Posted on 10/22/2004 7:10:47 PM PDT by crushelits
It is for real. Just on Scarborough Country.
"And that's a lie; he responded when ASKED in an interview that he and Lynne have a gay daughter; that's it."
I heard a great quote from Tom Coburn, the OK Republican Senate candidate, today. He said his daddy taught him that a half truth was a whole lie. And it is.
A half truth is usually worse and more damaging than a complete fabrication.
The Swift Vets make all their contributions public.
-PJ
What time does this replay on the west coast?
Now that was weird, wasn't it???
Indeed He is.
I am sitting here trying to form a coherent letter to viewer services. He truly jumped the shark tonight.
I agree, he was useless tonite. He meant well, but he could have answered the questions directly. Clinton is a polarizing figure on both sides, and he makes Kerry look much less human in comparison. Overall, it's a net negative for Kerry, except for the fact that the MSM will be drooling over Clinton all week long. Luckily, the World Series will be on.
I don't think he is drunk. He is following the playbook of the DNC and MSNBC. Several times lately Ronarina Ballerina has behaved this way on MSNBC and Chris Matthews has been this bad before, too. They are all in panic mode and desperate to save John Fraud Kerry. But, anyone with a brain can see right through their pathetic attempts at deceit.
"There's Adam Clymer, major-league asshole from the New York Times."
"Oh, yeah. He is. Big-time."
And so, on Labor Day 2000, in Naperville, Illinois, George W. Bush's quest for the White House came to an end. It wasn't much as presidential-campaign turning points go: a two-line exchange between running mates that had nothing to do with the governance of the United States, a two-line exchange that no one ever would have heard were it not for the most dangerous tool in politics -- the open mike. But on the most important day of the campaign, that two-line exchange was all Al Gore and Joe Lieberman needed to solidify their post-convention surge in the polls and lock up the election. It's over.
In modern presidential campaigns, the candidate in the lead on Labor Day always wins, and Bush and Gore woke that morning tied in most polls. In a race so close, there's no room for mistakes -- but the very first thing Bush did that day was make a big one. It didn't seem like a big deal at first, and I didn't think much of it when I got an urgent cell-phone call telling me what Bush had got caught saying. Was anyone actually naïve enough to think that politicians don't talk about reporters in such terms every day, that Bill Clinton hasn't made such comments about at least a few Times staffers? When I worked in the Senate and Adam Clymer was the Times' congressional correspondent, I heard many Republicans, as well as some Democrats, say that sort of thing about him all the time. Bush's comment was actually one of the cleanest versions I've heard.
Most pundits were quick to point out that criticizing a reporter wasn't likely to get Bush into too much trouble with a public that doesn't hold the media in very high regard. But the specifics of what he said don't matter at all. He didn't say anything racist, sexist, or homophobic. He didn't get caught saying something provably wrong about something important. He got caught using a word most voters use on a regular basis about someone most voters surely could have guessed he didn't like.
The Clymer incident was the final turning point of the campaign because the message the public took from the two-day cycle of the story -- not so much in newspapers, which mostly buried it, but from the constant rolling and rerolling of the videotape -- was that Bush blundered. And he blundered, to borrow a phrase, big-time. Big-time enough to lead the network newscasts. And blundering was the one thing Bush could not afford to be caught doing.
There was already a suspicion that Bush is a blunderer. He'd already had more than his share of malapropisms and awkward moments, beginning, way back before the New Hampshire primary, when he failed a videotaped quiz on the names of foreign heads of state. Never mind that most of the candidates in the field then would have failed it, that most of us in the media would have failed it. In a very close campaign, nothing matters more than luck, and the distribution of luck is never fair. Late in a close campaign, when that very small, very skittish group of short-attention-span types called undecided voters is finally focusing on the election, it can make them wonder if a candidate knows what he's doing. Bob Abrams would probably be a United States Senator today if he hadn't muttered the word fascist when he had run out of other adjectives to describe Al D'Amato in the final stretch of the 1992 New York Senate campaign.
