Draw/Edwards-Darth Vader

All things outside of Burning Man.
User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:19 pm

and in regards as to whether the two met that night or earlier...
Cheney mentioned that he goes to the senate every week and never saw the senator

This is very disingenuous. Cheney goes to a closed door meeting of the republican caucus every week to discuss the weeks republican agenda. I would be shocked if he saw Edwards there.
I imagine Senator Edward's handshake to be the wrong side of firm.
Come on Joel. You are better than that. If you are going to make an irrelevant ad hominem attack at least use a real, rather than imagined, piece of business.

I give the edge to Cheney in the debate. I think Edwards lack of historical perspective allowed the veep to make some pretty ghastly assertions that went unchallenged. I would love to see a Cheney/Kerry debate. These are the folks who are going to be potentially setting policy for the next 4 years.
call me baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:21 pm

midgetsonparade wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:new york times.

it requires registration
go here:

www.bugmenot.com
this still requires registration, yet only uses a bogus one and/or someone who already signed in...

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:33 pm

Simply Joel wrote:I can understand the oversight by the VP... I imagine Senator Edward's handshake to be the wrong side of firm.
stuart wrote:If you are going to make an irrelevant ad hominem attack at least use a real, rather than imagined, piece of business.
stuart, i think what i was trying to say is... and again, this only imagined because i am not the VP... the VP would not remember someone (in this case Senator Edwards) with a less than firm handshake.

and... where i live a firm handshake is not irrelevant.

and besides the truly insulting thing i had to say was "John Edwards flailing arms and southern charm did little to impress me"

stuart... thanks for the insights, i'll try harder next time, yet i won't lower myself to depths of some of the insults i have read on the e-playa... at least not recently to the best of my memory.


Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:42 pm

good points Stuart, though I still think the debate was a draw. Interesting how Cheney sounded more presidential then vice presidential....I think he made a verbal gaff too refering to his "making policy" someone hear that too?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:44 pm

oh Joel...Edwards is from the great state of North Carolina.......home to my rebel/daughter of the confederacy wife..(yes, cowboy has a wife, don't tell anybody)
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:46 pm

http://www.factcheck.org/
it is not fastcheck.com
apparently the VP mis-spoke the name of the fact checking site...


Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts
Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org

October 6, 2004

Summary

Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.

Analysis

"FactCheck.com"

Cheney: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.They know that if you go, for example, to FactCheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

Cheney Plugs FactCheck

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.

Edwards on Halliburton: Partial Credit

We can only give Edwards partial credit for his Halliburton attack, however. He implied that Cheney was in charge of the company when it did business with Libya in violation of US sanctions, but that happened long before Cheney joined the company.


"Halliburton"

Edwards: While he (Cheney) was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay.

They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.

They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time.

Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.

Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."

On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was CEO.

Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.
Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria.

Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however. In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990.
"Lobbied to Cut Combat Pay"

Edwards: They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.

They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.

Cutting Combat Pay?

Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the White House never supported such a plan.

Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary.

Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003 that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report, David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay. The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories."

"You Voted For the War"

Cheney: It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops . . .

We've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.

Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

Confusion over Jobs

Edwards: Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost . And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland.

Cheney: And the data he's using is old data. It's from 2003 . It doesn't include any of the gains that we've made in the last years. We've added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.

Jobs Figures

Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.

Edwards said 1.6 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost during the Bush administration. Both figures are accurate, but omit the growth in employment by federal, state and local governments. The net loss in total employment is actually 913,000 as of August, the most recent figures available.

Cheney claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't the case.

Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year. New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.

"First Time"

Cheney: You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Cheney's "First Time"

Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:

Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.

Confusion over Casualties

Edwards: It's one of the reasons that we're having so much difficulty getting others involved in the effort in Iraq.

You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities . American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.

Cheney: The 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq , which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

90% of the Casualties

Cheney disputed Edwards's statement -- often repeated by Kerry -- that US forces have suffered "90% of the coalition casualties" in Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces "have taken almost 50 percent" of the casualties.

Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark.

Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces -- those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to CNN.com, which keeps an updated list, 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition deaths.

We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% (not "almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.

"900,000 Small Businesses"

Cheney: Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

Small Businesses

Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do.

As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns.

A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used.

Other Dubious Claims.

Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.
Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.
Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.
Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.

Sources
Pam Easton, "Halliburton To Pay Fine For Failing To Disclose Accounting Change," The Associated Press, 3 Aug 2004.

Bloomberg Business News, "Company Fined In Trade With Libya," The New York Times , 15 July 1995.

Richard Whittle and James Landers, "Cheney's Years at Halliburton Under Scrutiny, Inquiries Into Company Political Allies Say," The Dallas Morning News , 8 Sept. 2004: 1A.

