Skip

Run away run away!!
August 25, 2004 5:16 PM   Subscribe

In other news... Bush’s security detail gallantly protects President from triple amputee. Meanwhile, a local father expresses his opinion of Bush’s foreign policy results in a more illuminating fashion.
posted by EmoChild (77 comments total)

 
Unbelievably bad post.

Problem #1 : I have no idea whatsoever what event the first sentence refers to, since no actual article is linked. Would this .wmv file have made it all the more clear? A shame for those of us with no Windows Media Player available on our operating systems. Is the implication that people in wheelchairs should have a special exemption in security policies? Or is there a limb threshold below which one can happily pass through a security barier?

As far as the second part, congratulations for using the actions of a grieving father for your own political agenda. All we know from this article is that the dad was, understandably, very sad, and a bit unstable. He may well think the 2nd Iraq war was a fine idea.
posted by mragreeable at 5:35 PM on August 25, 2004


i hope someone throws gasoline on barbara and jenna and lights those smarmy bitches up and dub gets to watch them writh in agony. yep.
posted by quonsar at 5:46 PM on August 25, 2004


Cleland and his cohorts should be embarrassed. Political grandstanding at its absolute worst. Idiots.
posted by davidmsc at 5:54 PM on August 25, 2004


Does that act of arson make the dude into a terrorist, or does he get a get out of jail free card for what he went through?
posted by mathowie at 5:54 PM on August 25, 2004


Cleland and his cohorts should be embarrassed. Political grandstanding at its absolute worst.

When I heard what Cleland was going to do, I had flashbacks to Bowling for Columnbine, when Michael Moore carts the dude in a wheelchair to KMart's headquarters with a bunch of bullets, asking if they could please pull the bullets from the shelves so that more people wouldn't be paralyzed.

I understand the power of that kind of demonstration, but thought it was cheap and over-the-top way to make a point (and on camera, no less).
posted by mathowie at 5:57 PM on August 25, 2004


What does any of this have to do with Lisbon?
posted by dhoyt at 6:01 PM on August 25, 2004


cheney's daughter is a Lisbon. burn her too.
posted by quonsar at 6:09 PM on August 25, 2004


Cleland and his cohorts should be embarrassed. Political grandstanding at its absolute worst. Idiots.

On the contrary, David, I would argue that its the best of political theater, worthy of David Crockett, or Daniel Webster. An entreaty from a decorated war veteran, carried by war veterans, to a respected opponent such that loathsome efforts to humiliate the political system be stopped. And they get turned away at Bush's gate. And here I thought Bush was the neighborly one. I find nothing idiotic about this at all.

mathowie, you couldn't be more wrong. What was over-the-top about this? That Cleland is a cripple, or a respected war veteran and servant in the congress? Cleland has been a bold and strong supporter of Kerry, concerning the very issues that the letter addressed. To say its over-the-top because of misguided sympathy for the handy-capable is more wrong than Bush snubbing public servants at his door.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:17 PM on August 25, 2004


All bush had to do was accept the letter, shake hands, and close the door. You know, act like a person instead of a Howard Hughes-esque recluse. He could have easily defused that situation.

Oh well, its an election year. Expect more and worse from both sides.
posted by skallas at 6:23 PM on August 25, 2004


shallow/emotionalfilter: i've never seen all of Cleland before, just him as a talking head on tv, and i wanted to cry today after seeing these pics--for all of us. This is what's happening daily in Iraq to kids, although i haven't been seeing any of it on tv or in newspapers. I'm not surprised Bush doesn't meet with him, and that Cleland was so savagely attacked in his Senate race. He's a continual reminder of war's costs, which must terrify and shame those who send others to war, if they have any sort of conscience.
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on August 25, 2004


Good point, amberglow.

Personally, if I were Bush, I wouldn't trust anyone with even half a limb, let alone a full arm to get near me.
posted by Peter H at 6:33 PM on August 25, 2004


Does that act of arson make the dude into a terrorist, or does he get a get out of jail free card for what he went through?

I bet that will depend on whether he will try and capitalize on his son's death the way Nick Berg's father has (and whether he survives the burns, of course).

As for marching Cleland up to the gate, this is straight out of the Michael Moore campaign manual, no? Meaningless and manipulative, to me this sort of tactic speaks poorly of a candidate. However beyond that there's nothing wrong with it , so... eh. Whatever.


On preview: All bush had to do was accept the letter, shake hands, and close the door. You know, act like a person instead of a Howard Hughes-esque recluse. He could have easily defused that situation.

