This sucks.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 09:46 AM

spam?

how do you get spam from this?

Posted by: jack at February 13, 2004 10:02 AM

I don’t know if it is spam. You have to sign up to be on the list and ask for emails.

A small point.

Posted by: jones at February 13, 2004 10:06 AM

Cap’n;

Why?

Posted by: Sunami at February 13, 2004 10:10 AM

True … but I can already see the 6 million people on the list being enlisted in “send this to all your friends” efforts, and that would, in my mind, create spam.

Posted by: Alan at February 13, 2004 10:11 AM

Sunami It’s crap. Is that all that politics is any more? Get down in the freakin’ gutter and find out how deep the mud really is. Despicable. Meanwhile, Massachusetts decides whether or not there is any room for compromise on this matter of ‘civil unions’. Wow.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 10:14 AM

“Say one thing and do another.” Bush’s words; Bush’s actions.

Omigod, pandering to special interests. Bush would never do that. And if he ever did, he would honestly and forthrightly own up to it. In a pig’s eye!

This election is simple…ABB, this is a bunch of liars. Last time we had”Throw Clinton Out/Gore Too” 2004 - “This one can’t be trusted either.”

Sling away, the best mud’s in the gutter. The more mud, the less participation. The less participation, the more media. The more media, the more money, lies and photo opps. Screw it…let’s get the Journalism Schools from Austin and UMass to meet in a mud war. Sideline events—Wild On America and The Price is Right.

George, Abe, Alex, Andy, Ulysses and Ben for President - The best democracy money can buy.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 10:33 AM

I’m with you DOC. No substance, just mud.

From the Buying of the President

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 10:42 AM

So, where were/are all the objections to the mud-slinging “Bush was AWOL” crap. ? Cheney/Haliburton ? No Blood for Oil ? and a million other electioneering tactics, “official” or not.

To this outside of observer, I see a nation of hypocrites and fools.

To Anthony and Carl, a video showing Kerry’s political record of behavior is worse than a video equating Bush with Hitler, worse than calling Bush a deserter, worse than accusations that Bush went to war with Iraq for personal financial gain.

Have you all gone completely mad?

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 10:55 AM

” Bush was AWOL” crap. “

You think it’s mudslinging? Is it true?

There’s truth, lies and finally there is deception. Worse of all is the deception; a lie wrap as truth.

I’d like the truth from both sides.

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 11:41 AM

// To Anthony and Carl, a video showing Kerry’s political record of behavior //

I’d like to see that video? Where can I get a copy?

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 11:43 AM

Anthony I notice there are a few outfits hedging their bets. So to speak. :o) A guy has to be almost an Investigator of Some Consequence to be able to determine whom to vote for. Sweet.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 11:48 AM

wow and this is just starting!!!

I object to “No Blood For Oil”.

Cheney/Halliburton - no objections. He was CEO. Halliburton appears to be getting special treatment and overcharging. Looks like there might be a connection. Just because he’s the Republican VP doesn’t make him immune (think back, remember Spiro?)

Bush was AWOL/deserted - no objections. The WH’s handling this is either surprisingly inept or indicative of the problem. He was gone. He was gone for months. And the best you can do is give us a dental record? And say that answers everything? When we’ve got two NG generals saying otherwise? AWOL/desertion have strict UCMJ definitions. did he did or did he didn’t?

Never saw any of those videos. Don’t know what you’re talking about. Never complained about Kerry videos. Would question the sanity of anyone equating Bush with Hitler.

Bush went to war for personal financial gain— wouldn’t support it, but wouldn’t be surprised either. Apparently, many of your fellow Americans agree with me — we don’t know why we went to war. We know what happened—we got one of the nastiest critters on the planet. We just don’t why we went. Bush says one thing, and then he says another, and then he says another. Here’s what he didn’t say (‘cuz he might have gotten in trouble)…we are going to war to get Saddam.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 11:51 AM

DOC, you tawkin’

Here’s the deal. What does one research? Anthony has got this one right…de name a de game is de ception.

Mark my words…ABB 2004; let’s get a new liar.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 11:54 AM

For what it’s worth, you can check out the video for yourself here. (Yes, I’m one of those lucky 6 million).

