Sadly, I will not be able to blog during or immediately after the debate tonight. I will watch it late and give my impressions in time for your morning coffee (or mimosa…)
To tide you over until debate time, I’d recommend you read this great, great speech by John Edwards from June of 2003 and remind yourself why John Kerry picked this talented, exceptional guy to be his running mate.
John Edwards is the man who George W. Bush is pretending to be.
I will eagerly look for your impressions in this thread as well as impressions of the media spin. I’d be grateful for any documented mediawhore outrages.
But, don’t wait for me. Here are the numbers. If they are out of hand, or out of line, don’t hesitate to let your fingers do the dialing. (If they are unbiased and objective, then it would be nice to let them know that as well.)
Somebody needs to ask why Alan Colmes and Charlie Gibson, (one of the approved debate moderators) interviewed this shrieking harpy at all. And then, they should be asked whether they would have smiled and joked with a male Nazi terrorist (which is what this hideous dickhead is) at the end of the interview.
Coulter on former Democratic Senator Max Cleland (D-GA):
COULTER: As soon as he became the [Democrats’] designated hysteric [on President George W. Bush’s National Guard service], liberals were lying about how he lost limbs in Vietnam. It was not in combat. He did not win a Purple Heart. But suddenly, Democrats who thought a draft-dodging pot smoker would make an excellent commander in chief just eight years ago, now demand military service. They’ve all become jock-sniffers for war veterans. [ABC, Good Morning America, 10/5/04]
Cleland lost three limbs in a grenade explosion in Vietnam. He did not receive a Purple Heart because the wounds were not a result of enemy engagement. Cleland did receive “the Bronze Star for meritorious service and Silver Star for gallantry in action” for his service in Vietnam.
Coulter on Senator John Kerry:
CHARLIE GIBSON (co-host of Good Morning America): In going through the book, John Kerry, you refer to him as a gigolo, the male Anna Nicole Smith.
COULTER: Right.
[…]
COULTER: I don’t wanna hear him talk about a middle class tax cut when he has made his living, living off of rich women. I mean, it is simply a fact that he has married two heiresses, his specialty in life. I mean, if he has an economic plan, I think the one I’d like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not a trivial point. [ABC, Good Morning America, 10/5/04]
“They [Democrats] seem to think Kerry won the [September 30 presidential] debate because he had a better tan, he had a nice manicure.” [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/4/04]
Coulter on Democrats:
COULTER: They never want to fight a war to defend America. They certainly wouldn’t have fought World War II. I mean, screaming about all the casualties in battle after battle, and Hitler was being contained. I mean, what is the right war at the right time? There will never be one.” [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/1/04]
Coulter on the widows of the September 11 terror attacks:
GIBSON: And you also refer to some of those who lost their husbands in 9-11 as McWidows.
COULTER: Right. [ABC, Good Morning America, 10/5/04]
Coulter on Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe:
GIBSON: Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic Party, you call him a slimy weasel.
COULTER: Right. [ABC, Good Morning America, 10/5/04]
Coulter on Muslims:
Two days after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Coulter wrote about Muslims: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” (as Media Matters for America has noted). On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter reinforced those sentiments, claiming, as she does in her new book, that they are true “[n]ow more than ever”:
ALAN COLMES (co-host of Hannity & Colmes): [R]ight after September 11, you said, and you know where I’m going with this, I’m often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972: “Now more than ever.”
COULTER: Now more than ever.
[…]
COULTER: By Friday of 9/11, we had accomplished point one and point two. Invade their countries, killed their leaders.
[…]
COLMES: Would you like to convert these people all to Christianity?
COULTER: The ones that we haven’t killed, yes.
COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?
COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.
[…]
COLMES: But you’re talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren’t practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations? Because that’s what your …
COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.
COLMES: … remarks suggest.
COULTER: That would be terrific, yes. [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/4/04]
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs: Condoleezza Rice
Job Description: The National Security Advisor advises and assists the President on national security and foreign policies, and coordinates these policies among various government agencies.
Rita Bianco, Parent: “Children should know their president and their first lady!”
Parents expressing outrage after a teacher is kicked out of her public school for hanging a picture of President Bush next to pictures of other presidents in her classroom.
Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: “It happened on a small bulletin board near the American flag and also with a poster of the Declaration of Independence.”