That's what I thought might have been the politically smart thing for Bush to do, but then again with the idiotically minor things influencing public opinion now, who knows what would have happened at the meeting?
posted by Krrrlson at 6:35 PM on August 25, 2004


The song Roses by Outkast should be the dedication song for Bush after his RNC speech.
posted by Peter H at 6:35 PM on August 25, 2004


Triple amputee? Looks like a quadruple amputee to me. Am I wrong?
posted by banished at 6:45 PM on August 25, 2004


this guy wasn't "expressing his opinion of Bush’s foreign policy", he flipped out because his son died. Note the distinction between the two.

on preview: banished, he has one arm, you can see it in the "gallantly protects" link
posted by bob sarabia at 6:47 PM on August 25, 2004


Pardon me, I guess I was mistaken.
posted by banished at 6:47 PM on August 25, 2004


Cleland's gesture was brilliant political theater -- it's getting lead story play on TV and is all over the news.

One of the things that gives me hope, as a Democrat, is the ineptitude of Bush's re-election operation. If he had accepted Cleland into his ranch, the authority on what they said to each other would have been President Bush. He could have put any spin he liked on the confrontation, which would seem much more cordial thanks to his gracious invitation.

By leaving Cleland outside, he let him be the authority, lending his rejected letter that much more play.

If Kerry wins, I think we will be able to thank the loathsome Republical smear machine in Georgia that gave Cleland so much free time by ousting him from the Senate. He's been a terrific voice for his former Senatorial colleague throughout this campaign, and he rallies the base by reminding people of how low the GOP will go to win a race.
posted by rcade at 6:47 PM on August 25, 2004


So we're burning vets now? I don't get it...
posted by wfrgms at 6:54 PM on August 25, 2004


"cohort" is plural, davidmsc. "Cleland and his cohort..."
posted by nicwolff at 6:55 PM on August 25, 2004




This must be that Max Cleland fellow who was trying to deliver a letter to Bush at his ranch. I heard of him, but never saw him before. Clinton said some interesting things to say about him when he was interviewed on the Daily Show. Torrent here.
posted by banished at 6:57 PM on August 25, 2004


Ya, I'd be pissed too if my poor son died for a rich man's money grab.
posted by fleener at 7:08 PM on August 25, 2004


Meaningless and manipulative, to me this sort of tactic speaks poorly of a candidate.

Stating this as fact doesn't make it so. Your comment is extremely vague. Explain yourself, please. Meaningless? We're taking about it, and so are the major news sites. Manipulative? Bush doing the obviously incompetant thing by ducking representatives of his opponent? Is that what you mean? How so? A little clarification is in order here, don't you think?
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:12 PM on August 25, 2004


Regarding the last link: The man was, I believe, attempting to immolate himself. Surely an irrational response borne out of incalculable grief. Also an incredible display of dissent.
posted by aladfar at 7:23 PM on August 25, 2004


Why did the talking heads recap while the words "Elderly Death" were on the screen behind them? Commentary from the producer?

I'm with mragreeable and davidmsc but very far from the dangerous sounding q
posted by geekyguy at 7:24 PM on August 25, 2004


"cohort" is plural, davidmsc. "Cleland and his cohort..."

you're nuts (or 2,000 years old). did you read the whole text of your link?

Seventy-one percent of the Usage Panel accepts the sentence The cashiered dictator and his cohorts have all written their memoirs, while only 43 percent accepts The gangster walked into the room surrounded by his cohort.

see second definition from the generally accepted standard modern dictionary. since Cleland's supporters aren't ancient Roman fighters nor do they share any obvious "statistical factors," the plural is correct, imo. they're not strictly "colleagues" but they fit the "companion" definition.

btw, did you know that the accepted plural of penis is penes?
posted by mrgrimm at 7:24 PM on August 25, 2004


rcade:the ineptitude of Bush's re-election operation
Ha ha! Seems to me that Kerry's re-election team is magnitudes-of-order more inept -- they just can't keep the Vietnam issue off of the front page, and it is NOT winning Kerry any new supporters.

Wulfgar!Explain yourself, please. Meaningless? We're taking about it, and so are the major news sites.
Yes, but...we and the major news sites were also talking about Paris Hiltons' cat the other day - doesn't mean that it isn't "meaningless."

nicwolff: "cohort" is plural, davidmsc. "Cleland and his cohort..."
I understand your point, but the link that you provided also allows for the plural: "Seventy-one percent of the Usage Panel accepts the sentence 'The cashiered dictator and his cohorts have all written their memoirs...'"

