As we all know, 9/11 changed everything, most especially the GOP’s zealous regard for absolute truth telling in debates.
From Just My 2, here’s an interesting compilation of wacky Republican quotes from back in the year 2000 — when Al Gore mendaciously lied about who he accompanied on a trip to Texas.
BUSH: If there’s pattern of just exaggeration and stretches to try to win votes, it says something about leadership as far as I’m concerned, because once you’re the president, you can’t stretch.
Media Matters exposes the fact that Tim Russert is a whore. Seems he forgot to mention last night that he knew that Cheney had met Edwards before.
KATIE COURIC (Today co-host):… the vice president said he had never met John Edwards until tonight, talking about pretty much being an absentee senator, but you say that’s not true.
RUSSERT: No, it’s not true. In fact, on April 8th of 2001, they were on Meet the Press together. Dick Cheney first, and then John Edwards after him.
COURIC: Well, why did he say that?
RUSSERT: And they stopped and shook hands. They were at a prayer meeting together. I think what he was trying to — maybe he didn’t remember — but he clearly is trying to give the impression that John Edwards is a young ambitious man in a hurry who just doesn’t stop by the Senate and do his job in a serious way, but is out campaigning and politicking, suggesting it’s all politics. I was surprised that —
COURIC: On the other hand, if you — if you misspeak like that and — and are dishonest about it, that can backfire, right?
RUSSERT: Sure. I wish — I thought that John Edwards would call him on it right at that very moment. I still don’t know why. I think it goes to your point, he was always trying to find a — a bigger issue to take on.
Of course Little Russ forgot to mention any of that in the immediate aftermath of the debate when people were watching. This does not surprise me. But, since when did Katie Couric, like, totally turn into Malibu Barbie?
“It was interesting how they didn’t really respond to each other’s criticisms. Oftentimes they would — somebody would make a point, and then they wouldn’t be responsive, they would just say another point against that candidate.
No duh. It’s so wierd when they do that. It’s like they’re trying to change the conversation or something. It’s kewl that Katie totally noticed that too. And she’s only been in journalism for, like, 25 years. Awesome.
South Knox Bubba, one of my favorite bloggers, is being accused by a local wingnut of somehowinciting his followers to fire shots at the local GOP headquarters in the middle of the night.
Tim Mcveigh blew up a building killing hundreds and the wingnuts howled indignantly at the mere suggestion that the violent anti-government rhetoric spewing forth from every crazed talk show and right wing militia group at the time might have given old Tim the wrong idea about politics. Now this frail little fellow is fretting like a little old lady and accusing a very civil liberal blogger of “contributing to a potentially catastrophic atmosphere” with his allegedly “hateful tripe.” Hypocrisy doesn’t even come close to explaining this crap. They are living in another dimension.
SK Bubba’s blog is hardly a fiery leftist rant page. He links to non-liberal locals and rarely enters into the seriously profane (as I do.) A fair number of Republicans come over and spar in a reasonably friendly way in his comments section but there is no “hateful tripe,” as any sentient human would perceive it, anywhere near it.
He also lives in and writes about politics in Bush country in the age of Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. This kind of thing could get him into trouble.
And by the way — nobody knows who the hell shot into the building. As far as I’m concerned, the most likely suspect is this desperate little GOP attention seeker himself — probably drunk and a little too clever for his own good.
Update: Thanks to The Donkey in the comments, I have been forwarded Bubba’s hateful manifesto. Chilling.
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war.
With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.
But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons.
I’m thinking that, as with his attitude toward deficits, Cheney has adopted the credo of “Reagan proved just making stuff up doesn’t matter.”
Reading all the lies and corrections around the web today, I believe we might save ourselves some time if we just compiled all the things that Cheney said last night that were true.
Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It’s a very important event, and they’ve done a superb job of putting it together.
And the president, his first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the first piece of legislation we introduced.
There’s a fundamental philosophical difference here between the president and myself.
The fact of the matter is, the president and I will go forward to make the tax cuts permanent
Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts.
Traditionally, that’s been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will.
I’ve worked for four presidents and watched two others up close, and I know that there’s no such thing as a routine day in the Oval Office.
We saw on 9/11 that the next president — next decision a president has to make can affect the lives of all of us.
First of all, I’m not familiar with his cases.
Gwen, we think lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in this country.
