The state polls are being released now and the battleground state polls show its neck and neck -- MSNBC - Kerry making scant progress in crucial states Its worth noting that these were "likely voter" polls of 625 people in each state.
But wasn't this the election that George Bush was supposed to win hands down? He was, for three years, the "popular wartime president" according to the media. The republican machine was unmatched in its ruthlessness, precision, professionalism. Karl Rove was a genuis, no doubt about it. Bush was such a likeable guy, everybody loved him.
Well, meet John Kerry, everybody.
I've been saying for three years that the democrats have to win the Gore states plus two -- but plus one would be enough. As Kerry battles for these states, he is getting energized, more focused. Will it be enough? If Kerry continues the kind of campaigning he has been doing over the last week, and if the democrats get their vote out, it will be.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Friday, September 17, 2004
Bush Lied and Soldiers Died
The NYT is still trying manfully to toe the party line on WMDs -- Weapons Inspectors: Iraq Study Finds Desire for Arms, but Not Capacity But it doesn't matter anymore -- after a thousand deaths and 7,000 injuries (or maybe twice that, really) -- America doesn't care anymore what a delusional Saddam might have wanted to do at some mythical future time. This NYT story is a meaningless bleat in the roar of outrage building over the July National Intelligence Estimate.
This report has, I think, hit the average American like a bomb - a Witness to Mass Delusion, so to speak. People like me had been saying for months (I said it in June, actually) that the United States is losing in Iraq. But the so-called average American doesn't read little-ole-me, or other blogs like me. A goodly proportion of good people, including a lot of the news media and the pundits, went merrily along through the summer under the vague impression that basically things were improving in Iraq except for a few bad areas.
Over the last week, this impression began to change as a few generals began speaking out. Uneasiness was growing, a feeling that Iraq was turning to the worse.
Then, yesterday, everybody finds out about the NIE report -- its not just bad news from a nattering nabob of negativism, a democrat, a leftie, a blogger. Its the National Security Council, official government policy.
And not only are Americans now finding out that they are losing in Iraq, they're also realizing that the Bush administration knew six weeks ago that Iraq was a disaster, but Bush didn't tell them. They heard nothing but upbeat, happy talk from him about Iraq all through August, all through the convention, all through September, while more than 100 American soldiers died -- and he did NOTHING to change it. Hey, don't bother me, I'm too busy making jokes about Kerry and getting teary-eyed about 9/11!
Suddenly, the basic truth of the Buzzflash slogan, Bush Lied and Soldiers Died, has become obvious to America.
Tonight, Hardball actually stopped talking about the CBS memos to interview Richard Holdbrook about Iraq and the NIE. Lou Dobbs stopped talking about outsourcing jobs to interview Evan Bayh about Iraq and the NIE. Yesterday Judy Woodruff stopped covering Hurricane Ivan to interview General McPeakabout Iraq and the NIE - "I've commanded troops in combat. The least he could do is level with the troops here, let alone coming clean with the American people. This is a wall-to-wall disaster that the president has engineered our way into here. And we simply have to get rid of this administration and get started on fixing it."
The outrage is sincere, and meaningful In the NYT, Bob Herbert tracks down the last American soldier who died for America's last mistaken war. "Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq. . . When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war." George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat. I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this colossal mistake."
This report has, I think, hit the average American like a bomb - a Witness to Mass Delusion, so to speak. People like me had been saying for months (I said it in June, actually) that the United States is losing in Iraq. But the so-called average American doesn't read little-ole-me, or other blogs like me. A goodly proportion of good people, including a lot of the news media and the pundits, went merrily along through the summer under the vague impression that basically things were improving in Iraq except for a few bad areas.
Over the last week, this impression began to change as a few generals began speaking out. Uneasiness was growing, a feeling that Iraq was turning to the worse.
Then, yesterday, everybody finds out about the NIE report -- its not just bad news from a nattering nabob of negativism, a democrat, a leftie, a blogger. Its the National Security Council, official government policy.
And not only are Americans now finding out that they are losing in Iraq, they're also realizing that the Bush administration knew six weeks ago that Iraq was a disaster, but Bush didn't tell them. They heard nothing but upbeat, happy talk from him about Iraq all through August, all through the convention, all through September, while more than 100 American soldiers died -- and he did NOTHING to change it. Hey, don't bother me, I'm too busy making jokes about Kerry and getting teary-eyed about 9/11!