This is Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. On Thursday, there was a back-to-school night for parents of students. Veteran English teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz says she was shocked when three parents confronted her. The three, insisting the teacher either add John Kerry’s photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she says the school’s vice-principal threatened her job which is an act that has parents here fuming.
Paula Sjolund, Parent: “She didn’t do anything wrong, and I think that it should have stayed up there.”
Pillai-Diaz ultimately removed the entire bulletin board and says School Principal Jim Warfel told her she disrupted the school with her “inflammatory politics”. She says he then ordered her out of the building. While she says she is a Bush supporter in her personal life, Pillai-Diaz says she keeps politics out of the classroom.
Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: “There was no political intent, nor was there any political content in that photograph nor on the bulletin board.”
How awful. As much as I dislike Bush, I don’t think it’s wrong to have a simple picture of the president and his dog on a junior high school bulletin board.
Oh wait…
Recently, the school administration began receiving complaints from students and parents that Ms. Pillai-Diaz was using her position, classroom and teaching time to engage in partisan politics. Students reported that she had made statements which denigrated one party over the other. The conversations included Ms. Pillai-Diaz telling some students who offered opinions contrary to her statements, that she was “glad they were not old enough to vote.” Other comments to students, including such statements as, “you should be ashamed to be a Democrat” have been verified through student interviews.
[…]
Following receipt of complaints from parents, the Assistant Principal met with Ms. Pillai-Diaz and cautioned her not to engage in partisan political discussions in her Language Arts classes. He did not initially ask her to remove the picture of the President. As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove the stuffed elephant because of student comments. In the ensuing days, parents expressed increasing concern about the teacher’s classroom behavior, the misuse of classroom instructional time and the personal bulletin board. The level of concern resulted in a classroom confrontation between some parents and Ms. Pillai-Diaz at the Back-to-School night program. It was at this point that the school administration decided to intervene again.
On Friday morning, October 1, Ms. Pillai-Diaz was directed by the Assistant Principal to remove bulletin board materials because they were being viewed as contributing to an ongoing disruption of the teaching-learning environment. She refused. She then met with the Principal who repeated the directive. At this point, Ms. Pillai-Diaz abruptly left the building, abandoning her post of duty and her classroom responsibilities.
At no time was she told to leave, asked to leave or given authorization to leave. School was still in session. At no time was she told she was suspended or fired. With professional responsibilities of a classroom teacher waiting, Ms. Pillai-Diaz chose, of her own volition, to walk out of the school, contact various media sources and claim she had been fired.
[…]
The South Brunswick School community is enormously respectful of the Office of the President of the United States, President Bush and the democratic process for choosing our President. Anyone trying to suggest the contrary has the worst of intentions. Under other circumstances, the display of a picture of the President would have been viewed as completely appropriate and uncontroversial. It is important to note that pictures of President Bush are openly displayed in all of the South Brunswick Schools. The teacher’s own actions here, however, took it out of the realm of education and made the presentation appear partisan to many of our students and parents. Under these circumstances, our actions in directing the removal of the display were singularly appropriate
A Republican intimidating twelve year old kids and then whining to the media about being victimized when the parents complain? How utterly … predictable.
L. Paul Bremer III, former head of the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq, said Monday that the United States did not deploy enough troops and then failed to contain violence and looting immediately after the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.
Bremer, administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority until the hand-over of political power June 28, said that he still supported the decision to intervene in Iraq but that a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,” he told an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. “We never had enough troops on the ground.”
Bremer’s comments echoed contentions of other critics of the Bush administration, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who say the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion.
On Sept. 17 at DePauw University, Bremer said, “The single most important change — the one thing that would have improved the situation — would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout” the occupation, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind
[…]
“I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq,” he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels applied to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 “and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting.”
(Hahaha! Yes, If only we’d had more Iraqi security forces available to address the looting. Surprisingly, they thought we an invading army at the time and didn’t rush to help. Particularly since they would have been shot.)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded Monday that U.S. intelligence was wrong in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and appeared to back off earlier statements suggesting former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.
“Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I’m not in a position to say,” Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “I simply don’t know.”
When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”
But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: “A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
“I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
When the handwriting is on the wall, it’s prudent to get your “true” position on the record before anyone thinks you were responsible for the failure.
