Everyone already read Cheney's latest attack?

Be sure to take blood pressure meds before reading.

Via Dan Froomkin. WaPo transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700365.html

Froomkin's entire column. It's all about the administration's newly launched "third presidential campaign -- this one to salvage his reputation, and what's left of his second term." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/17/BL2005111700875_pf.html

And just like the other two campaigns, it's going to be insult, attack, smear, and obfuscate. I wonder how the media will cover it, and how the american voters will react to it. Seems like a loser to me - but what do I know?

Obviously John Thune got the memo.

George McGovern was on Ed Schultz's show yesterday, and Ed asked him what advice (hahaha) he'd give to Georgie Dubya. McGovern was his mature, reasonable, intelligent, diplomatic self, talking about how Dubya ought to fess up, seek middle ground, correct his mistakes, etc.

And they are of course doing the complete opposite of what makes sense. I think Ginny is right - it's all they know how to do, but the poll numbers seem to indicate that people are just FED UP with the viciousness and the lying. If people think Bush is a liar, how is calling Kerry et al liars going to help them?

Campaign-style smears, his specialty. Only thing is, you need a bit of credibility for this to work!

They can't answer the charges, so they attack the messenger(s). Haha!This is just what the Dems need now to keep this topic in the news. Only the koolaid drinkers are buying anything Cheney has to offer.

"No one believes a word the VP is saying....The country won't have it it this time."

Teddy and I are in sync today. :-)

Ow, ow, ow, my arm hurts from patting myself on the back. (Bad TayTy)

But we do rock today. Uncle Teddy is awesome and so is my rgreatly esteemed JR. Sen. Sigh! We rock!

Right now. I guess he got the talking points too.

as Bush. Talking about Robb-Silverman. Seems to ignore there was no part 2 done.

makes my head hurt. Arguing with republicans on this subject is like arguing with a room full of two year olds.

was cooked. They are both trying to demonize each other. I like it that Kerry is more than any one else sounding alnost like a proscecutor stating the facts.

is pushing him more and more into the leadership role on this. Kos must be having kittens, but by the time they're done, Bush and Cheney will have done more to boost Kerry's profile than anyone could have imagined.

is that * doesn't say the charges are untrue--he only states that it is "irresponsible" for the Dems to say them. Hmmm.

in the power of the smear. They don't feel any need whatsoever to try to refute the charges with facts. Or arguments. They just sling the mud around in hopes that everything will get so dirty that people will just give up trying to understand the truth. It's SO low.

all they will say it that it is the fault of knee-weak Democrats like Murtha or Kerry who have ceded to the far left wing. They are preparing that already. NRO has exhumed this from their archives this week. Pure chance?

.

That Bush and Cheney lied is more problematic as it could eventually lead to impeachment or replacement of Cheney, OTOH.

He really is getting under their skins.

That's what the Kerry critics in GD don't understand: the depths to which these people would go to stop Kerry. Mind you, they are against all Democratic opposition; they stopped Gore, but they launched a full-scale attack to completely distort Kerry's efforts and record.

Having said that, and given what I believed happened in the 2004 election, I don't believe they were sucessful. They continue to attack Kerry because he still represents the biggest threat to their agenda.

You are so right. These people are nasty and have been preparing for war and Democratic opposition for decades. They must have their way.

Thanks for posting!

I mean, how could Buckley come away from that speech thinking that Kerry hates America? It is obvious from everything I've ever read about Kerry, including his time spent in Europe, how much he LOVES America and simply will not stand for its name to be lowered by irresponsible and sometimes even evil government officials.

I guess I didn't think about the fact that it was a hit piece for today, until you mentioned that.

Nixon is returning from the dead indeed . . .

I assume Mr Buckley has not changed his opinion. What amazes me is how he completely misinterprets Kerry's idealistic closing. Wasn't Buckley a Yale person too?

I just saw Clooney's movie "Good Night and Good Luck". At some point, McCarthy wants Buckley to make the rebuttal on Edward Murrow's program.

So I assume that he is still strongly in their camp.

I forgot that!

Also, my husband swears there was some mention in that movie of Ted Stevens, but I didn't catch it, did you?

Are not too fond of JK. He was too middle class for them.

and too UNSTUFFY. Buckley seems the picture of the aloof elite snob that Kerry would or could never be.

It's ironic, isn't it?

At the time they wanted really badly to ressurect and grow the conservative movement, so Kerry's testimony gave them a good opportunity to distort and attack the left.

and it's backfiring again :)

The dems are in control now. The administration is falling apart.
And so is one of their main pundits - O'lielly.

The repugs are voting against all Americans that aren't in the top 1%, voting against LIHEAP, medicaid, gas profiteering... what else?!

All they are doing is making fools out of themselves.

And I have to say this because it feels soooooo good -

Mr. Cheney is a very bad man.

"This is not a good man!" Projecting her own husband's description onto JK, who is actually a very good man!.

steeped as it is in NYT spin (I totally believe the media is complicit in having distorted Kerry's position) and Bush/Cheney lies.

This stuff counters the nonsense we hear about Kerry.

Kerry's Undeclared War
By MATT BAI

Published: October 10, 2004


snip...

In a series of combative speeches and statements, and in a crisp performance at the first head-to-head debate, Kerry has argued that Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster, that troops should be brought home before the end of the next presidential term and that the Iraq war is a ''profound diversion'' from the war on terror and the real showdown with Al Qaeda.


snip...

This last point was what Kerry seemed to be getting at with his mantra of ''effectiveness,'' and it was in fact the main thrust of his campaign pitch about terrorism. By infuriating allies and diminishing the country's international esteem, Kerry argued, Bush had made it impossible for America to achieve its goals abroad. By the simple act of changing presidents, the country would greatly increase its chances of success in the global war on terror. Both candidates, in fact, were suggesting that the main difference between them was one of leadership style and not policy; just as Bush had taken to arguing that Kerry was too inconstant to lead a nation at war, Kerry's critique centered on the idea that Bush had proved himself too stubborn and arrogant to represent America to the rest of the world.

snip...

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

snip...

Kerry came to his worldview over the course of a Senate career that has been, by any legislative standard, a quiet affair. Beginning in the late 80's, Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations investigated and exposed connections between Latin American drug dealers and BCCI, the international bank that was helping to launder drug money. That led to more investigations of arms dealers, money laundering and terrorist financing.

Kerry turned his work on the committee into a book on global crime, titled ''The New War,'' published in 1997. He readily admitted to me that the book ''wasn't exclusively on Al Qaeda''; in fact, it barely mentioned the rise of Islamic extremism. But when I spoke to Kerry in August, he said that many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ei=5090&en=8dcbffeaca117a9a&ex=1255147200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

I still have this magazine at home. Remember the spin that was clouding the air when this article came out? Bush is tough on terra. Yeah right.