And it appears that mathowie and I actually agree, to some degree, on something political -- rather unusual, but appreciated.

Wow. What an interesting thread. Let's keep it going, gang!
posted by davidmsc at 7:28 PM on August 25, 2004


david, since when is it up to Kerry what gets on the front pages?
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on August 25, 2004


Max Cleland gets $136,000/year as direct Bush political appointee

Max will probably want to give all that back, right?
posted by dand at 7:38 PM on August 25, 2004


This all took place after W. condemned all attack ads. I imagine this was unwelcome news to Mr. Cleland, et al as they had planned this headline grab for days in advance no doubt.

Those crazy liberals!
posted by geekyguy at 7:38 PM on August 25, 2004


"cohort" is plural, davidmsc. "Cleland and his cohort..."

I beg your pardon, "cohort" is singular, it means "a close-knit group." It is perfectly possible to have more than one cohort.

The phrase "...and his cohorts" is iconic, and is meant to call up images of a military leader with his regiments, which "cohort" is an obsolete term for.


posted by hob at 7:46 PM on August 25, 2004


David - we and the major news sites were also talking about Paris Hiltons' cat the other day - doesn't mean that it isn't "meaningless."

Then obviously, it doesn't mean that "it" is. That would be why I asked the question. If this is meaningless, why are we discussing it? What about the character of this episode makes it lacking in meaning? It means something to me ... that Bush will duck and cover from those who challenge his role as leader and candidate. So why should I accept the claim that this is meaningless? Because it is implied as a possibility? No, thank you, no. You yourself called this an idiotic stunt, embarrassing and grand standing. That's not meaningless. So, explain to me like I'm a three year old, why is this meaningless?

And more significant is my question to Krrrlson: how is this manipulative? (Yes I'm well aware that the answer to that is fraught with all manner of dangers, but if you're going to assert something, you ought be able to argue the point, yes?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2004


Except he didn't, geekyguy. He never said anything about condemning "attack ads", he carefully stuck to talking about financing:

QUESTION: But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?

BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process.


Which, oddly enough, means he's changed his mind, now that it's convenient:

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election.
posted by ook at 7:58 PM on August 25, 2004


I am against the war (generally) but I think it's in incredibly bad taste to call the actions of a distraught father a protest against Bush, and even worse to use a cheesy semi-pun to do so.
posted by cell divide at 8:01 PM on August 25, 2004


This all took place after W. condemned all attack ads.
Um, he was lying. They've been trying for months to do exactly what MoveOn and other 527s have been doing, but failing, except for the Swift Boat Liars, of course. It takes some gall to condemn what your own supporters are doing, knowing they're not going to stop, and that you don't want them to stop at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:04 PM on August 25, 2004


Seems to me that Kerry's re-election team is magnitudes-of-order more inept -- they just can't keep the Vietnam issue off of the front page, and it is NOT winning Kerry any new supporters.

Vietnam is on the front pages because of a calculated effort by Republican fat cats (and no doubt Karl Rove) to put it there.

Besides, Vietnam is the briar patch and Kerry is brer rabbit. Throughout his career he has ended up the better for opponents trying to smear him over Vietnam, and it could easily happen again here.

Bush is practically begging the press to dredge up statements like this one: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
posted by rcade at 8:11 PM on August 25, 2004


Max Cleland gets $136,000/year as direct Bush political appointee

Max will probably want to give all that back, right?


Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to another episode of dand theater. Tonight, a tragic tale of obligation and woe. Lets begin ...

(fade to farm scene)

GW: Dammit Max, I held you to my heart, and gaves you a job when none else would. How can you so betray me nows?

Max: But boss, I'sa justa tryin to do the right thing, that which I believes in as a man ...

GW: Enough! You're dead to me now. I helped you, found you gainful work. How dare you wound me so!

Max: I'sa so sorry massa. So very very sorry.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:12 PM on August 25, 2004


...and the bush campaign is still, still milking the swift boat nonsense:

Q Scott, you described Patterson as a representative of the campaign. He was out there praising the most recent Swift Boat ads, calling it a very telling ad. Presumably that's at odds with what the President thinks.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think he was speaking as a veteran, Dana. And it articulates it in his letter. The President is going to continue to focus on the future and focus on his agenda for moving America forward.
Q He wasn't representing the campaign.
MR. McCLELLAN: He was speaking as a veteran, and the campaign helped coordinate today's activities. I'm sure they'll be glad to talk to you more about that.
Q Was he speaking for the campaign though, today?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was he speaking for the campaign today?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was speaking as a veteran. And the letter was signed by seven veterans.
Q It was drafted by the campaign --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q It was drafted by the campaign.
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you can talk to the campaign about all those details.