WashingtonPost.com, "A Halliburton Primer ," 11 July 2002.

Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties , CNN.com, accessed 6 Oct 2004.

Raju Chebium, "Dole To Focus On National Security, Economy, Health care," Gannett News Service , 8 Jan. 2003.

Vice President Dick Cheney Delivers Remarks At National Prayer Breakfast," FDCH Political Transcripts , 1 Feb. 2001.

Editorial, "Our Kerry Iraq Guide," The Wall Street Journal 30 Sept.
2004: A16.

Vince Crawley and Dario Lopez-Mills. "Pentagon Pushes for Cuts in Danger, Separation Pays." Army Times . 18 Aug. 2003.

Vince Crawley. "DoD Officials Vow to Keep Combat Pays Intact." Army Times. 25 Aug. 2003.

Kathleen T. Rhem. "Officials: No Intention of Lowering Pay for Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan." American Forces Press Service. 15 Aug. 2003.

Jacob Freedman, "Bush's Top Legislative Accomplishments," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 27 Aug. 2004.

Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei, "Misstatements Include Iraq, Taxes And Voting," The Washington Post, 6 Oct. 2004: A15.

Related Articles
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

Are Bush and Cheney "Small Businesses?" Their Ad Counts Them As Such
A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.

Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes
Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:47 pm

here is the link to the article above.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:01 pm

At first I thought maybe Cheney flubbed the URL intentionally, to prevent self-educating voters from finding out the truth. After all, both the NY Times and USA Today cited more inaccuracies by the VP than by Edwards during the debate. Imagine my surprise, then, to discover that http://www.factcheck.com is run by George Soros, the philanthropist that is actively and vigorously campaigning against a Bush reelection! DOH!

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Post by geekster » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:11 pm

Hey, Cowboy ... look at this:

http://www.marlaleigh.com/marla's_music.htm

I think you have been looking for her.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

User avatar
geekster
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
Contact:

Post by geekster » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:14 pm

EWPS ... wrong thread, ment to post that in the bar!
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:28 pm

geekster wrote:Hey, Cowboy ... look at this:

http://www.marlaleigh.com/marla's_music.htm

I think you have been looking for her.
I think Mr K. posted that same link awhile ago. Which reminds me, Where is Mr. K.?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

and now for something a little bit different

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:01 am

October 7, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Split Decision
By DAVID THOMSON

San Francisco

In the spin that followed the first presidential debate, many commentators referred to the "split screen" effect, when the cameras would show one candidate's reaction as the other spoke. It was when President Bush was huffing, blinking and scowling at John Kerry's answers that he looked most petulant. In the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday, both speakers appeared to have learned from Mr. Bush's antics, and so they generally looked at each other as if they were auditioning for the job of bodyguard.

But it is vital for viewers to see how the candidates react to each other's remarks, and the networks were right to ignore the party rules that restricted what could be shown during the debates. Still, the networks used different techniques to break the rules. A true split screen was employed only by some networks, like ABC and C-Span, whereas others, like PBS, honored what might be called a spatial relationship between the two contestants.

A split screen is two or more separate images put together in one image, or one screen. Thus it was a split screen on ABC when similar images of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry were set side-by-side with a clear dividing line. But on PBS the shots were actually what are called two-shots: a single image in which we see two people at the same time with the space between them. Such a shot may not accommodate the full figures, but as the first debate revealed, an ingenious director with a good camera angle could show one person speaking, with another (in the background, or to one side) listening, reacting and generally behaving like a natural idiot.

In film studies, and once upon a time in filmmaking, the two-shot was a staple. Indeed, the shot of two or more people, not quite full length, but conversing and interacting, was often called "the American shot" in French film commentary. That is because it used to be a staple of good American movie-making. It can be found everywhere in the films of Howard Hawks, for example, a director whose work includes "Bringing Up Baby," "His Girl Friday," "To Have and Have Not," "The Big Sleep" and "Red River," among others. I could praise him at length. Let me just say here that he is both "cool" and "neat," and on both accounts because of his skill with the group shot.

I realize that we live in an age when many in the news media, to say nothing of the audience, take it for granted that film and television require nothing but the close-up. And I don't want to knock the close-up. It is a splendid and lovely thing, even when it shows a linebacker spitting out a few of his own teeth.

But the two-shot and the group shot teach us another lesson: that there are spatial relationships in life. People in conversation look at each other; they listen or try not to. The variety of body language and posture is enormous and beautiful, and there was once a way of making movies that thrived on those bonds. If you care to check this out, I would recommend just about anything by Jean Renoir, Kenji Mizoguchi, Max Ophüls, Otto Preminger, Orson Welles, Yasujiro Ozu - and all of these guys are O.K., too.