In the aftermath of the open-mike gaffe, the notion that Bush is in over his head could suddenly make perfect sense to those undecided voters. And now that they were paying attention, Bush was desperately attempting to set up single-network talk-show alternatives to full-blown multi-network debates. He couldn't have looked more afraid of debating Gore, and his operatives were surprised to discover that Gore's repeated pledge to debate "anywhere, anytime" couldn't be dragged back to haunt Gore when they came up with their too-cute strategy of trying to turn their debate avoidance into proof that Gore can't be trusted. The Bush debate proposal was so obviously designed to get Gore to break his word that Gore paid no price with editorial writers or voters by immediately turning down the plan.
Then, just as Bush was losing the debate about the debates, he rushed out a proposal for a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare that he should have, and could have, introduced months ago -- essentially the same proposal that Democratic senator John Breaux cobbled together with Republican Bill Frist and bipartisan support two years ago. Waiting until the week of Labor Day left him looking like he was merely offering a counterproposal to Gore's popular, and more generous, plan. Then, when Gore handed out an impressive-looking book detailing his budget plan, Bush offered only unconvincing assurances that his big tax cut was going to be just great for everyone, not only the rich.
By the end of the week, when Republican insiders knew how much the open-mike mistake had done to cement Bush's image as a blunderer, they started airing their complaints about his campaign in the New York Times, not exactly their favorite newspaper. This is standard operating procedure not when party operatives think your campaign is in trouble but when they think it's dead. (When they think you're in trouble, they offer you advice privately; when they think you're dead, they go public with all the great advice you ignored privately.) All their complaints referred to choices made before the Clymer incident -- from putting Cheney on the ticket to buying TV ads attacking Gore -- but they were only dug up by reporters after it happened. The insiders know there's nothing for them to save but their reputations.
There was a lot of guessing about what this election was going to be about: impeachment, Clinton fatigue, campaign-finance reform, the economy. Now it's about Bush's competence: Is he up to the job? With such a thin résumé in government -- one and a half terms as governor of Texas -- Bush can convince voters of his competence only by demonstrating a flawless policy fluency in the debates. Which won't happen, even if the debates do. Instead, Gore will keep droning on about his policy positions, knowing that he sounds as boring as ever, but also as competent. Bush will keep talking about restoring honor and integrity to the White House, which has nothing to do with what this election is now about. When he does talk policy, he'll be on the defensive, responding to Gore instead of taking the lead on issues. The more Bush has to talk about policy, the more incompetent he'll sound. So as the campaign heads into the fall -- and passes the point at which no recent front-runner has faced an upset -- Bush must choose between talking about honor and sounding irrelevant or talking about policy and sounding incompetent. In other words, it's over.
That's the correct outcome, but in realty this Larry Wacko will probably be rewarded his own show,
Chrissy Matthews screamed down Michelle Malkin, and nothing happened to him.
I only turned on the show because of O'Donnell's coniption fit last week against people of Faith (and I can't stand that legal blond on FOX)(and no baseball). Nothing happened to him then and I would be surprised if anything happened to him after tonight.
That is an interesting comment. What does Charles Colson have to do with John O'Neill?
I do believe that Lawrence O'Donnell is not mentally soulnd. Isn't there some law about exhibiting those with mental problems? I vaguely recall this was brought out some time ago regarding a carnival freak show. If he has a breakdwon on the show, MSNBC and those on the show might end up facing some huge lawsuit.
Legally, a 527 is only required to report (IIRC) those that donate $1000 or more total in a calendar year. But if you really don't want your name to be found out, the only 100% safe routes are to either not give at all or give the money to someone else and have them make the donation. (And that might be technically illegal; I don't really know on that one.)
Toooo funny! Larry had a tsumami hissy fit on Kerry's behalf, but--ehem--he's simply identified as MSNBC political ANALYST. Yoohoo PMSNBC-- us stupid ones out here are really swallowing this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.