Unbelievable.
posted by ook at 8:16 PM on August 25, 2004


Karen and Karl discuss strategy
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on August 25, 2004


one more and then I'll stop rubbing it in, geekyguy -- but this one's pretty hilarious, actually, the sheer number of times McClellan dodges the question.
Q But he's not denouncing the specific charge within the ads?
MR. McCLELLAN: How many times are you going to ask the same question, Deb?
Q You didn't answer.
MR. McCLELLAN: That is the answer: Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft-money activity by these shadowy groups.


I know you were just quoting a headline. But sometimes it's helpful to, you know, read more than the headline. And stuff.
posted by ook at 8:29 PM on August 25, 2004


Am I the only one who doesn't get why the burning-father story is paired with the Max Cleland photo-op story?
posted by soyjoy at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2004


Stating this as fact doesn't make it so.

See that "to me" in my comment? That indicates that the comment reflects my opinion. Last time I checked, that was still allowed here.

Your comment is extremely vague. Explain yourself, please. Meaningless? We're taking about it, and so are the major news sites. Manipulative? Bush doing the obviously incompetant thing by ducking representatives of his opponent? Is that what you mean? How so? A little clarification is in order here, don't you think?

Since you are evidently dyin' to hear more of my opinion, Wulf, here ya go. The term meaningless reflects my belief that this is an empty gesture, something that should not serve as a reason to vote for Kerry because he sent an amputee with a letter, or against Bush because he didn't personally come out to greet said amputee. This is a stupid political game, not an indication of either candidate's merit. It is also meaningless because the solution, in my opinion, is to eliminate all 527's rather than harp on just one (I'm sure we've all seen budget comparisons for pro-Bush and pro-Kerry 527's, so it's not like the Democrats are at a disadvantage here). And I say this holding very little esteem for the Swifties or their MoveOn-esque counterpart groups.

Manipulative refers to the fact that I find it likely that the Kerry campaign organized this exclusively for the photo-op of Bush "turning away" a disabled vet as an emotional appeal to the public (this is supported by the link above that suggests someone did come out and offer an exchange of letters to Cleland). So because the entire thing is a meaningless gesture, such an emotional appeal is little more than a campaign ploy serving to manipulate public opinion.

There's the 3-year old level explanation you asked for. I would expect more from you, Wulf, than trusting a campaigning politician and his followers to be sincere.


It takes some gall to condemn what your own supporters are doing, knowing they're not going to stop, and that you don't want them to stop at all.

You're talking about Kerry, right?
posted by Krrrlson at 8:41 PM on August 25, 2004


MR. McCLELLAN: That is the answer: Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft-money activity by these shadowy groups.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING: G.O.P. Group Says It's Ready to Wage Ad War (NYT-8/25)
Some Republicans have said the organization gained steam last year when Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political strategist, and Ken Mehlman, his campaign manager, spoke at a briefing for Progress for America, a separate organization that formed the Voter Fund last May.
The fund now plans to use the Republican convention to raise still more money, setting up at the Ritz Carlton, where top fund-raisers are staying, to tap as many rich Republicans as they can.

posted by amberglow at 8:43 PM on August 25, 2004


MR. McCLELLAN: That is the answer: Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft-money activity by these shadowy groups.

ook, the only you missed was pointing out that the 527 groups collecting "soft money" aren't unregulated OR shadowy, as per the McCain Feingold campaign finance law which Bush signed and was in total favor of ... until it started to work against his flip-flopping coward ass.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:49 PM on August 25, 2004


The term meaningless reflects my belief that this is an empty gesture, something that should not serve as a reason to vote for Kerry because he sent an amputee with a letter, or against Bush because he didn't personally come out to greet said amputee. This is a stupid political game, not an indication of either candidate's merit.

No, its a rather smart political game, precisely because gits like you will refer to Cleland as "an amputee" rather than the capable veteran and US Senator that he is(was). Its an astute political move because the candidate that refuses contact with the other is the loser. Now who would that be?

It is also meaningless because the solution, in my opinion, is to eliminate all 527's rather than harp on just one

My opinion, which I'm sure you're just dying to hear, is that that stance is pig-headed and anti-American. We should be able to help the cause or candidate of our choice, regardless of who is ahead in dollars. That's Democracy at its finest. On this, we strongly disagree. However, the fact that it is an issue between us, *proves* that it isn't meaningless at all, and so neither is the the discord between Bush and Kerry concerning negative campaing ads.