Well, this is a great tragedy, Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic — pandemic, really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing a very bleak future
Well, I think the important thing in picking a vice president probably varies from president to president. Different presidents approach it in different ways.
Well, I clearly believe that George W. Bush would be a better commander in chief.
That’s it. And, if you read the whole transcript you’ll see that I’m not really exaggerating.
This morning, footage of Lynn Cheney is all over cable responding to the fact that there are pictures of Cheney and Edwards elbow to elbow at a three hour prayer breakfast by saying “I think we can all agree that going to prayer breakfasts is a good thing. But, don’t you think he should have gone to the senate once in a while?”
Clever minx, isn’t she? But, it may not be the best line of her storied literary career. As it turns out, there’s a good reason why Cheney would never have run into Edwards in the Senate. He only meets with Republicans:
As the Senate prepares to act on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Republicans say Dick Cheney has assumed an increasingly visible role on Capitol Hill.
By contrast, the Democrats report that they see little of the vice president. Cheney, a key advisor to President Bush on foreign policy issues, has become a frequent guest at the Senate Republicans’ Tuesday policy lunches, where he briefs them and answers questions. As a former White House chief of staff, secretary of defense and member of Congress, he has acquired an unusual amount of clout among GOP senators.
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the chief Republican deputy whip, said Cheney’s counsel “is taken very seriously. It was before this situation, but I think right now, his counsel is sought out more and it’s given much greater depth and credibility.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking member on the Select Intelligence Committee, said senators “naturally look to Vice President Cheney as a seasoned, experienced person who knows the issues regarding national security, [and] has been in the forefront of it.”
However, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hasn’t seen Cheney “in months.”
Other Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) also said they haven’t had much contact with Cheney since the Iraq issue began heating up earlier this year.
Asked why Cheney hasn’t reached out to Democrats, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, replied, “You’d have to ask him – if you can find him.”
It looks like the White House pulled a fast one on the 24-hour news channels this morning as President Bush grabbed 50 minutes of free, uninterrupted TV airtime one month before Election Day. News outlets were told in advance Bush would give a substantive speech addressing key policy issues, which is why they agreed to carry it. (They’re not in the habit of running stump speeches in their entirety.) Days ago, the speech was billed as an address on medical liability reform. Then on Monday, White House aides announced the speech would address the “war on terror” and the economy. And that’s how the cable outlets dutifully hyped it this morning:
— “President Bush heads to [Pennsylvania] for what is billed as a major speech.” — MSNBC
— “President Bush heading to Pennsylvania for what’s called a significant speech on the economy and the war on terror.” — CNN
— “President Bush is making what’s being called a significant speech on Iraq and the economy.” — Fox News
Instead, the address, in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., was nothing more than a raucous Bush pep rally as the president unleashed his most sustained and personal attacks on Sen. John Kerry to date, portraying him as an out of touch liberal who cannot be trusted to defend America, while Republican loyalists in the crowd booed and jeered each mention of Kerry’s name.
[…]
The question is, why did all three news channels cover the attack speech for nearly an hour? In the past, they have occasionally cut away to both candidates’ stump speeches for five or ten minutes, but certainly never for 50 minutes. When it became apparent that Bush’s policy speech was not going to be as advertised, but was instead a tirade against Kerry, did that still constitute news? And the more pressing question for the cable outlets is: When are they going to give Kerry nearly an hour of uninterrupted time to ridicule and mock Bush’s record?
[…]
Reached for comment, an MSNBC spokesperson said, “We look to cover events from both campaigns. We felt [the speech today] was compelling enough and interesting enough to merit” the coverage. The spokesperson noted, “Should the Kerry campaign give a speech where he rebuts what the president said today,” it too, would be covered. Asked specifically whether Kerry would get 50 minutes to respond, the spokesperson answered, “We look to be fair with our campaign coverage of both candidates.”
Yeah sure. This was just bullshit. The cult members in the audience were so worked up they were practically speaking in tongues.
I have long said that if the Democrats wanted to kill the snake, they had to cut off the head. In the case of the modern GOP, it was a three headed hydra — Gingrich, DeLay and Limbaugh.
Gingrich is gone, beaten by his own hubris, reduced from being the most powerful politician in the Republican party to an obscure AEI post and some occasional gigs on FOX News. And right now, Monsieur DeLay and Rush Limbaugh are looking at some extremely serious legal problems that may finally take both of them down.