Suddenly, the basic truth of the Buzzflash slogan, Bush Lied and Soldiers Died, has become obvious to America.
Tonight, Hardball actually stopped talking about the CBS memos to interview Richard Holdbrook about Iraq and the NIE. Lou Dobbs stopped talking about outsourcing jobs to interview Evan Bayh about Iraq and the NIE. Yesterday Judy Woodruff stopped covering Hurricane Ivan to interview General McPeakabout Iraq and the NIE - "I've commanded troops in combat. The least he could do is level with the troops here, let alone coming clean with the American people. This is a wall-to-wall disaster that the president has engineered our way into here. And we simply have to get rid of this administration and get started on fixing it."
The outrage is sincere, and meaningful In the NYT, Bob Herbert tracks down the last American soldier who died for America's last mistaken war. "Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq. . . When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war." George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat. I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this colossal mistake."
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Turnaround time
Kerry Asserts Bush Has Misled Voters
You've got it, JFK -- this is the heart of the matter. And Bush cannot defend himself because he lies all the time, about just about everything.
This brilliant Buzzflash editorial got it right "The only way to win against the right wing thugs who stole the American government is to cream them, rip off their masks and put them on the defensive through Election Day."
Exactly.
The Kerry campaign has got the message. They're running with it, and they're winning with it. I base my opinion partly on the actual polls but also on my "gonzo journalism" meter.
Gonzo stories are stupid, meaningless stories which the Bush campaign plants - like this one Kerry drops ball with packers fans. It reminds me of the "Whiz With" story in early August. They're a sign of desperation, when the Bush campaign knows it is in trouble, trying to go on the offensive but with no ammunition.
You've got it, JFK -- this is the heart of the matter. And Bush cannot defend himself because he lies all the time, about just about everything.
This brilliant Buzzflash editorial got it right "The only way to win against the right wing thugs who stole the American government is to cream them, rip off their masks and put them on the defensive through Election Day."
Exactly.
The Kerry campaign has got the message. They're running with it, and they're winning with it. I base my opinion partly on the actual polls but also on my "gonzo journalism" meter.
Gonzo stories are stupid, meaningless stories which the Bush campaign plants - like this one Kerry drops ball with packers fans. It reminds me of the "Whiz With" story in early August. They're a sign of desperation, when the Bush campaign knows it is in trouble, trying to go on the offensive but with no ammunition.
Christians One; Lions Nothing
Bumper Sticker Insubordination - A Kerry fan gets fired, and then hired, for her politics John Kerry, solving America's unemployment problem one job at a time. No wonder Bush is going to lose and Kerry is going to win.
Monday, September 13, 2004
How many would have lived?
It bears repeating:
How many hundreds of US soldiers and POWs would have been saved if Nixon had listened to Kerry in 1971 and declared a ceasefire then, instead of waiting two years to declare it?
How many hundreds of US soldiers and POWs would have been saved if Nixon had listened to Kerry in 1971 and declared a ceasefire then, instead of waiting two years to declare it?
When is a "winter soldier" not a "winter soldier"?
When a Google search for "winter soldier" brings you to this site -- flying monkey veterans against Kerry -- instead of this one --the actual Winter Soldier Investigation.
Its really bizarre -- they're trying to hijack history, it appears. The Free Republic Network is sponsoring their site, which is pretty elaborate. For seasoning, it also has "Jane Fonda" sprinkled all over it -- apparently she is the wicked witch of the east, as far as vietnam vets are concerned.
Anyway, this anti-Kerry group is headed up by a man named Larry Bailey. They held a rally in Washington this weekend at which they expected thousands but got hundreds.
What is really priceless, however, is that this same Larry Bailey has spent his career uncovering fraudlent Navy SEALs -- people who claim to be SEAL veterans when they are not. So I wonder what he thinks of the news that Bush puffed up his military service by claiming he served in the US Air Force, and may not even have fulfilled his TANG commitments (thanks to Atrios for some of these links.)