Manipulative refers to the fact that I find it likely that the Kerry campaign organized this exclusively for the photo-op of Bush "turning away" a disabled vet as an emotional appeal to the public (this is supported by the link above that suggests someone did come out and offer an exchange of letters to Cleland).

Excuse me, but that's political theater, cupcake. Its been going for years. And, I would like to posit that if Bush, knowing as the rest of us did, that this was about to play out on his doorstep still acted the arrogant fool by not receiving Cleland, then Bush is an idiot, hardly worth our consideration as a leader. Manipulative? You bet. Bush got 0wnZ3red. If you haven't figured out by now that all campaigning is an appeal to public sympathy, then I really pity you. Voting is all about public opinion, or haven't you noticed?

Krrrlson, despite your sarcasm, I really do expect more from you, and honestly hope for it. I, and you should too, do trust a campaigning politician to be just that. That you expect them to be philosopher gods, morally above the public they must serve, is juvenile. Don't do that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:12 PM on August 25, 2004


I did consider replacing "shadowy" with "fnord" but wasn't sure enough people would get the joke.

Krrrlson: you're absolutely right. It's sheer political gamesmanship, on both sides; it has nothing to do with the each candidate's merits. Except that whoever wins, his job is going to be, well, mostly political gamesmanship. So maybe it is relevant. Which is a damn crying shame, I agree.
posted by ook at 9:16 PM on August 25, 2004


The comparisons between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn are a stretch. MoveOn was not formed for this presidential campaign to spread dubious allegations about one candidate that completely fall apart under scrutiny.

If you're going to make this issue one about bad 527s, please find one on the Democratic side that's as loose with the truth and as much of a hit-and-run effort as these Swift Boat creeps.
posted by rcade at 9:17 PM on August 25, 2004


Right on, rcade. Because of a tendency Josh Marshall has well enunciated, somewhere, of the media's lazy reaching for false equivalencies, "fair and balanced" this-vs-that stories, these two, SBVT and moveon, are being equated. Any time that happens, even implicitly, Bush is winning this carefully crafted war of misdirection. The two organizations are miles apart in many important characteristics (beyond ideology, of course). So watch out for letting that casual equivalency slip by in conversation or, well, here.

But there's a further misdirection, because even ignoring MoveOn, the argument that the sleazy SBVT ads are an indicator that we should abolish 527s is also bullshit. What they're an indicator of is the need for truth in political speech, for the media to enforce it through clear-eyed coverage, and for a transparent connection between ads and their sponsors. With those as a premise, 527s could be a great idea. Or maybe not. We could debate it then. But let's not confuse that debate with the one about why SBVT specifically are so bad as to deserve censure and injunction.

(Still don't get what the fire-setting-guy has to do with any of this)
posted by soyjoy at 10:02 PM on August 25, 2004


Meaningless and manipulative, to me this sort of tactic speaks poorly of a candidate.

Stating this as fact doesn't make it so. Your comment is extremely vague. Explain yourself, please. Meaningless? We're taking about it, and so are the major news sites. Manipulative? Bush doing the obviously incompetant thing by ducking representatives of his opponent? Is that what you mean? How so? A little clarification is in order here, don't you think?


The move was rather asture, as it again demonstrates Kerry's determination to focus on important, current matters, and not dwell on his noble but brief, distant Nam experience.

And Bush indeed screwed up, not realizing that it is his duty to not simply jump when asked to by his loyal opponent, but to yell, "How high?"
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:07 PM on August 25, 2004


And Bush indeed screwed up, not realizing that it is his duty to not simply jump when asked to by his loyal opponent, but to yell, "How high?"

Heh. What a remarkable reframing of the debate. Bush hides in his citadel while his opponent asks him to denounce lies, and Ayn finds this noble. Agreed, Ayn, nobility shouldn't answer to anybody. Nobility shouldn't respond to the populace, or the Congress, or Veteran heroes, or any that recognize lies over truth, right?

Do you go to sleep at night thinking, "gee, fascism sure makes things simple"? I'm just wondering.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:19 PM on August 25, 2004


I must correct davidmsc's terrible mistake earlier. Dude, you are so out of touch with reality. It was Paris's dog not cat. Get a dang life already. On with your chit-chat.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:27 PM on August 25, 2004


And for the life of me, I can't find a meaning for "asture". Did you mean that, or did you mean "astute" or something else? Make your point, clearly please.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:27 PM on August 25, 2004


Are any of Bush's defenders here millionaires? You know I've asked this question a number of times in a number of threads and have never heard an answer, not from one of you. A show of hands, please. I'm sincere.

