A mere two days after “enthusiastically” endorsing Senator John Kerry for President, the New York Times finally admits that he has a propensity to make up lies and distortions about his political opponent. You can probably imagine how it must have pained the editors to have to make such an admission so close to Election Day. They must have spent hours trying to think of a sufficiently banal headline before they came up with this model of understatement: “Kerry Goes Beyond Some of Bush Positions”.
But to give credit where its due, the Times makes it clear that Kerry has distorted Bush’s position by claiming that the President would cut the Social Security benefits of current retirees and reinstate a military draft. They even point out that Congress, of which Kerry is a sometimes member, is just as responsible for the shortage of the flu vaccine as the chief executive.
When questioned about these distortions Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade claimed that they seized on these to illustrate that Bush "consistently misleads the American people on important issues." In other words, their defense is that since Bush misleads the American people they are justified in misleading the American people about Bush. The Kerry camp may be utterly clueless and without integrity but you have to give them props for audacity.
David Brooks, however, isn't impressed by their bold dishonesty. In his latest NYT column, he reviews the “string of heavy-handed assaults” by the Kerry-Edwards campaign and wonders,
Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.
But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.
According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests. This year, many Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return.
The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions.
Brooks, of course, is correct when he asserts those voters are not idiots. But he is mistaken in believing that most voters will come to their own conclusions. The truth is that significant number of them are, and will remain, willfully ignorant.
I realize that it is considered bad form to make such a claim. Even though we are overwhelmed by evidence of its truth, it is verboten during an election year to point out that many of our fellow citizens refuse to think through issues for themselves. We realize that most people are embarrassingly ill-informed about public policy issues yet we act as if everything suddenly changes when they enter the voting booth.
Americans are an amazingly gullible people prone to believe rumors and conspiracies even when there is absolutely no evidence to support a claim. Look at the results of a November 2003 Gallup poll on the Kennedy assassination. When asked to identify who was involved, 37% said the Mafia, 34% the CIA, 18% said Lyndon Johnson, 15% said “the Cubans”, and 15% answered the Soviet Union. Whether or not you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, it is impossible to justify the claim that there is evidence that the Kennedy’s Vice President was involved in his murder. Yet the mere possibility that it could be true is enough to convince almost 1 out of 5 Americans.
Unfortunately, this level of gullibility isn’t limited to presidential conspiracies. The number of Gullible People appears to remain statistically consistent throughout the population. If you think I'm exaggerating the point I recommend you try this experiment:
(1) Ask ten college-age young people if the government is thinking about reinstituting the draft.
(2) Next, ask ten senior citizens if President Bush is considering cutting Social Security benefits for current recipients.
(3) Finish off by asking a random group of ten people if stem cell research is expected to be a potential cure for Alzheimer’s.
Because the answers don’t involve assuming anything as far-fetched as believing a political leader is an accessory to murder, you are likely to find that more than 18% of the population believes these items are true even though they have all been proven false. These people aren’t necessarily stupid, just incredibly gullible.
Now imagine that you’re John Kerry and your advisors explain that almost a fifth of all voters will believe just about anything they are told. You have less than 30 days until the election. You know that Hillary is waiting in the wings and that your party won't be giving you another shot at the Presidency. What do you do to ensure that your lifelong dream isn’t crushed on November 2nd? If you’re Kerry, you lie. You lie about Social Security. You lie about stem cell research. You tell whatever lie it takes to ensure that you win.
In the last Presidential debate, Kerry said that his dying mom looked up from her hospital bed and said, "Remember, integrity, integrity, integrity." Mrs. Kerry obviously knew her son needed such advice. She knew her son has a tendency to lie, lie, lie.
1
I am becoming convinced that we really do live in a horrible, full of horrible people. The biggest struggle I have as a Christian is that my natural response to the world is misanthropy and disdain for my fellow man and his stupidity. It's so hard. Christ died for the ignorant and small-minded too.
posted on 10.19.2004 10:51 AM2
>impossible to justify the claim that there is evidence that the Kennedy’s Vice President was involved in his murder.
That depends on whether you have listened to the son of his mistress, who claims LBJ was intimately involved, and not just with his mother.
posted on 10.19.2004 11:36 AM3
>So these Democrats have invented the comforting
>theory that they've been losing because they
>are too virtuous for the country.