This is important. It’s true that there are always movement conservative freakazoiods running around like Comrade Norquist and Paul Weyrich. And the infrastructure exists to continue on forever. But, these guys were the strategic vision, the power base and the voice and when they go down it is a clear sign that the conservative revolution has lost its mojo.
As one would expect, James Wolcott’s thoughts on the debate are great and he brings up something that I think may be the most important aspect of Edwards’s performance.
Like Bush last week, Cheney only fed the beast of the Republican “base.” He did nothing, less than nothing, to reach out to undecideds or swing voters or anyone who wasn’t already committed to the ticket. Edwards did. That’s why, despite some moments of shakiness and repetition and phony tough-guyism, Edwards won.
I listened to a few minutes of the debate on the radio live and then saw the whole thing later. One of the things that struck me in both instances was that Edwards consciously spoke to individual American’s everyday, real life concerns. Those things may not be particularly important at this point to the base of either party, but I think it may be very important to undecided voters.
You have to ask yourself why a voter is undecided at this point. If it were a matter of abstract political philosophy or “gut” feelings about character, there would be nothing to decide. The contrast between these two tickets is stark. What I think may be driving these undecideds is that they are looking for someone to speak to their personal concerns, show that they understand the way life is lived in America — to translate policy into real life solutions that they can wrap their arms around.
John Edwards is the only guy in the race with an easy, natural gift for speaking to that and I think he may have succeeded in bringing some of those people into the fold.
Wolcott also had the misfortune of seeing Dennis Miller embarrass himself on Jay Leno last night.
Afterwards, I watched Jay Leno, whose first guest was Dennis Miller, whose soul has sprouted tumors. He belted out the name of Bush’s campaign website, and said he was voting for the guy because Bush, man, he begins each day with one thing on his mind. He hops outta bed, “his two feet hit the floor, he scratches his balls, and says, ‘Let’s kill some fuckin’ terrorists.'” Dennis Miller not only sounds like Michael Savage, he’s beginning to look like him too, an oily stain possessing the power of speech.
And a vivid biker fantasy life, apparently. The “it’s hard work” boy wakes up every morning with his arms around his favorite pilly and screams for a cup ‘o cocoa.
You have to feel a little bit sorry for the cretin. He made a bad career move, casting his lot with the wingnuts because he got big laughs by making fun of Clinton and misinterpreted it as a shift in the cultural zeitgest. Big mistake. He’s stuck with bully insult humor and that has a very short shelf life. The former hipster is going to be forced to socialize for the rest of his life with nothing but boring, flaccid reactionaries who’s idea of fun is calling him “girlie-man” and saying he needs a haircut. That’s just sad.
On one of the blond succubi shows on FOXnews this morning (featuring Linda Vester and Ann Coulter) they cut away to a pouty lipped banshee who gleefully announced that Martha Stewart will be reporting to jail and that “she’ll be treated exactly like every other prisoner … including a strip search.”
I have little doubt that Coulter and Vester got visions of Abu Ghraib sugar plums dancing in their heads at the mere thought of the possibilities. This is the mentality that created Lyndie Englund and all her little friends. Sadistic, power mad freaks. They don’t get it from porno sites or even frat boy “hijinx.” It’s mainstream fun on right wing media.
Edwards was excellent as I knew he would be. Articulate, engaging and smart. If anybody had the mistaken idea that they could Quayle this guy, he certainly proved them wrong tonight.
But I think Cheney may have set a record for how many times a candidate can outright, baldfacedly lie in an hour and a half on national television. And that’s saying something. He and Junior really are living in some sort of dreamworld where they apparently don’t have to worry that their every previous public statement is noted and available for the whole world to see. Here on planet earth we have google and lexis-nexis and we can dig up all the examples of when they said things they claim they didn’t say.
The most obvious is Dick’s continued insistence that he’s never said there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. Fergawd’s sake. But the debate was riddled with an amazing array of outright lies by Cheney from small ones like “I’d never met him before tonight” to huge ones like suggesting that there has been a drop in suicide bombings in Israel because Saddam isn’t paying a bounty. This article captures a few, but there are many more that will be fleshed out over the next few days.