Otherwise please consider: you. are. being. hopelessly. manipulated. and. are. victims. of. orchestrated. persuasion. and. propaganda.
posted by Peter H at 10:52 PM on August 25, 2004


I'd love to see Cleland get his vengeance on Bush kung fu style, just like in the movie Mr. No Legs.
posted by jonp72 at 10:54 PM on August 25, 2004


Wulfgar!, I don't know how you missed it - asture is a lot of astute mixed with a good bit of austere with just a soupcon of azure tossed in at the last moment. Mmmmm. Asture.

And it is important that it was Paris Hilton's dog rathe r than cat. When's that book comin' out, anyway?
posted by soyjoy at 11:16 PM on August 25, 2004


No, its a rather smart political game, precisely because gits like you will refer to Cleland as "an amputee" rather than the capable veteran and US Senator that he is(was). Its an astute political move because the candidate that refuses contact with the other is the loser.

Who are gits like me? Canadians with no voting power in the States? I don't get it. Sounds like you're voicing your own unsupported opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

My opinion... is that that stance is pig-headed and anti-American. We should be able to help the cause or candidate of our choice, regardless of who is ahead in dollars.

So the side with the most money can rally the most publicity. Yes, that is American in a way, but it is not one of the better sides of America.

However, the fact that it is an issue between us, *proves* that it isn't meaningless at all...

If you can't see that we differ in our interpretation of the word semantically, then our continued dwelling on this is pointless. If you can see it, then our continued dwelling on this is pointless.

Excuse me, but that's political theater, cupcake. Its been going for years.

If you'll notice, that's exactly what I said. The difference is that I hold the concept of political theater in high contempt.

And, I would like to posit that if Bush, knowing as the rest of us did, that this was about to play out on his doorstep still acted the arrogant fool by not receiving Cleland, then Bush is an idiot, hardly worth our consideration as a leader.

While others will hear of Patterson speaking to Cleland, and others yet will see it as a dishonest ploy by Kerry. And, depending on how the press spin it, it might be a non-story. But to suggest that this event is enough to determine the leader of the world's most powerful nation is just silly.

Bush got 0wnZ3red.

You see these? They are not tears. I am vomiting from my eyes.

I, and you should too, do trust a campaigning politician to be just that. That you expect them to be philosopher gods, morally above the public they must serve, is juvenile. Don't do that.

I said I don't trust a campaigning politician to be sincere. How you derive all that from my statement is uncanny.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:46 PM on August 25, 2004


Ayn, what are you doing posting here? You still have some proof to show in another thread.
posted by Vidiot at 12:04 AM on August 26, 2004


whether he will try and capitalize on his son's death the way Nick Berg's father has

do you mean the way the GOP has capitalized on the 3,000 WTC dead in these least 3 years, right? the way they used those charred corpses as political lubricant to ram down America's and the world's throat the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq based on cooked Chalabi evidence, etc? do you mean that? OK then, I agree with you.

Jesus Christ, to have the gall to criticize a man who had to watch his son's beheading is, frankly, beyond the pale. but I understand our resident right-wingers' fear that President Kerry won't slaughter/torture/rape as many Muslims as Bush is doing right now. I understand your worry, so you probably have the right to a bit snippy. whether it's the father of a beheaded-on-video kid or a crippled Vietnam vet, well, they're just fodder for your hate. after all they're obstacles to the future invasion of Iran (the neocon new game plan), after America is attacked again
posted by matteo at 1:22 AM on August 26, 2004


Krrrison,

Eliminating 527s is political hypocrisy. As is lumping all the 527s together as "shadow organizations". Anyone that contributes $200 or more to a 527 has to be disclosed to the IRS

If President Bush was serious about this, he'd be talking about the 501(c)s which have no such disclosure rules. By the way, MoveOn.org is a 501(c). The MoveOn.org Voter Fund is a 527.

If you look at a list of 527s, you'll see groups like the Oregon Grocery Assn, the American Dental Assn, and the Michigan Automobile Dealers Assn. Do you really want to stifle the ability of groups like these to speak? Are you really advocating that 527s should be eliminated even when the result is to give wealthy individuals the advantage over small groups? I think we've already seen how that turns out.