Posted by: Crank at February 13, 2004 12:05 PM

Carl- The way the media has been handling the AWOL thing has been a joke. They have been pouncing all over the president for no reason other than to try and harm him. He was HONORABLY discharged. ‘nuf said. If was AWOL he would not have been. Finally, read htis letter to the editor from one of Bush’s co-guardsmen..it should clear things up for you:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 12:08 PM

I am probably the only sane person
here, or it sometimes seems that way.

How do you like that for “hubris”? Ha!

It is on the same level as some of those
TOTALLY ABSURD campaign accusations.

I do not have a lot of time today, but
the Dems are now and have been
lying on this Haliburton stuff and they
have KNOWN IT ALL ALONG. It is
TOTALLY a lie and TOTALLY political
as far as Bush and “personal financial
gain”. He owns no stock there, etc.

The Army Corp of Engineers is a self-
contained bureaucracy. None of them
ever do anything intelligent

However, their use of Halliburton and
their KBR subsidiary is documented
as being used in Kosovo in the 1990’s.

I have seen some reports of their
government contracts dating back to
the 1970’s, LONG BEFORE either Bush
and Cheney (or even Reagan).

These are specialized companies with
specialized skills that have been used
by ALL admistrations for years. That will
most likely continue for the next 10 to
30 years or so, unless some other
business can do what they do. Perhaps!
But I doubt it.

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 13, 2004 12:09 PM

OK look, we went to war because of 911. Terrorist attacks against western targets were clearly escalating. Small bombs and hijackings going on to massive casualties in embassy bombings and then 911. What’s next? Even bigger casualties - nukes or bio. Look ahead, think about it. A logical progression. Strike now, take out a dodgy dictator with the capability to supply WMD, set up a democracy in the heart of the middle east. Engage and defeat the extremists on the battlefield of our choosing. Pull out from Saudi Arabia and set up the fortress’s in Iraq. Spread western style culture , specifically religous tolerance, secular government, law and order, prosperity. A crusade to free the entire ME from the mire of Islamic extremism and poverty and oppression.
It’s aggressive, it’s noble, it might just work.

Posted by: AngloAmerikan at February 13, 2004 12:26 PM

Crank:

Thanks for the link. I already saw this video this morning. I’m not one of the 6 million, but I just followed the links to Bush’s campaign website. You’ve seen the video. Do you think it is “a video showing Kerry’s political record of behavior?” I certainly don’t think so. Lots of inuendo though. The video accuses Kerry of being into Special Interest, Paybacks, and Unprincipled.

Now those of you from the ‘is is’ crowd will tell me that the video never said that. You’re right — the video only questions Kerry on these issues with question marks — Special Interest? Paybacks?Unprincipled?

This video is poorly done. Seems like a rope-a-dope to me. Far from being Karl’s best.

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 12:33 PM

Halliburton has been working closely with the White House since before the Vietnam War. It was receiving no-bid contracts before Bush was ever in office.

How people can twist this into a Bush-Cheney thing is beyond me. It was a long-standing business relationship, not something initiated when Cheney came into office. If you want to start complaining about Halliburton, you need to go back in time and talk to Johnson. He faced similar allegations: “Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam — allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering. Back then, the company’s close ties to President Johnson became a liability.”

Do some googling… and please, place blame where it belongs. If you consider the Halliburton thing to be an issue, take a look at history.

Posted by: Alex Dale at February 13, 2004 01:07 PM

If John Kerry sets himself up as the enemy of special interests at the same time that he’s receiving special-interest money, then he deserves all the drubbing that the Republicans can dish out. Politics is a contact sport, and I would expect no less from the Democrats. This means that it’s up to the American people to do a little homework and determine who’s playing fair and who’s fighting dirty, but that’s the way it’s ALWAYS been.

And if you want an example of fighting dirty, you need look no further than this whole GWB/National Guard furor. That’s some below-the-belt stuff right there.

Posted by: Curt at February 13, 2004 01:35 PM

Excellent point Cap’n.

A war president parading around the Lincoln in a flight suit, making premature proclamations of misson accomplished, and wrapping himself in the flag deserves to have his military credential examined, and scrutinized Al.

The sad fact the George’s curious service in the National Guard is less than honorable is a CRITICAL issue for American voters, the had previously been swept off the radar, and is only now receiving the scrutiny it deserves.

Your visionary soothsaying AngloAmerikan glorifying the insane delusions of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda as “aggressive” “noble” and “it might just work” is a partisan hollow ridiculous pipedream.