Now, I know everyone is always supposed to be so respectful of soldiers, and not call them wingnuts, but really, folks, we're supposed to believe that these grandfathers had their entire lives blighted because of John Kerry's dastardly testimony 35 years ago? I'll bet Kerry wishes he actually had been so influential in 1971 -- then maybe Nixon would have ordered the ceasefire that Kerry wanted -- and how many soldiers and POWs would have been saved if the war had ended then instead of with a mad scramble off the embassy roof four years later?
Its really bizarre -- they're trying to hijack history, it appears. The Free Republic Network is sponsoring their site, which is pretty elaborate. For seasoning, it also has "Jane Fonda" sprinkled all over it -- apparently she is the wicked witch of the east, as far as vietnam vets are concerned.
Anyway, this anti-Kerry group is headed up by a man named Larry Bailey. They held a rally in Washington this weekend at which they expected thousands but got hundreds.
What is really priceless, however, is that this same Larry Bailey has spent his career uncovering fraudlent Navy SEALs -- people who claim to be SEAL veterans when they are not. So I wonder what he thinks of the news that Bush puffed up his military service by claiming he served in the US Air Force, and may not even have fulfilled his TANG commitments (thanks to Atrios for some of these links.)
Now, I know everyone is always supposed to be so respectful of soldiers, and not call them wingnuts, but really, folks, we're supposed to believe that these grandfathers had their entire lives blighted because of John Kerry's dastardly testimony 35 years ago? I'll bet Kerry wishes he actually had been so influential in 1971 -- then maybe Nixon would have ordered the ceasefire that Kerry wanted -- and how many soldiers and POWs would have been saved if the war had ended then instead of with a mad scramble off the embassy roof four years later?
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Check these out
A wonderful post on Daily Kos -- read all the comments. Its about how people are working so hard at their local level to get Kerry elected. The US and Canadian systems are so different -- I hadn't realized how difficult it was in the US to get organized at the local level. In Canada, with a parliamentary system, the first place parties get organized is at the local constituency level, because the party doesn't win unless they get a majority of members elected.
And a terrific post on Donkey Rising about the lessons Dems should learn from the swiftboat thing -- not necessarily the conventional wisdom -- "Republicans have significantly damaged their image and reputation among many moderates and opinion leaders by embracing an essentially dishonest, "win at any cost" approach during this campaign. This tarnished reputation is an asset democrats should energetically exploit. Not only does it reduce the appeal and legitimacy of Republicanism in general, but it makes it easier for Dems to successfully deflect future smear campaigns."
And James Carville was great tonight on Russert -- articulate, quick, passionate about Kerry, and labeling republican talking point BS for what it was. He identified precisely the problem now in Iraq -- it's changing so fast that a plan of one or two months ago isn't the right position today. He also emphasized something I have also been blogging about today in comments on other blogs -- that its a republican talking point to demand Kerry has to have a detailed position on Iraq, because the same folks are not demanding that Bush also specify what HE would do. And Carville sent the message to the republicans to watch out for the debates, implying that that is when Kerry will hit Bush hard on the whole Iraq mess.
And a terrific post on Donkey Rising about the lessons Dems should learn from the swiftboat thing -- not necessarily the conventional wisdom -- "Republicans have significantly damaged their image and reputation among many moderates and opinion leaders by embracing an essentially dishonest, "win at any cost" approach during this campaign. This tarnished reputation is an asset democrats should energetically exploit. Not only does it reduce the appeal and legitimacy of Republicanism in general, but it makes it easier for Dems to successfully deflect future smear campaigns."
And James Carville was great tonight on Russert -- articulate, quick, passionate about Kerry, and labeling republican talking point BS for what it was. He identified precisely the problem now in Iraq -- it's changing so fast that a plan of one or two months ago isn't the right position today. He also emphasized something I have also been blogging about today in comments on other blogs -- that its a republican talking point to demand Kerry has to have a detailed position on Iraq, because the same folks are not demanding that Bush also specify what HE would do. And Carville sent the message to the republicans to watch out for the debates, implying that that is when Kerry will hit Bush hard on the whole Iraq mess.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Friday, September 10, 2004
September and October
So, what is coming up for September and October that will affect the election?