"Too virtuous..."
Like the homosexual who chased jail-bait boys that lectured me about how virtuous he was because he was so militantly anti-smoking?
(As you may have guessed, this was in California.)
Or like "The Republic of Perfect Virtue", aka the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution?
posted on 10.19.2004 11:58 AM4
ROFL...oh Joe Joe Joe...you poor guy. To be so deceived and ironically played like a harp, the musician/conmen plucking the chords of your faith you hold so dear. Try to go easy on yourself when it dawns on you that you've been swindled. It's not your fault, Rove is a master at it.
posted on 10.19.2004 12:11 PM5
It's not your fault, Rove is a master at it.
When Brooks wrote...
According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests.
...he must have had DS in mind. ; )
posted on 10.19.2004 12:38 PM6
LL writes: "Christ died for the ignorant and small-minded too."
LL, I suppose that you'll be OK then. . .
If you rid yourself of that disdain and hatred for your "fellow man," then that ignorant small-mind shall open up and observe the true beauty around it.
One thing you should ask yourself, LL, is: if Jesus were here today would he solely want to help people or would he want to help people to help themselves?
If he just helps people...that's where it ends.
If he helps people to help themselves-(even ignorant and small-minded people)... They become enlightened and are able to pass that knowledge and goodwill on to others.
(Here's your opportunity to make a parallel between Libs/Dems and Consevatives/Reps).
I hope you find peace within yourself Larry. Jesus can only do so much...
and Kerry seems to be aligning himself with the other side.
Good Luck!
7
Rove is quite a good campaign strategist I agree Joe. He cartianly reeled you in and a whole bunch more. Unfortunately his client George Bush is a mediocre President. I doubt the country will fall if Bush manages to squeak by. But I'm more curious about why someone would vote for Bush and against their own interests (Assuming they're not loaded) merely ebcause he claims to share a clswer version of the same mythology?
Whether the supernatural world you believe in exists or not is immaterial to the political events in this one. If it does indeed exist then, assuming the creator/deity is an all powerful creature with the best interest of humans in mind, it doesn't matter who you vote for. Our destiny as a country and as a species is well taken care of. That's not to say that Salvation as portrayed in Christian Theology is immaterial to you.
I'm no authority on Christian Theology. But the basics are easy enough for most folks to understand. You accept Christ, try to live by His Words, work at overcoming your faults, and accept than you cannot be perfect because you're born into sin. And if you do those things, your Salvation is assured. And that's all God asks of you, there is no requirement to try and read it's mind as to which candidate is the divine pick. If down the road the government becomes completely amoral, abortions at fast food stands, dogs and cats living together, that can't take away your Salvation, for that is a compact between you and your Lord.
If such a deity does exist then your own salvation is yours for the asking provided you fulfill the requirements for that salvation. But the grand scheme of future national and global events is independent of that Salvation. IOW, the world could go to hell in a hand basket and your salvation would still be valid.
If the deity of the Abrahamic Faith[s] does not exist, then voting based on what you think it wants, and against your better judgment, is pointless and ultimately not in your interests if it forces you to vote for a twitchy mediocre candidate who hopes to send you off to Iraq and leave your wife and children to get by on your death benefit and soldier pension. Bush isn't terribly concerned about you or your family as long as his mistake is painted over with a veneer of legitimacy try to let that possibility sneak past your cognitive guardian when it's not looking.
Yes, may be a spiritual world, but there is most definitely a natural one: So I would vote squarely for your own interests and the interests of your family and friends. Your family needs you to have a job. Your family needs you alive pal. Your family needs healthcare. Your family needs tax money spent wisely. Your family, like all of us in this country, is critically dependent on the applications of science and technology to get through each and every day of their lives. Your kids need solid well rounded education. You children will benefit from going to college and you will benefit from any program which mitigates the cost of that higher education. It's not in your families interests that millionaires pay less in taxes, or that seniors get screwd on drug prices, or that their kids get to go prep schools while you can't afford it.
I can't see how God would need you to 'guess'' which candidate is his favorite. I would think a being who can create galaxies with mere thought alone has that in hand and get along just fine without your speculation on that matter. Besides, that's simply something you cannot know, despite each candidate trying to pose as that individual. But unless you happen to be one of the fortunate few who earns over 300K a year or more, your interests and your families interests are not George Bush's interests. It's that simple. That's why they have to try and push your emotional buttons Joe, because their agenda is not your agenda.