It will never work. Empire is econmically unsustainable, morally repugnant, and essentially un-American. America cannot impose democracy on the ME militarily. We cannot neiher afford the enormous costly and suffer the horrendous bloodletting necessary to impose and maintain empire.

As carl Anthony and others point out, - you rely on pretty patriotic promises, visionary hopes, wildly imaginative prognostications - and totally ignore the past and present facts and hard realities of the situation today in Iraq and the ME. It’s the difference between fact and fiction. Bush says one thing does another, - promises all kinds of Pax Americana pipedreams, - but delivers division, deception, and heaps the enormous costs in blood and money for an agenda bent on neverendingwar, and empire on America’s children.

Like the Bush government, you are woefully misguided with regard to the realities of Islam, war, empire, American supremecy, and the political, cultural, religious, and economic hornets nest in the ME.

Forget the delusion phatasmagoria of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda. This OSP myth and delusion fantasy is structurally flawed in and unrealizable.

History is strewn with the rubble and bones of failed empires, and America cannot afford, realistically achieve, or in good conscience countenance world domination. It’s insane, and delusional.

Sorry for drifting off topic.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 13, 2004 01:44 PM

A war president, who is a trained pilot, parading around in a flight suit? What is this world coming to! That’s like a general talking about his medals or wearing his dress uniform while running for office… something we see all the time.

Bush never claimed to be a war hero, he doesn’t claim anything other than he fulfilled the duty that was expected of him by his government… what exactly is he saying that he did, that you are saying he did not do? He was in a unit that was designed to defend America against bomber attacks, not a unit that would be needed in Vietnam, and he was more interested in working on political campaigns (that was common at the time), and he was not doing anything useful sitting around at an air force base. Tell me exactly what you are accusing him of, without hyperbole or “suggestions,” so it can actually be discussed…

Tony: “Your visionary soothsaying AngloAmerikan glorifying the insane delusions of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda as “aggressive” “noble” and “it might just work” is a partisan hollow ridiculous pipedream.”

Can’t you express yourself better than that? Avoid using three adjectives where one will do, avoid purposeful mispellings that expose your disdain (AngloAmerikan), and stop putting words in peoples’ mouths. These are three things that will make your arguments readable, and hopefully understandable.

What makes you think America is building an empire, Tony? Have you read the Atlantic Charter? Have you seen any signs that we are annexing land?

One more: “The sad fact the George’s curious service in the National Guard is less than honorable…”

Fact? When did accusations become fact? Can you point to one REAL thing he did that is “less than honorable,” or are you going to fall back on the “it just doesn’t feel right to me” claim?

Posted by: Alex Dale at February 13, 2004 02:26 PM

“And the allegation might be true. OR NOT. It just hangs there like a pile of crud.” - carl

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 02:37 PM

quiz for our Boys Bent on Bush:

I’ve posed the question-what are y’all so proud of- and there has not been a single answer. Maybe that’s because it was “essay” and you do your best work on “multiple guess” or “true/false”.

Part I
I support President Bush and think he should be re-elected because:
A - some bad, crazy people attacked our country and (your choice-i’m angry; Bush has shown that he will protect us; Bush captured a nasty leader who is from a similar culture to the bad crazies; a Republican is better in a war situation; i don’t believe that any of the Democrats will do what needs to be done, or other ________________.)
B - I believe in the Republican vision of less government and more individual initiative.
C - I believe that the economic policies of the Bush administration make sense and are good for America long term, short term or both.
D - I believe that President Bush is likeable personally.
E - I don’t want a Democrat for President.
F - He’s the President. During a time of war, we should put aside our differences and give him our full support.
G - (your choice __________________________)

Part II
I am, the people around me are, and the country is better off than we were when Bush became President. (True/False)

Part III
Extra credit
Regarding Part II, how?

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 02:41 PM

It’s hillarious seeing a liberal trying to pretend he understands us conservatives and tosses a quiz that doesn’t even come close to defining who we are. There’s no point in answering that quiz… May as well toss it in the garbage.

If you want to understand us you only need to ask us what we think the role of government is. That is the only question that needs to be asked.

In terms of us being ‘bent’ on Bush? Not hardly. We are either going to vote for Bush that Big Spending, Deficit Skyrocketing, Illegal Immigration Kissing, Yasser Arafat Be-friending, Israeli Military Power Squelcher, Texas Republican who has only done 2 things right so far (tax cuts and war on terrorism (except for Israeli/palestinian conflict)).