Matthews just interviewed Joe Lockhart and mentioned the new zogby poll question “If your car was broken down on the side of the road, who do you think would stop and help you?” Shockingly, 32% said John Kerry and 40% said Junior.
Unbelievable. It is indisputable that John Kerry saved Jim Rassman’s life in Vietnam, which should be enough to prove that Kerry not only will stop and help you fix your car, he will rush across 6 lanes of traffic to do it. (Our swift boat pals have so successfully lied and schemed that this image of Kerry has been forever tainted, to their enternal damnation.)
However, Rassman wasn’t the only life that Kerry famously saved. How about this one:
Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht of Nevada is a staunch Republican, but he thanks his lucky stars for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
On July 12, 1988, Hecht was attending a weekly Republican luncheon when a piece of apple lodged firmly in his throat.
Hecht stumbled out of the room, thinking he might vomit but not wanting to do it in front of his colleagues. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., thumped his back, but Hecht quickly passed out in the hallway.
Just then, Kerry stepped off an elevator, rushed to Hecht’s side and gave him the Heimlich maneuver — four times.
The lifesaving incident made international news, and Dr. Henry Heimlich, who invented the maneuver in 1974, called Hecht to say that had Kerry intervened just 30 seconds later Hecht might have been in a vegetative state for life.
“This man gave me my life,” the 75-year-old Hecht said Thursday.
Hecht said he was amazed that Kerry acted so quickly — some people were assuming that he was having a heart attack.
“He knew exactly what to do,” he said. “But a lot of people know what to do. They just don’t size up the situation immediately.”
The story has a twist of irony: Hecht was up for re-election that year, and Kerry, who was serving as the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, had pegged Hecht as one of the most vulnerable Republican seats.
Indeed, the Democratic nominee for Hecht’s seat, then-Gov. Richard Bryan, beat Hecht, who served just one term in office.
“Only in America can this happen, where he’s working against me to get me defeated and then saves my life,” Hecht said.
Hecht, who prides himself on having one of the most conservative records on the books during his six years in the Senate, said he and his wife, Gail, see politics as “a secondary issue” when it comes to Kerry.
“We’ve had a wonderful life, and it would have all been down the tubes,” said Hecht, who is about to celebrate his 45th wedding anniversary with his wife.
Every year the Hechts call Kerry’s longtime personal secretary, who tracks down Kerry wherever he is.
Then they recount some of their experiences in the last year. Hecht and his wife thank Kerry for thinking so quickly in the Senate halls that day. And Kerry tells them that their phone call is one of his favorites of the year.
“He’s so nice and appreciative,” Hecht said.
Ther Daily Show did a spoof of this and I suspect that many people thought it was a joke. But it’s actually true. Kerry stepped off the elevator, immediately assessed the situation and then saved the guys life while a bunch of others stood around dithering. (Compare this to Bush frozen in a little boys chair reading ‘The Pet Goat” after Andy Card said, “We are under attack.”)
Is there even one example of George W. Bush doing a personal good deed ever in his life? I honestly can’t think of one.
In fact, even aside from all of his cruel policy decisions (like approving the use of TORTURE for instance) there are many small indications that this guy is totally lacking compassion for his fellow man — even his own family.
Remember James Byrd’s family in Jasper texas begging him to help them pass hate crimes legislation?
“I went in there pleading to him,” Mullins says. “I said that if he helped me move it along I would feel that he hadn’t died in vain … [Rep.] Thompson said, ‘Gov. Bush, what Renee’s trying to say is, Would you help her pass the bill?’ And he said, ‘No.’ Just like that.”
“He had a nonchalant attitude, like he wanted to hurry up and get out of there,” Mullins says. “It was cold in that room.”
Remember when his daughter had an emergency appendectomy?
As he boarded the plane, reporters inquired about Jenna’s condition. ‘Maybe she’ll be able to join us in Florida,’ the president-elect said. ‘If not, she can clean her room.’ The reporters stared at him, stunned. ‘I couldn’t believe it,’ one of those present later said. ‘First of all, I’m a father, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which my daughter would have major surgery and I would just leave on vacation. And then he just seemed so snarly about it, like he was pissed at her.'”
Not only wouldn’t he stop to help you at the side of the road, he’s the type who’d slow down and stare at you, then laugh uproariously and hit the gas, spraying gravel in your face as he sped away.