Political speech is a good thing, although it would help if the media would live up to their constitutional watchdog duties and actually do something to keep us informed.
posted by froz at 1:31 AM on August 26, 2004


MetaFilter: These are not tears. I am vomiting from my eyes.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:46 AM on August 26, 2004


May I respectfully suggest that parties refrain from putting words into the mouths of those they consider their oponents.
Talking at each other, rather than with each other is not going to promote good debate.

However, this post was designed as a 'flytrap' to some extent, and as such has developed into an ugly quagmire. Sounds familiar...
posted by asok at 5:18 AM on August 26, 2004


I don't see this part in most of the new reports:

Texas state official and Vietnam veteran Jerry Patterson said the Bush campaign asked him to travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland and accept his letter to Bush.

“I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me,” said Patterson. “He kept rolling away from me. He’s quite mobile.”

Patterson, who spoke with the president by phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

“You can’t have it both ways,” the letter said. “You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up.”


Patterson tried to make a swap, a letter for a letter, but Cleland didn't want that.
posted by tomplus2 at 5:24 AM on August 26, 2004


“You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up.”

...

BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process.

Wow, talk about having it both ways.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:52 AM on August 26, 2004


Cleland should have worn an Ed McMahon mask, dressed his crew like the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol and written the letter on the back of a big check... Bush surely would have let him in then.

The Patterson thing made me laugh. I caught the Cleland speech on CNN and right after he was done, poor Patterson started to speak and then stopped immediately as he realized the media was leaving to chase Cleland for a statement.

I can only imagine all of the Bush people holed up in Crawford, frantically going through their Rolodex looking for a veteran they can trot out to deflect Cleland at the last minute. I guess Bob Dole must have been busy or something.
posted by MegoSteve at 5:54 AM on August 26, 2004


“You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up.”

Since when is Kerry saying that only vets that agree with him can speak up? Isn't that what's Bush doing--trying to shut down free speech by calling for all the 527s to go away?

Kerry's saying you shouldn't lie, especially when the official record, and your past statements, say something other than what the ads and book say now. He's also saying that the Bush campaign created this group, which is illegal--something else borne out by the facts.
posted by amberglow at 5:54 AM on August 26, 2004


Once again the cowardly yellow bellied snake Dubya had someone else do his fighting for him.

And against a crippled veteran! Way to defend the troops!

He needs to quit hiding behind his daddy's legs and stand on his own 4.

This crap of attempting to smear all 527s with the Swift Boat Liars for Bush dung just ain't gonna work.

They're the only dirty ones and they have been proven to have direct links to the Bush campaign, just like all the previous Bush campaign smears of past elections.

There's literally hundreds of great 527s out there telling something the Bush clan doesn't understand: the truth.

How on earth can the Defenders Of All Things Dubya hold their heads up and still pretend such dirty tactics are OK or "everybody does it" is beyond all rational thought.
Delusional they are.
Cognitive dissonance personified.
posted by nofundy at 6:20 AM on August 26, 2004


When's that book comin' out, anyway?

Wednesday. But you can pre-order it now!
posted by jpoulos at 6:36 AM on August 26, 2004


Grammarfilter...

"cohort" is plural, davidmsc. "Cleland and his cohort..."

you're nuts (or 2,000 years old). did you read the whole text of your link?

Seventy-one percent of the Usage Panel accepts the sentence The cashiered dictator and his cohorts have all written their memoirs, while only 43 percent accepts The gangster walked into the room surrounded by his cohort.


Cohort is a collective noun. It is not plural. It would be perfectly correct to say that "both gangster walked into the room surrounded by their cohorts."
posted by 327.ca at 7:30 AM on August 26, 2004


If Bush Can't Handle a Legless Man, How's He Going to Handle the Terrorists?

Hey, ya can't have it both ways, remember?
posted by soyjoy at 7:55 AM on August 26, 2004


Rove's strategy of turning the Kerry request to denounce the Swift Boat ads into an attack against all 527s was brilliant. Of course the Swift Boat ads differ in that they are pure smear, and smear about a somewhat politically sensitive area, military service. They are also false. However, in a quick sound bite the reversal works. The best defense against the Swift Boat ads is to reveal their lies. Of course Bush's best strategy, now that the damage is already done to Kerry, would probably be to specifically denounce the Swift Boat ads without admitting that they are lies, as opposed to his generic denouncement of all 527 ads, and keep the issue of Vietnam service out of the debate.
posted by caddis at 8:11 AM on August 26, 2004


No, its a rather smart political game, precisely because gits like you will refer to Cleland as "an amputee" rather than the capable veteran and US Senator that he is(was)

Are you suggesting that we weren't supposed to look at Cleland as a noble and brave amputee first and whatever else he is second when he was dispatched to Crawford? If the goal was simply to send a message to Bush, why couldn't some able-bodied Dem vet who is supporting Kerry carry the letter?
posted by Dreama at 9:01 AM on August 26, 2004


you. are. being. hopelessly. manipulated. and. are. victims. of. orchestrated. persuasion. and. propaganda.