1. A bunch of new smear campaigns will be started about Kerry (movies, ads). And so you can count on the media parroting the RNC talking points and following the RNC agenda which gets them to interview another bunch of unnamed democrats about how Kerry "must respond to these serious accusations" and how Kerry "must talk about his policies" and "Kerry must present a clear position on ___", as if he hasn't already done all this and more.
But also coming up will be:
2. Election in Australia -- Howard will lose and the Aussie troops are out
3. Election in Afganistan -- what are the chances that this will be successful? If it is held at all, suicide bombers will blast the polling stations.
4. Another 100 US troops will die in Iraq, another thousand will be injured. More cities will be lost to the insurgents.
5. The Kelly book will ignite the Bush cocaine/drinking stories.
6. Farenheit 9/11 will be released on video. New round of ads, coverage, etc.
7. Boston might be in another pennant race. The New England Patriots might be doing well, too.
8. In the vice-presidential debate, Edwards will wipe the floor with Cheney. In the presidential debates, who knows what might happen . . . but if Kerry embraces his "inner Munster", he will come off as genuine and caring, which is the only thing that is important about these debates.
Have I missed anything?
1. A bunch of new smear campaigns will be started about Kerry (movies, ads). And so you can count on the media parroting the RNC talking points and following the RNC agenda which gets them to interview another bunch of unnamed democrats about how Kerry "must respond to these serious accusations" and how Kerry "must talk about his policies" and "Kerry must present a clear position on ___", as if he hasn't already done all this and more.
But also coming up will be:
2. Election in Australia -- Howard will lose and the Aussie troops are out
3. Election in Afganistan -- what are the chances that this will be successful? If it is held at all, suicide bombers will blast the polling stations.
4. Another 100 US troops will die in Iraq, another thousand will be injured. More cities will be lost to the insurgents.
5. The Kelly book will ignite the Bush cocaine/drinking stories.
6. Farenheit 9/11 will be released on video. New round of ads, coverage, etc.
7. Boston might be in another pennant race. The New England Patriots might be doing well, too.
8. In the vice-presidential debate, Edwards will wipe the floor with Cheney. In the presidential debates, who knows what might happen . . . but if Kerry embraces his "inner Munster", he will come off as genuine and caring, which is the only thing that is important about these debates.
Have I missed anything?
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Update on sources
In spite of the blogflap about typefaces, Kevin Drum reports "CBS is very, very confident that the memos are genuine. They believe that (a) their sources are rock solid, (b) the provenance of the documents is well established, and (c) the appearance of the documents matches the appearance of other documents created at the same place and time. In addition, people who knew Killian well have confirmed that the memos are genuine."
I don't get it
Here are the new documents about Bush's flight status.
http://wid.ap.org/documents/bush/040908xfer.pdf
Supposedly, these are the originals from 1972?
But NOBODY used Times Roman justified typeface fonts in 1972 -- particularly in personal memos for files.
Nobody used "fonts" at all, except typographers in printing plants.
What we had was: Courier 12 point And that's what everyone used.
In an office situation, writing a note for a file, at best you would get a typewritten note, maybe on an electric typewriter but more likely on a manual. These notes would have been typed by the office secretary, whose initials would be at the end of the memo. Much more likely that a note to file generated by the executive himself would have been handwritten, because most men could not type at all.
http://wid.ap.org/documents/bush/040908xfer.pdf
Supposedly, these are the originals from 1972?
But NOBODY used Times Roman justified typeface fonts in 1972 -- particularly in personal memos for files.
Nobody used "fonts" at all, except typographers in printing plants.
What we had was: Courier 12 point And that's what everyone used.
In an office situation, writing a note for a file, at best you would get a typewritten note, maybe on an electric typewriter but more likely on a manual. These notes would have been typed by the office secretary, whose initials would be at the end of the memo. Much more likely that a note to file generated by the executive himself would have been handwritten, because most men could not type at all.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Well, now we're getting to it
A couple of days ago, I posted that America should be asking Who dropped the ball on 9/11?