As far as faith and all ... I've heard it before and I couldn't care less. It's fine with me if you believe in a given religious mythology. In fact, if some kook got into power who tried to outlaw worshipping your creator entity, I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you marching in demonstrations against said kook. I like the Bill of Rights which protects both of us.
Worship as you see fit my friend it is your birthright. I'm 100% behind your right to do so even if I think you're wrong about the underlying supernatural creatures you believe in. But don't vote against the interests of the most of us working stiffs simply because you're guessing that's what your creator/entity wants. You wouldn't give it a second thought if Bush was pandering to Hindu Religious Prejudice, don't get swindled when he's using your own faith to turn off your critical thinking skills. This is the real world buddy, not a religious fairy tale, and real people bleed real blood. Don't drag the reast of us in the reality based community into your religious psycho-drama.
posted on 10.19.2004 12:57 PM8
the anti-christ above all will be (or is) a soothsayer.
sure kerry is grasping for staws and slinging mud, so is bush. bush has made it clear that he thinks ( or the box in his back thinks) that
kerry is making the US and the world unsafe, the politics of fear fuled by the word terrorism.
but then, the whole old testament is based on fear, so this philosophy is not foriegn to a lot of christians.
posted on 10.19.2004 1:09 PM9
You know, I keep waiting for the day when people realize that Rove is not the god-like figure they believe him to be. This may be hard for people corrupted by the administrations of Clinton and the shadow administration of John Kerry, but some people make choices because they are correct and not because they are merely politically expedient. Could it be that invading Iraq when it was such an unpopular thing was not some brilliant chess move designed to garner long-term election support by Rove, but that it was (gasp!) the RIGHT thing to do. It is a simple strategy, DS. It is a very foreign concept, however, to those who almost never make their political decisions based on what it truly right and what is truly wrong.
posted on 10.19.2004 1:20 PM10
John no matter what the dynamics were behind the decision to invade Iraq, it was in hindsight a huge mistake. They weren't a threat to the US, so an invasion predicated on them being a threat was false. And if Iraq had not been invaded, George bush wold be a gold solid lock this Nov. So regardless of what the spin, is, they wish they hadn't done it.
No matter what the dynamics, no matter who said what to who or who screwed up, it's a giant FUBAR mess at every level. My philosophy is that employees who make enormous costly errors and won't do anything to correct them, who won't even aknowledge the misery they've brought down on so many, are fired. It's a no brainer.
11
Hey, someone copped Larry Lord's identity above. That ain't me folks. I don't use the word "horrible" often, and certainly not twice in one sentence! Just awful.
Joe writes
"Kerry has distorted Bush’s position by claiming that the President would cut the Social Security benefits of current retirees and reinstate a military draft."
Has Kerry said that he is certain that Bush will reinstate the draft? No. He has said that Bush's policies may force Bush to reinstate the draft. That's not misleading.
If Bush wants to pass laws extending the obligations of reservists instead of a draft, that's fine. But the threat of a draft under Bush is real, especially when the likelihood of another war if Bush is elected again is substantial.
As to the social security benefits issue, I'm not so familiar with all the details. My understanding is that current retirees will get all their social security benefits if situations don't change. But under Bush, the situation may change. Look at what the screw-up did to our economy in 4 years!!!!!!
Worst. President. Ever.
It's a laugh that Bush accuses Kerry of engaging in "scare" tactics. The Republican Party thrives on fear. Fear is a blunt tool, perfect for keeping the ignorant in line and getting dimwitted Republican script-readers sufficiently agitated so that they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being "un-American" and "helpful to terrorists."
If Bush is so opposed to scare tactics, he should fry that fat pig Hastert in his own body fat for the ignorant crap he said earlier this year about who al Quaeda wants to win the election.
posted on 10.19.2004 1:30 PM12
Joe, with respect, you seem sort of dishonest. Or maybe just too lazy to read or too stupid to comprehend what you read. If you read the article, it doesn't actually describe any distortion by Kerry of Bush's positions. Bush has a plan that will blow a huge hole in Social Security. Whether or not he denies any plans to cut benefits is irrelevant. If he takes away the money to pay the benefits, there will be benefit cuts.