A lot of us Republicans are absolutely upset that we do not have a Ronald Reaganesque president to choose. We would love to take Bush’s Testosterone and stick it into a Libertarian.

But on the plus side carl at least the economy is now booming and improving. 112,000 jobs created last month! My brother is finding tons of jobs and he would already be hired if he didn’t have obligations to live in Michigan still. The jobs are outside of Michigan:-(

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 13, 2004 02:53 PM

CERDIP-
I’m honored that you got my civics lesson.

Here’s another one in the actual context and intent as the quote you’re bastardizing:

Matt Drudge - rumor has it that some people in the country don’t like Bush.

Bill O’Reilly - this just in…Matt Drudge has another breaking story about a handful of unpatriotic people expressing discontent over the sacrifice the President and his administration have made to keep this country safe.

CERDIP writes…this is ridiculous that someone would plant a rumor like “this discontentment with Bush administration.”

Ann Coulter - true believer Republican writes of ridiculousness and discontentment with Bush Adminstration. If dues paying Republicans are going to act this way, then they should be outsted from the party. The Republican name is copyrighted and they should not be allowed to utter the word. False advertising and giving the GOP a bad name.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 02:59 PM

Well, I’ll tell you one thing you can take to the bank: I’m not gonna be voting for Bush this coming November.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 03:00 PM

Thanks Jeff.

Finally someone with hair. Believe it or not, you took the quiz and passed it.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 03:02 PM

CERDIP

WHAT????!!!! I had you so wrong. my apologies. Am i reading your post correctly?

What are you going to do?

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 03:04 PM

It’s really smart on Bush’s part. Have you ever noticed that he never personally talks shit about anyone, ever? It’s one of the things about which people underestimate him so much.

Kerry’s out there saying the worst things about Bush he can get away with and more. What Bush knows that Kerry apparently doesn’t is that there is a segment of the population that finds derrogatory talk of other people, including political opponents, as inherently rude. For these people, it won’t matter whether or not what Kerry is saying is true, they’ll vote against Kerry simply because they perceive him as an asshole.

Regards/
jackson.

Posted by: jackson zed at February 13, 2004 03:05 PM

That’s right carl - I’m not gonna be voting for Bush this coming November. Ya gotta check your assumptions.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 03:21 PM

One thing about Bush,

He said some things about Gore. Not personal, not cruel. At the debate he was asked about them and repeated them to Gore’s face. Gore, was sliming Bush left and right and having his minions do it. Then when asked to W’s face, he backed down.

CERDIP,

If you are in Chicago in November, even you can vote. ;)

Posted by: jones at February 13, 2004 03:48 PM

CERDIP LOL. You’re bein’ a GOOD American again, eh?
You gotta remember, Carl hangs around a bunch of sheep. I take that back A LOT of sheep. Of course, the last time I was by, I didn’t see many sheep, just a bunch of SpeedGoats. FastFood. LOL.

Carl I hope you don’t take offense at my humor. It’s European in origin…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 03:52 PM

To: Boys Bent on Bush (or Bent Over for Bush)
Subject: The hits just keep right on comin’

CERDIP, i guess this applies to the 51st state, too.

U.S. Trade Deficit Hit Record High in ‘03 - link

But gee, Mr. Mankiw, that’s good, ain’t it? Don’t that mean that the economy is up? Don’t we need more people to drive my contributors around in their Lexuses?

Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me? I just wanted a shot at the public hog tro…er, service.

He’s got his eyes closed and his hands off the wheel. Sorry don’t have a link, CERDIP that’s my opinion. And I’m hoping to high heavens that a smidgeon of the stink sticks.

out of touch elites for Bush - we know better than you do

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 04:29 PM

Well, when an economy recovers from a slump, the trade imbalance always goes the wrong way. If consumers don’t spend more abroad, they spend it locally. IF they spend locally, then suppliers and manufacturers have to go abroad to fill the demand.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 04:36 PM

Serious question…

Isn’t it common political wisdom that this “slam the other guy” approach is a sign of desperation?

It seems to me that i’ve heard that the best approach for the sitting President is to be Presidential as long as possible.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 04:39 PM

From the trade imbalance story - “The increase in overall exports was helped by a weaker U.S. dollar, which makes U.S. goods less expensive and thus more competitive in world markets, and improving economic times abroad.”

there’s a foreign policy plan that includes making friends abroad after all.

Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 04:48 PM

Carl,

It strikes me as odd, too, that the Bush camp would pick this, of all issues, for their opening salvo. I’ve got to think the Kerry camp is screaming “Bring it on.”

I used to think Bush’s handlers were smarter than he was. Is it possible I was wrong?

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 07:19 PM

Todd: They are trying to draw Kerry’s fire. Trying to get a sense of what he’s got. Maybe even fdraw him into making a mistake. There are so many military folks here, I’m sure a few of you could comment on tactics.

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 07:25 PM

Hey, while we’re on the topic of smearing folks, I came across this neat strategy from Moby (the bald techno music artist and first rank Bushater)

“You target [Bush’s] natural constituencies,” says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.

What a charming guy. (Link to Jonah Goldberg posting in NRO/The Corner).

My suggestion to the left half of the blogosphere - disavow Moby and knock this off now. Two can play at this game. Disgusting? Yes, but I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 13, 2004 07:58 PM

Lewy14,
If you are not into unilateral disarmament, who will you disavow. I may be able to broker a deal for you with this Moby thing.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 08:07 PM

Todd, I’m open to suggestions.

FWIW I really don’t see what’s so egregious about the ad which is the topic of this post. Maybe, as you point out, that it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, maybe not too bright - then again, Bush is not running on Shrum’s populist platitudes, and Kerry is. I’m astonished that Kerry’s special interest ties are even news to anyone.

What’s a special interest, anyway? I recall that Gephardt asked “are teachers a special interest? Are unions a special interest”? To which I would answer, yeah, they are.

But back to who to disavow - I don’t know, who bugs you? Rove? for what? Trashing McCain? Yeah, that bugs me, I still like McCain, campaign finance reform notwithstanding. Atwater? He disavowed himself, on his deathbed, if I recall. Also, it seems the source of the current Kerry nastiness is Chris Lehane, ex Gore campaigner, ex Kerry campaigner, lately Clark campaigner. No ties to Republicans. Sorry.

Moby’s strategy is uniquely repugnant. If you can find someone on the right (blogger, celeb, whatever) with something comparably repugnant I’d disavow it completely. In fact, I’d do so anyway. There’s a class of people who find such tactics “kewl” and I’m not of them.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 13, 2004 08:52 PM

I nominate Matt Drudge.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 09:10 PM

You think will get a response ad questioning Bush’s relationship to his #1 financial supporter?

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 11:26 PM

Todd, that’s too easy. I disavow Drudge. I have always disavowed Drudge. I’ve tuned into his radio broadcast, I’ve seen him on TV on his short running Fox show. The man is without substance. All he wants to do is stir the pot, for good or bad makes no difference to him. In fact, I posted a comment a few threads ago here conjecturing that the real target of the current Kerry flap is Drudge himself. I think by early next week the Kerry thing will blow over and Drudge’s “reputation” will suffer.

I’ll see you and raise you. I’ve disavowed Ann Coulter in the past and will do so again, for two reasons: 1) because she idolizes McCarthy, who was an ass, not because he thought there were communist traitors in the government (there were), but because he was an unserious demagogue who damaged his own cause. Coulter understands none of this, she’s in the game to speak out, not to be heard. 2) A moderate liberal friend back east (not a hippy, folks - an investment manager) tells me that Coulter (and Limbaugh and Hannity et al) are doing more to mobilize Democratic voters than Dean, MoveOn, and Soros combined, by flaming anyone who disagrees with her as a traitor. Her rhetoric is repulsive, alienating and overblown. And like McCarthy, she’s damaging the cause she nominally serves.

Now perhaps someone on the left would say a few words about Moby. Extra credit for Michael Moore.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 14, 2004 02:58 AM

Fair enough, lewy14, I admire your integrity. I’m not from the left, but I will gladly disavow Michael Moore for his rehtoric and method, because it trivializes and makes it undeservedly easy to dismiss whatever subject he is talking about. And I likewise disavow the tactics Moby is suggesting. That is not what will win the white house.

Posted by: Todd at February 14, 2004 01:28 PM

I’ve disavowed Ann Coulter in the past and will do so again for two reasons… 1) because she idolizes McCarthy … 2) mobilize Democratic voters

How about because she a bold-faced liar.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 05:44 PM