Well, its starting to happen, all brought about by Cheney's incredibly stupid remark about how America would only be safe by voting for Bush. The New York Times editorial and Maureen Dowd both write about this, but Dowd is more interesting. She says Cheney Spits Toads: ". . . Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11." (emphasis mine). She continues " Mr. Cheney warns against falling back 'into the pre-9/11 mind-set,'' when, in fact, the Bush team's pre-9/11 mind-set was all about being stuck in the cold war and reviving 'Star Wars' - which doesn't work and is useless against terrorist tactics. The Bush crowd played down terrorism because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger had told their successors that Osama was a priority, and the Bushies scorned all things Clinton. The president shrugged off intelligence briefings with such headlines as 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'' because there was brush to be cleared and unaffordable tax-cutting to be done."
What Cheney appeared to mean by the "pre-9/11 mindset" remark is that the "old way" of dealing with terrorists by legal processes (arrest, trial, prison) is not as good as the "new way" of military processes brought to America by the Bush administration, using 9/11 as an excuse.
So far, the new way includes The Patriot Act, no-fly lists, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, outsourcing torture, denying the Geneva Conventions, alienating allies around the world, promoting preemptive war, redacting reports critical of allies like Saudi Arabia, outing CIA agents, death by container, actual murder or something like it (when Bush, in the 2002 State of the Union, talked about people "not being around anymore"), utter failure to progress on the Palestinian issue, and, of course, the wars in Afganistan and Iraq - all enacted with the meme of "keeping America safe", which they did not do and will not apologize for. Nor will they take responsibility for how terrorist acts are increasing around the world, and how a generation of Arab youth into new terrorists.
Gee, I think I'm getting a little shrill.
Well, its starting to happen, all brought about by Cheney's incredibly stupid remark about how America would only be safe by voting for Bush. The New York Times editorial and Maureen Dowd both write about this, but Dowd is more interesting. She says Cheney Spits Toads: ". . . Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11." (emphasis mine). She continues " Mr. Cheney warns against falling back 'into the pre-9/11 mind-set,'' when, in fact, the Bush team's pre-9/11 mind-set was all about being stuck in the cold war and reviving 'Star Wars' - which doesn't work and is useless against terrorist tactics. The Bush crowd played down terrorism because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger had told their successors that Osama was a priority, and the Bushies scorned all things Clinton. The president shrugged off intelligence briefings with such headlines as 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'' because there was brush to be cleared and unaffordable tax-cutting to be done."
What Cheney appeared to mean by the "pre-9/11 mindset" remark is that the "old way" of dealing with terrorists by legal processes (arrest, trial, prison) is not as good as the "new way" of military processes brought to America by the Bush administration, using 9/11 as an excuse.
So far, the new way includes The Patriot Act, no-fly lists, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, outsourcing torture, denying the Geneva Conventions, alienating allies around the world, promoting preemptive war, redacting reports critical of allies like Saudi Arabia, outing CIA agents, death by container, actual murder or something like it (when Bush, in the 2002 State of the Union, talked about people "not being around anymore"), utter failure to progress on the Palestinian issue, and, of course, the wars in Afganistan and Iraq - all enacted with the meme of "keeping America safe", which they did not do and will not apologize for. Nor will they take responsibility for how terrorist acts are increasing around the world, and how a generation of Arab youth into new terrorists.
Gee, I think I'm getting a little shrill.
90 attacks a day in August -- but the generals soldier on!
Confronting Insurgents: U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq
Suggest the song which occurs to you while reading this article -- my own is the old Perry Como tune "dream along with me . . ." (Perry Como was in a movie I saw tonight, so likely that's why this one occured to me).
Its lines like this that bring it to mind:
". . . the administration had decided to let Dr. Allawi try to persuade rebel leaders to join the process of reconstructing Iraq, or suffer the consequences if they did not." So far, the "consequences" for Ramadi, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra are that they have become rebel (US military definition) or free (insurgent definition) cities. Added to these should likely also be Najaf and Tikrit.
And then there is this line: "To buy time, General Myers said, Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, is working with the Iraqi government to develop a strategy to retake the cities. General Myers said that strategy included trying to "isolate certain communities," hampering the insurgents' ability to rearm and resupply, and curtailing attacks against American forces." Considering that they have now had 18 months to "hamper" and "curtail", how successful is this going to be?