Goddamn it. Wolf Blitzer just asked William Cohen about the so-called “Kerry Doctrine” and then defined it exactly as the Bush campaign is in its talking points — you know, the nonsense about about giving foreign countries veto power over our security yada, yada, yada.
Cohen gave a nice scholorly response that glazed the eyes of every listener before they realized that he was obliquely saying that the spin was full of shit.
Time to blast Wolfie, folks. Call if you can. This “Kerry Doctrine” thing is being pushed by the wingnuts with everything they have, and the whores are eating it with a spoon. Blitzer knows very well that Kerry did not actually say that he would allow other nations to veto America’s right to preemptive self defense. He challenged Condi Rice on that subject just yesterday by showing the entire clip from the debate and explaining it quite lucidly. He knows that it is bullshit yet he continues to “ask” people about it as if there really was some controversy about what Kerry said.
And he is spreading this meme “The Kerry Doctrine” a phrase that Kerry has never used, mainly because what he was talking about already had a name — the Pre-emption Doctrine and we’ve been living under it for more than fifty years.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.
BLITZER: To justice? The guy has been — Khan has been freed. He’s been pardoned by President Musharraf… Khan himself lives in a villa. And the IAEA would like to question him, and the Pakistani government doesn’t even allow that to happen.
RICE: I think we all know that A.Q. Khan was a particular kind of figure in Pakistani lore, a national hero… if you don’t think that his national humiliation is justice for what he did, I think it is. He’s nationally humiliated.
FYI:
Earlier this year, Khan’s underground nuclear bazaar–dubbed the “nuclear Wal-Mart” by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei–was uncloaked, solving the mystery of how North Korea, Iran and Libya acquired so much nuclear technology so fast. The answer: Khan’s network sold it to them.
In other news:
Martha Stewart will do her time for lying about a stock sale at a remote West Virginia prison camp where inmates sleep in bunk beds and rise at 6 a.m. to do menial labor for pennies an hour.
The millionaire celebrity homemaker confirmed Wednesday that she had been assigned to the minimum-security prison at Alderson, but noted that she had hoped to be sent to a facility closer to her family and attorneys.
Stewart, convicted in March of lying to investigators about a stock sale, had asked to serve her five-month prison term in Danbury, Conn., close to her 90-year-old mother and her own home in Westport.
But a source familiar with the government’s decision, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Alderson was selected because it was more remote and less accessible to the media than Danbury or Stewart’s second choice of Coleman, Fla
Two Faces. One Public, One Private. One Phony, One Real.
Over the last week or so we have seen an edgy, enigmatic black and white image of George W. Bush appear on web-sites and blogs. At first people thought that sites had been hacked, as Eschaton and Kos and Democratic Underground spontaneously erupted with the black and white figure only to have it disappear and randomly return. Within days it linked to a mysterious DNC web-site with cryptic material that only slowly came into focus. Clearly something was up.
This image is disconcerting and it evokes strong reactions because it symbolizes the cognitive dissonance so many of us have been living with for the last four years as we’ve watched the man who lost the election but won the office drive us to distraction with the contradictions of his character. And nothing has been more frustrating than the fact that so many in the media and in the public at large seemed to see something entirely different than we did.
I believe that this happened because after 9/11, the media cast Bush in the role of strong, resolute leader, perhaps because the nation needed him to be that, at least for a little while. And the people gratefully laid that mantle on him and he took it because the office demanded no less. The narrative of the nation at war required a warrior leader and George W. Bush was all we had. Karl Rove and others understood that they could use this veil to soothe the American people and flatter the president to take actions that no prudent, thoughtful leader would have taken after our initial successes in Afghanistan. This “man with the bullhorn” image of Bush crystallized in the minds of many Americans and has not been revisited until now.
That phony image took us from a sense of national unity to a misguided war with Iraq; it excused his failure to effectively manage the economy and fomented partisan warfare by portraying dissent as unpatriotic; it allowed people to overlook his obvious failure to take the threat of al Qaeda seriously before 9/11 (and even after) and created a hagiography based on wishful thinking and emotional need rather than any realistic appraisal of his leadership.
His handlers wisely kept him under wraps, allowing him face time on television only in the company of world leaders or to give stirring speeches written by his gifted speechwriter, Mark Gerson. He rarely held press conferences and when he took questions, he was aggressively unresponsive, choosing instead to offer canned sound bites and slogans and daring the press corps to call him on it. Few did. The mask stayed in place and he remained a symbol instead of a president — the symbol of American strength, resilience and fortitude. He was, in many people’s minds, the president they wished they had.