I'll go a step further, if I may. There was once a set of theories on film direction, or mise en scène, that attested to the aesthetics and the ethics of using spatial relationships in movies. You can find this spelled out beautifully in the work of André Bazin.

I will simplify the matter here, but Bazin (and others) believed that the cinema (and why not television?) had (or has?) a natural affinity for showing people together and people in places so that we understand both better. The close-up (vital as it may be to storytelling) tends to emphasize the glamour, drama (or melodrama?) of lone people; it has the seed of dictatorship in it. The cinema was based for decades on the notion that all people are equal, alike but different, and it found glory in the group shot that allowed us to look from one person to another, and feel the kinship and the difference.

I have sometimes heard elections described in the same way. And it is worth stressing that the effort before the debate to restrict the way of showing the speakers was a gross intrusion on a kind of free speech integral to film and the society that uses it. I congratulate the networks for ignoring it and for sometimes using two shots in which the spatial bond trembled with animosity and the two men involved behaved naturally - i.e., they let us see how much they dislike each other, and they gave us the opportunity to look into their inner nature.

The vice-presidential debate was awkward in its rare two-shots. Why were the two men sitting down? I'd guess that many viewers felt that Mr. Cheney's crouch and lowered glance spoke for themselves. And tomorrow night is the great test the famous "town hall setting" - a real spatial arena, with onlookers and questioners sharing the debaters' space. Watch to see if George Bush isn't as ingratiating and mobile as Gene Kelly. But pray for directors who know their cinema, and who can view the town hall with the comprehensive gaze of a Jean Renoir.


David Thomson is the author of the forthcoming book "The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:04 pm

cowboyangel wrote:oh Joel...Edwards is from the great state of North Carolina.......home to my rebel/daughter of the confederacy wife..(yes, cowboy has a wife, don't tell anybody)
the confederacy? oh you mean the second place finishers in the war of unsuccessful succession?


a now a little something from the rabod blonde of the right.....

HEART PATIENT OUTRUNS AMBULANCE CHASER

Here's what the vigilant viewer of Tuesday night's debate would have learned: You should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket because John Edwards' old man used to learn math off of the TV. Dear Diary: Went to a vice presidential debate Tuesday night and an "Oprah" show broke out.
Too bad Mr. Edwards didn't teach his son John that $119 billion (money actually spent on the Iraq war so far) does not equal $200 billion (money John Edwards claims has been spent on Iraq war so far), or that 700 Iraqi military deaths (actual number of Iraqi deaths in war to remove Saddam Hussein) is greater than zero (number of Iraqi deaths acknowledged by Edwards).

After Dick Cheney had beaten Edwards about the head for a while during the debate, Edwards waved his girlish hands and said: "There are 60 countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?"

The Democrats' silver-tongued boy thought he had made a very clever point. In fact, I believe this is the first time we've gotten any Democrat to admit that the entire al-Qaida terrorist network is not living in a narrow mountainous path between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Democrats are now on the record: Sixty countries harbor al-Qaida. But apparently the one nation that had managed to entirely purge itself of all al-Qaida members was Iraq -- under the great statesman Saddam Hussein! Iraq is the only country in the world liberals believe was hermetically sealed from al-Qaida.

Not only would the Democrats not have attacked Iraq, they would have given Saddam Hussein an award for having so thoroughly rid his nation of al-Qaida members. (And I know these Democrats are very proud of their superior manicures, but someone should tell Edwards to keep those girlish hands down.)

When asked to comment on the Israel-Palestinian conflict during the debate Tuesday night, Edwards had another personal story:

"Now, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed."

A strange psychological compulsion compels some people to inject themselves into all historic events. On cross examination, it generally turns out they were not actually in New York City on 9/11, but had visited New York a week earlier. They did not march in Selma, but knew someone who knew someone who did. They were not near the Sbarro Pizzeria, but in the same country where it happened.

John Edwards managed to turn the deadly bombing of the pizzeria into another story about himself. On the basis of his brush with death, Edwards concluded: "What are the Israeli people supposed to do? ... They have not only the right but the obligation to defend themselves." (The scariest part of the story was that Edwards just had his nails done at the manicure place next door to the pizzeria that very day!)

So are we to surmise that if Edwards had not been at the King David Hotel the day the Sbarro Pizzeria was blown up, he would not think Israel has a right to defend itself?

Cheney did not need to stay in the King David Hotel to know what to do about ruthless suicide bombers. He said: "With respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam's no longer in business."

Edwards lamely boasted, "I would find terrorists where they are" -- but not in Iraq, the one nation miraculously free of all al-Qaida terrorists -- "and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us." For some reason, Democrats always feel the need to proclaim that they would kill terrorists too -- just like they must constantly proclaim their support for "the troops."