Likewise with the draft. He has all sorts of foreign adventures planned, without enough troops to carry out the actions to which he has already committed us. Whether or not he wants a draft is irrelevant; if he plans to undertake his foreign adventures, the manpower will have to come from somewhere.
Blaming Congress on the flu vaccine shortage is absurd. The Bush administration had warnings that there were problems and did nothing about it. Blaming Congress is like saying that Congress should have created conditions where Bush's neglect wouldn't matter.
Citing Bobo Brooks as an authority on anything shows that you aren't honest; instead, you start with a position you want and then go through various writings, cherry-picking statements that support your position. Brooks's piece is nothing but the complaint "Mommy, he hit me back!!!"
posted on 10.19.2004 1:44 PM13
Lowell,
You know what's great: The last paragraph of your comment provides perfect anecdotal evidence for Brooks' point.
He's right, Joe. You are nuts! We have a Republican Congress, Republican governors, and a Republican President because of Karl Rove.
You know the commoners are too stupid to see the truth. Can't you see?
posted on 10.19.2004 2:00 PM14
Larry writes:
Has Kerry said that he is certain that Bush will reinstate the draft? No. He has said that Bush's policies may force Bush to reinstate the draft. That's not misleading.
Lowell writes:
Likewise with the draft. He has all sorts of foreign adventures planned, without enough troops to carry out the actions to which he has already committed us. Whether or not he wants a draft is irrelevant; if he plans to undertake his foreign adventures, the manpower will have to come from somewhere.
Kerry has pledged to expand America's Active Duty Forces by 40,000 Has he said where those troops are going to come from? It's also worth noting that the measure to reinstate the draft that was voted down overwhelmingly a couple of weeks ago was sponsored by members of Kerry's own party.
posted on 10.19.2004 2:16 PM15
Lowell,
Joe, with respect, you seem sort of dishonest. Or maybe just too lazy to read or too stupid to comprehend what you read. If you read the article, it doesn't actually describe any distortion by Kerry of Bush's positions.
Actually, if you had bothered to read the article you would see that it does. Take, for example, this part about Social Security:
Mr. Bush has never endorsed a specific plan and has insisted that benefits for current retirees and people near retirement age would never be reduced.
A policy specialist on Mr. Kerry's campaign staff, Jason Furman, said Mr. Kerry was relying on a study this year by the Congressional Budget Office of one of three plans developed by a commission that Mr. Bush established in 2001 to study establishing personal accounts under Social Security.
Kerry took one plan out of three proposals and presents it as if that was the one that Bush was planning to implement. That’s a distortion.
Likewise with the draft. He has all sorts of foreign adventures planned, without enough troops to carry out the actions to which he has already committed us. Whether or not he wants a draft is irrelevant; if he plans to undertake his foreign adventures, the manpower will have to come from somewhere.
From now on I refuse to respond to any more ludicrous claims about reinstituting the draft. The military has over 300,000 members of the Air Force and fewer than 10,000 were deployed to Iraq. Instead of a draft we need realignment away from a Cold War military.
Blaming Congress on the flu vaccine shortage is absurd. The Bush administration had warnings that there were problems and did nothing about it. Blaming Congress is like saying that Congress should have created conditions where Bush's neglect wouldn't matter.
Can you explain to me how Bush is responsible for ordering vaccines? Is there a single Democrat in the country that doesn’t think that the entire government is run out of the White House?
posted on 10.19.2004 2:19 PM16
I agree with you on the realignment need Joe. But obviously we have a bit of a manpower shortage for the time being at least or there would be no need for stop loss roders, tour extensions, and deployments of guard and special units like the Blackhorses.
If we face a big new threat right now there will likely be a draft no matter who gets elected.
17
DS,
But obviously we have a bit of a manpower shortage for the time being at least or there would be no need for stop loss roders, tour extensions, and deployments of guard and special units like the Blackhorses.
I think you misunderstand the way the military is structured. We don't have stop-loss because of a "manpower shortage." Stop-loss is one of the tools the military has so that we don't have to keep paying thousands of unneeded troops during times of peace.
Let's be clear about this. No one is staying longer than their contract. When they enlist they do so for eight years. If they aren't needed then the military cuts them loose earlier. It's like if you were suppossed to work from 9 -5 at your company but because of a lack of workload they let you off at 3pm every day. If the work picked up and they started keeping you until 5 you couldn't say that they were "extending your workday." The same is true for the military.