On Thursday night sixty-one million people watched George W. Bush for the first time since 9/11 not as that symbol, but as a man. And for those who had not reassessed their belief in his personal leadership since 9/11, it was quite a shock. Their strong leader was inarticulate, arrogant, confused and immature. They must be wondering who that man was.
The truth is that since George W. Bush entered politics he has always had two faces. In fact, virtually everything you know about his public persona is the opposite of the real person.
He claims to be a compassionate, caring man, often admonishing people to “love your neighbor like you loved to be loved yourself.” Yet, going all the way back to Yale, he is quoted as saying he disapproved of his fellow students as “people who felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering.” His business school professor remembers him saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy. This from a man who was born rich into one of America’s leading families and relied on those connections for everything he ever achieved.
He lectures on responsibility, saying that he’s going to end the era of “if it feels good do it” and yet he failed to live up to his responsibility as a young man in the crucible of his generation, the Vietnam war. In fact, if it felt good, he did it and did it with relish — for forty years of his fifty eight year life. He has never fully owned up to what he did during those years spent in excess and hedonism, relying on a convenient claim of being “born again” to expiate him of his sins. Would that everyone had it so easy.
He ostentatiously calls himself a committed Christian and yet he rarely attends church unless it’s a campaign stop or a national occasion. The man who claims that Christ is his favorite political philosopher famously and cruelly mocked a condemned prisoner begging for her life. He portrays himself as a man of rectitude yet he pumped his fist and said “feels good!” in the moment before he announced that the Iraq war had begun. (One would have thought that if there was ever a time to utter a prayer it was then.) How many funerals of the fallen has he attended? How many widows has he personally comforted?
He portrays himself as a salt of the earth “hard working” rancher, clearing brush on his land in an artfully sweaty Calvin Klein-style t-shirt. Yet in the first 8 months of his presidency leading up to 9/11, he spent 42% of his time on vacation. His “ranching” didn’t begin until he bought his million dollar property just before he ran for president in 1999. He has lived in suburbs and cities since a brief period in his childhood in the 50’s, when he lived in the medium sized boom town of Midland before going to Andover.
He actively promotes the notion that he is a man of action yet in the single most important moment of his life he froze in front of school kids, continuing on with a script prepared before the national psyche was blown to bits. He didn’t take charge. He didn’t react. He was paralyzed at the moment of the nation’s worst peril.
He claims to be a strong leader and yet he is skillfully manipulated by his staff, who learned early that the only thing they needed to do to convince him of the rightness of their recommended course was to flatter him by saying it was the “brave” or “bold” thing to do. His self-image as a resolute leader is actually a lack of self confidence that is ripe for exploitation by competing advisors who use it to convince this him to do their bidding. This explains why he seems to believe that he is acting with resolve when he has just affected an abrupt about-face. His advisors had persuaded him to change course simply by telling him he was being resolute.
George W. Bush is a man with two faces— a public image of manly strength and a private reality of childish weakness. His verbal miscues and malapropisms are the natural consequence of a man struggling with internal contradictions and a lack of self-knowledge. He can’t keep track of what he is supposed to think and say in public.
There is no doubt that whether it’s a cowboy hat or a crotch hugging flightsuit , George W. Bush enjoys wearing the mantle of American archetypal warriors. But when he goes behind the curtain and sheds the costume, a flinty, thin-skinned, immature man who has never taken responsibility for his mistakes emerges. The strong compassionate leader is revealed as a flimsy paper tiger.
On Thursday night, the president forgot himself. After years of being protected from anyone who doesn’t flatter and cajole, he let his mask slip when confronted with someone who didn’t fear his childish retribution or need anything from him. Many members of the public got a good sharp look at him for the first time in two years and they were stunned. Like that black and white image, the dichotomy of the real Bush vs. the phony Bush is profoundly discomfiting.
Luckily for America and the world, a fully synthesized, mature man stood on the other side of that stage ready to assume the mantle of leadership, not as a theatrical costume but as an adult responsibility for which he is prepared by a lifetime of service, study and dedication. I would imagine that many voters felt a strong sense of relief that he was there.