And this one: ". . . an American assault is likely in the next four months. 'I do have about four months where I want to get to local control,'' General Metz said. 'And then I've got the rest of January to help the Iraqis to put the mechanisms in place.' . . ." And this one: ". . . commanders gave an upbeat assessment, noting that "the messages at Friday Prayer are becoming more and more moderate" and that American forces "keep continuous pressure on the enemy" while they help Iraqis with reconstruction."
Yes, they'll be winning any day now.
Kerry is right -- the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US has to get these people out of there before another thousand US troops and another 20,000 Iraqis are killed. Right now, the generals are singing "Dream along with me, I'm on my way to the stars!"
Suggest the song which occurs to you while reading this article -- my own is the old Perry Como tune "dream along with me . . ." (Perry Como was in a movie I saw tonight, so likely that's why this one occured to me).
Its lines like this that bring it to mind:
". . . the administration had decided to let Dr. Allawi try to persuade rebel leaders to join the process of reconstructing Iraq, or suffer the consequences if they did not." So far, the "consequences" for Ramadi, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra are that they have become rebel (US military definition) or free (insurgent definition) cities. Added to these should likely also be Najaf and Tikrit.
And then there is this line: "To buy time, General Myers said, Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, is working with the Iraqi government to develop a strategy to retake the cities. General Myers said that strategy included trying to "isolate certain communities," hampering the insurgents' ability to rearm and resupply, and curtailing attacks against American forces." Considering that they have now had 18 months to "hamper" and "curtail", how successful is this going to be?
And this one: ". . . an American assault is likely in the next four months. 'I do have about four months where I want to get to local control,'' General Metz said. 'And then I've got the rest of January to help the Iraqis to put the mechanisms in place.' . . ." And this one: ". . . commanders gave an upbeat assessment, noting that "the messages at Friday Prayer are becoming more and more moderate" and that American forces "keep continuous pressure on the enemy" while they help Iraqis with reconstruction."
Yes, they'll be winning any day now.
Kerry is right -- the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US has to get these people out of there before another thousand US troops and another 20,000 Iraqis are killed. Right now, the generals are singing "Dream along with me, I'm on my way to the stars!"
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Who said this today?
Crossposted to E-Group
Read this excerpt from this transcript and try to figure out whose supporter is complaining:
". . . character assassination is the real centerpiece of the __ campaign . . . But if you want to be honest about who you are, just tell us, and you'll find you may lose, but you'll at least at the end of the campaign know that you were true to yourselves instead of all this gobbledygook. It's just amazing. The fact that they don't think they've been mean enough, they don't think they've been negative enough? These people have no sense of perception or proportion. They have no idea of who they are and how they sound . . . if they think they're exercising restraint and moderation as they walk down the aisle in this campaign they have no concept of who they really are, so no wonder it's tough for them to tell us. "
Is this -- a Kerry supporter complaining about the Bush campaign? Or a Bush supporter complaining about the Kerry campaign?
When I read the right-wing blogs and the left-wing blogs, sometimes I think I am reading about election campaigns in two different countries, maybe even on two different planets.
When Kerry wins, as I very much hope he will, I hope he can make some dent in the level of anger and despair and division in the US, and lead them away from this kind of division. Its bad for the country, whatever country you're in.
Read this excerpt from this transcript and try to figure out whose supporter is complaining:
". . . character assassination is the real centerpiece of the __ campaign . . . But if you want to be honest about who you are, just tell us, and you'll find you may lose, but you'll at least at the end of the campaign know that you were true to yourselves instead of all this gobbledygook. It's just amazing. The fact that they don't think they've been mean enough, they don't think they've been negative enough? These people have no sense of perception or proportion. They have no idea of who they are and how they sound . . . if they think they're exercising restraint and moderation as they walk down the aisle in this campaign they have no concept of who they really are, so no wonder it's tough for them to tell us. "
Is this -- a Kerry supporter complaining about the Bush campaign? Or a Bush supporter complaining about the Kerry campaign?
When I read the right-wing blogs and the left-wing blogs, sometimes I think I am reading about election campaigns in two different countries, maybe even on two different planets.
When Kerry wins, as I very much hope he will, I hope he can make some dent in the level of anger and despair and division in the US, and lead them away from this kind of division. Its bad for the country, whatever country you're in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)