Unfortunately, many soldiers and reservists thought that they would be able to collect a paycheck every month without every having to be called on to actually do what they were getting paid for. So we have a lot of people whining about something they should have been prepared to do.
posted on 10.19.2004 3:10 PM18
Sure Joe whatever you say.
Anyway, you have much bigger problems in the right wing than materialism or Bush; long temr problems. Your buddy Rev Moon, who proclaimed himself the Messiah BTW, the guy with ties to North Korea is becoming more and more visible everyday. He's been dealing out money right and ... right and I really think he could do a lot of damage to your right wing associates. How do you feel about Rev Moon? Do you think he really is God?
posted on 10.19.2004 3:47 PM19
DS,
Your buddy Rev Moon, who proclaimed himself the Messiah BTW, the guy with ties to North Korea is becoming more and more visible everyday.
You’re bringing up Rev. Moon now? Just throwing up stuff to see what sticks ain't ya?
He's been dealing out money right and ... right and I really think he could do a lot of damage to your right wing associates.
You mean Moon’s “right wing associates” like Congressmen Charlie Rangel and Danny K. Davis? Moon has money. Politicians need money. Therefore you’ll find politicians from both ends of the spectrum kissing up to him.
How do you feel about Rev Moon? Do you think he really is God?
I believe he has a right to practice his religion and to lobby the government to support his views. That’s the American way. Crowing him Messiah in a Senate building, though, is a bit over the line. As for the rest, you can read more of my opinion about him here.
20
It all goes back to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" nonsense that Hillary used to illustrate why Democrats were getting their heads handed to them, election after election.
That's the one downside to blogs like this--the Left is so steeped in their own mendacity, so bass-ackwards when it comes to reality vs. perception, that they keep running on the same themes and keep getting shellacked at the ballot box.
Nobody outside the state of Texas had even heard of Karl Rove before 2000. Now he's the great puppetmaster. Even if that were so, the Democrats can counter with effective campaigns of their own. News flash: The Republicans won back the Congress in 1994. We won back the White House in 2000. 7 out of the 9 largest governorships, most of the state assemblies. Why doesn't it bother the Dems that they cannot win a single southern or mountain state? That they've just written off the entire Southern and Middle of the United States? Crazy.
posted on 10.19.2004 4:28 PM21
I appreciate your response Joe to the Rev Moon Q. No I wasn't 'throwing stuff up to see what sticks'. It's pretty dang obvious we wouldn't we be extending tours, doubling tours, and sending out stop loss orders, if we had plenty of fresh bodies awaiting their turn at deployment as you seem to be suggesting wehave. That's a no brainer; no special military knowledge needed.
posted on 10.19.2004 6:34 PM22
~DS~,
But DS you will admit, now that you understand what a stop-loss order and "extended tours" are, we are far from a draft? It is as you say, a "no brainer", only a few facts needed.
23
I believe we're far from a draft Mark. It's difficult for me to envision a draft unless something really terrible happens. It would be political suicide imo. I've never thought otherwise.
posted on 10.19.2004 10:41 PM24
Heh, There's a report out that the Iranians endorsed Bush. That's gotta hurt when your own stated members of the 'axis of evil" are cheering on your candidacy. But then Bush did get reeled in hook, line, and sinker, by Chalabi to invade Iraq.
posted on 10.20.2004 6:57 AM25
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html
Pat Roberts says Bush told him there would be no casualties in Iraq war.
posted on 10.20.2004 11:03 AM27
Is it true democrats proposed reinstating the draft via Charles Rangle from NY and others??
posted on 10.20.2004 1:33 PM28
Rangle wrote the draft bill in order to ensure that when and if a draft was called upon, the elite and influential would not be as able to have their children avoid being drafted. That was the one and only reason for his draft legislation. It sat unattended to by the republican controlled house until just recently when the repugs decided that it would be to their benefit to bring it to a vote. Not because he (Rangle or demos) wanted a draft but to make sure that it would not be like the draft that protected the higher ups children from fighting in a war. You remember that little excursion we had in Viet Nam; you know the one that a certain elitist child just managed to not participate in and yet now has no problem sending other Americans to die in another misbegotten fiasco.
posted on 10.20.2004 3:54 PM