The more periods you put into it, the truer it gets!
posted by kindall at 9:19 AM on August 26, 2004


do you mean the way the GOP has capitalized on the 3,000 WTC dead in these least 3 years, right? the way they used those charred corpses as political lubricant to ram down America's and the world's throat the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq based on cooked Chalabi evidence, etc? do you mean that? OK then, I agree with you.

Strike the "cooked Chalabi evidence" from your statement as selective and misleading, and we agree. Isn't that great?

Jesus Christ, to have the gall to criticize a man who had to watch his son's beheading is, frankly, beyond the pale... snippy... fodder for your hate... neocon plan...

Oh wait, you're just here to hurl insults again. I feel so let down after that first paragraph. For reference, the way the older Berg has flogged his own son's death (last time I checked, Bush never lost a child in the WTC attacks), makes me far less sympathetic to him as a person, and I will criticize him when I so choose. It became clear very quickly that Michael Berg's actions were not ones of a grieving father seeking justice, but of a hardened political radical seizing an opportunity. You may now resume your hypocrisy outrage.


Political speech is a good thing, although it would help if the media would live up to their constitutional watchdog duties and actually do something to keep us informed.

Sadly, I find the media to be failing spectacularly. Suggestions? I object to groups like the 527's in principle, because I feel that the messages in a campaign should come from the candidates, not from often questionable third parties.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:33 AM on August 26, 2004


the messages in a campaign should come from the candidates, not from often questionable third parties

but what happens when the candidates' messages are the only ones to be heard, and the corporate media (granted ownership of public airwaves with the promise of serving the "public interest") regurgitates those messages ad infinitum (we're getting closer).

as long as free speech == spending as much money as you want on media placement, independently funded, non-partisan organizations are essential to the political debate.

SBV should be able to run whatever ads they want. if they're lying, they should be sued for slander (or libel, depending on the form). GWB should have spoken out against the ads and against attacks on Kerry's military for political reasons (i think SVB will backfire mightily), but i don't blame him for avoiding the subject. i do blame him for his idiocy and utter hypocrisy regarding campaign-finance reform and 527 organizations.

the most depressing part (to me) about this brouhaha is the ratings-based news media that help create and sustain it (not to mention the voters who might decide their vote on this "issue.")
posted by mrgrimm at 3:28 PM on August 26, 2004


but what happens when the candidates' messages are the only ones to be heard, and the corporate media (granted ownership of public airwaves with the promise of serving the "public interest") regurgitates those messages ad infinitum (we're getting closer).

Okay, so how about a situation where the candidates are forced to be responsible for the political message carried by their campaign? Any third party campaigning for a candidate is considered to be officially endorsed by the candidate unless said candidate expressly states otherwise. One could argue that such a rule implicitly exists, but I would formalize it, with candidates facing legal responsibility unless they dissociate themselves from a "friendly" organization. This way, Bush could not avoid denouncing the Swifties specifically, just as Kerry would probably have to distance himself from his more radical supporters.

as long as free speech == spending as much money as you want on media placement, independently funded, non-partisan organizations are essential to the political debate.

As I see it, they're essential to free speech, not necessarily to the political debate (considering the degree of irrelevance/mudslinging they often seem to introduce).

the most depressing part (to me) about this brouhaha is the ratings-based news media that help create and sustain it (not to mention the voters who might decide their vote on this "issue.")

Agreed.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:43 PM on August 26, 2004


This all took place after W. condemned all attack ads.

Sure, why shouldn't he... he's already gotten all the mileage he wants out of them, he might as well attack them now. It's kinda like leading the War on Drugs now that his dalliance with the old Peruvian Marching Powder is a thing of the past.
posted by clevershark at 11:39 PM on August 26, 2004


hardened political radical

I done gone and laughed out loud reading that phrase. Good one!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:33 AM on August 27, 2004


« Older Open Your Eyes, and Focus On Your World   |   Scrubblogging Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post