I predict that once the full scope of the lies Cheney told tonight are artfully dribbled out by the Democrats over the next couple of days, Cheney’s respectable “draw” will turn into a rout. This isn’t 2000 and the Democrats are not going to stand for this shit this time.
As for the whores, I have to give extra special kudos to Joe Scarborough for the biggest slurpy Cheney blowjobs of the night, although it was difficult to choose from among his colleagues. But apparently, somebody put a horses head in Joey’s bed after his little “mistake” in calling the debate for Kerry last week because he really went the extra mile tonight.
Eric Boehlert wonders if the entire MSNBC crew even saw the same debate as the rest of us did:
The Cheney group hug began before Edwards had even exited the debate stage in Cleveland, with NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell declaring, “Dick Cheney did awfully well in putting John Edwards in his place.” MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, who didn’t flinch in naming Sen. John Kerry the debate winner last week, declared, “There’s no doubt about it, Edwards got obliterated by Dick Cheney.” (Perhaps he was trying to appease his right-wing fans who, he later remarked, flayed him alive for giving the debate to Kerry last week.) Newsweek’s managing editor Jon Meachem chimed in that Edwards seemed like “Kerry-lite,” while host Matthews skewered Edwards in a strangely personal way, reminiscent of the way Matthews hounded President Bill Clinton throughout the impeachment process.
“I don’t think this well-rehearsed and well-briefed senator from North Carolina was ready for the assault,” said Matthews, who insisted, “Dick Cheney was loaded for bear tonight. He went looking for squirrel and he found squirrel” in the form of Edwards. He later suggested Edwards often looked stunned, as if he’d been “slapped” by Cheney’s devastating debating technique. Matthews also demanded to know if the “liberal press” would admit “Cheney won.”
Yet nowhere else on the television landscape — not even on Fox News — was Cheney crowned the winner. Most pundits saw the debate as an obvious draw:
— ABC News political director Mark Halperin told PBS’s Charlie Rose the debate was a “nonevent because it didn’t change the dynamic.”
— Surveying fellow journalists covering the debate, CNN’s Judy Woodruff, host of “Inside Politics,” reported, “Their opinion is this debate was close to a draw.” She added, “If Dick Cheney was hoping to put away John Edwards, he didn’t do that tonight.”
— David Gergen, who has counseled both Democratic and Republican administrations, agreed that the debate was a standoff, telling CNN’s Larry King that “it ran out of electricity about halfway through. It began to drag.”
— Fox News’ Bill Kristol said, “Cheney clearly won the first half on national security. I think Edwards won the second half” on domestic issues. Kristol argued the first half was more important.
— “I can imagine Democratic living rooms, cheering every time Edwards punched. And Republican living rooms when Cheney punched,” said ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “But I don’t think either candidate did much to sway voters on the fence.”
ABC News’ instant poll found more viewers thought Cheney won the debate, by a margin of 43 to 35. But as ABC anchor Peter Jennings noted, the poll was weighted heavily toward Republican respondents because the network found more Republicans watched the debate.
CBS ran a scientific survey of 200 uncommitted voters nationwide, which found Edwards won the debate by a clear margin, 41-29. The CBS survey found Cheney suffered a dramatic gender gap among women voters.
None of that seemed to matter inside the MSNBC echo chamber. Matthews and his crew had their story line — Cheney won big! — and they were sticking with it, with Matthews even wondering out loud if the choice of Edwards for V.P. “casts doubt on the judgment of John Kerry,” and whether Edwards may “not be ready to be vice president of the United States.”
Which again raises the question: What debate was Matthews watching, and what did Edwards ever do to him?
Well gosh, nobody could expect Tweety and crew to not call this debate for Cheney. They had some big time ass to kiss after last week. They just hate getting nasty e-mails from angry Republicans. (I wonder how they are going to like getting erudite e-mails from angry Democrats?)
The biggest loser was Gwen Ifil. What an unmitigated disaster. But then, that’s no surprise. She has single handedly turned the previously great Washington Week In Review into DiGrassi Junior High, so I wasn’t particularly optimistic that she could moderate a debate. And she was probably up late last night talking to Condi, her best friend, about Condi’s unrequited love affair with you know who, so she was probably exhausted.
I predict a slight uptick in the polls as the undecideds start to make their move now that both Kerry and Edwards have passed the leadership threshhold. Friday could put it away.