Edwards expressed his support for "the troops" by describing the brave men fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the war liberals claim to support -- as evidence of America's decline. In his rousing closing statement -- about himself again -- Edwards said, "Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America." (Technically, it was the not-such-bright-lights who sit on juries that turned Edwards into a multimillionaire trial lawyer.)

"But that light is flickering today," he said. (Or is that the light from the tanning salon?) As evidence of the flickering light of America, Edwards said: "You see it when you sit at your table each night and there's an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan." How precisely is the Kerry/Edwards team going to "find terrorists where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us" -- if no one is going to be away from the dinner table doing the capturing and killing?

It's very confidence-building that the Democrats' argument for replacing the current team in the White House during a battle for America's survival is Edwards' capacity to recite the first draft of a Hallmark card inscription about flickering lights.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:09 pm

dude,

coulter?

I mean, coulter?



<sigh>
call me baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:14 pm

stuart wrote:dude,
coulter?
I mean, coulter?
<sigh>
the right wing maureen dowd

October 7, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Getting Junior's Goat
By MAUREEN DOWD

How strange that George W. Bush had his appointment in Samarra: his commanders taking a stand against the relentless Iraqi insurgents, trying once more to turn the corner in a war with endless corners.

Mr. Bush is reminiscent of the protagonist of "Appointment in Samarra," by John O'Hara - Julian English, the son of a WASP-y, aristocratic, renowned, ineffectual father. Julian's pals were "the spenders and drinkers and socially secure, who could thumb their noses and not have to answer to anyone except their own families."

Bristling with filial tension and nurturing the chip on his privileged shoulder, the son refuses to follow in the proper father's footsteps and instead engages in, as John Updike put it, "impulsive bellicosity," falling into a self-destructive spiral that starts when he throws a drink into an ally's face at the club.

O'Hara prefaced the novel, his most brilliant, with a quotation from Somerset Maugham about the futility of using a reverse playbook to avoid your fate: The servant of a Baghdad merchant runs into Death at the marketplace and gallops off as fast as he can to Samarra, thinking Death will not find him. But, it turns out, their appointment is not for Baghdad on that day, but for Samarra that night.

W. has rocked the nation and the world as he gallops fast, frantically trying to avoid his dad's electoral fate.

He no longer has to chafe at his father's imposing shadow. If he wants to go to war with Saddam without even discussing it with his dad, he can. If he wants to keep his dad from having a speaking slot at the Republican convention, he can.

Even though the president, waving off any attempts to put him "on the couch," refuses to acknowledge any Oedipal sensitivities, John Kerry artfully drilled into the sore spot in the first debate.

Senator Kerry evoked the voice of Bush 41 to get under 43's thin skin. The more Mr. Kerry played the square, proper, moderate, internationalist war hero, the more the president was reduced to childish scowling and fidgeting, acting like a naughty little boy who refuses to sit in his seat and eat his spinach and do all the hard things a parent wants you to do.

"You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad beyond Basra," Mr. Kerry said, as W. blinked and burned. "And the reason he didn't is, he said, he wrote in his book, because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation."

Mr. Kerry told the now-and-then Guardsman about the "extraordinarily difficult missions" of our troops in Iraq: "I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions where you don't know what's around the corner. And I believe our troops need other allies helping."

Playing the Daddy card was part of the Kerry makeover by the Clintonistas - Bubba eye for the Brahmin guy.

In their '92 debate, Bill Clinton used the same psychological trick to rattle Bush 41. Objecting to the Republican pinko innuendo about a trip he had taken as a young man to Moscow, Mr. Clinton reminded the first President Bush that his father, Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut, had stood up to Joe McCarthy: "Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism."

The Bushes get very agitated when confronted with the specters of fathers who made them feel that they never measured up.

And even though Mr. Kerry is more of a stiff loner than Poppy Bush, they share enough - that patrician, dutiful son, star of the class and the playing fields, hero on the killing fields, stuffed résumé, Council on Foreign Relations, multilateral mojo - that he can easily get W.'s goat.

It was a sign of how unnerved W. was that he had to rely on his own dark, foreboding and pathologically unapologetic surrogate Daddy, Dick Cheney, to clean up his debate mess and get the red team back in the game.

The vice president shielded the kid by treating John Edwards as even more of a kid.

Mr. Kerry may take on the voice of Daddy Bush again in Friday's domestic debate, pointing out that W.'s father tried to fix the deficit, rather than mushrooming it to $415 billion.

The Clintonistas have infused the Kerry campaign with a new motto: "It's the couch, stupid!"

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
unjonharley
Posts: 10434
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:05 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Elliot's naked bycycel repair
Location: Salem Or.

Post by unjonharley » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:18 pm

Todays inspectors report. Proves: He lied and Ks died.
I'm the contraptioneer your mother warned you about.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”