I thought it was about time to do it again. So, if you're looking for the most popular political websites on the internet, then today is your lucky day. Here they are...(Cont)
Mark Dubbin, the author of "Shadow Patriot" bought another main page ad on RWN to get the word out about his book. Here's the description of it from Barnes & Noble...
"The events of 9/11 affected many things in New York and the Mafia was no exception. Business suffered for Don Remondini after the attack, but he wasn't about to let it go. The cowards who cost him would receive a message from the Family if he had anything to say about it. They would think twice about their actions in the future. That much was certain.
Jim Pearce is Don Remondini's chief of security. As an Ex-Special Forces sniper, discharged from duty with diabetes, he is assigned to send al-Qaeda a powerful message from the Family. Operating outside the law, and using his CIA contacts, Shadow Patriot is a web of action and intrigue where the guilty will be made to pay, and payback can be a b*tch!"
I've done ads for this book before and one of RWN's readers had actually read the book. Jay said the following,
"I bought it after seeing the link to it on Amazon posted on here last time. The book itself is very short, only about 110 pages I believe. It was a little far fetched, but all in all a very good read."
Here's what a couple of intelligent people on Amazon had to say about the book,
Reviewer: A reader from Las Cruces, NM United States
A wonderful story taking a different approach to the effects of 9/11, and how it was dealt with. Rather than sit back and complain about what happened on that eventful day, a plan was set to take out a terrorist cell. Neat idea and easy flowing writing. Makes for a good, sunny afternoon read.
Reviewer: nicothefabulous from Littleton, CO United States
In a world where justice can be hard to come by, sometimes you have to make your own. Reminds me a bit of The Rocketeer, with the FBI agents and Mafia guys fighting the Nazis side-by-side. Maybe more people with the financial means to do so should take note of this story! I want to see the movie. A classic tale of good old-fashioned American payback.
This book is on my wish list so feel free to buy a copy for me and one for yourself....
You can purchase the Shadow Patriot by clicking here.
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
