So you think you weren't told what to think?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread |
For those who think no one tells them what to think.http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0%2C7243%2C59665%2C00.html#
This May Be a Pre-Mortem of the 2000 Campaign Think Bush is going to win (a lot of people do)? A BBC documentary provides remarkable insight into Dubya's devilishly clever campaign against Al Gore
BY MARTIN LEWIS
Think Bush is going to win (a lot of people do)? A BBC documentary provides remarkable insight into Dubya's devilishly clever campaign against Al Gore If George W. Bush overcomes the revelations about his drunk-driving conviction and wins on Tuesday, you can thank or blame "Oppo."
That's the name for the backroom boys (and gals) who, by well-aimed research, managed to change Al Gore's image from that of wooden Boy Scout into untrustworthy liar — and may have cost him the election.
Of course, every presidential election season has its new tactics and campaign strategies — the Rapid Response teams run by James Carville that helped bring President Clinton to power is the most recent example — but the latest ways in which the electorate has been persuaded don't usually become apparent until magazines do election retrospectives or books are published.
But for those who pay attention to the men behind the proverbial curtain, Britain's BBC has unveiled something of a first: a glimpse deep inside the 2000 campaigns that has been seen before the election. Last week the British TV network premiered "Digging the Dirt," a documentary that exposes the rough-and-tumble tactics of both the Bush and Gore campaigns.
The film delves into many aspects of this year's battles. We see close-ups of how Bush decimated McCain by brutal push-poll phone calls and how Gore trounced Bradley by savage attacks on his health care proposals.
But the overwhelming message of the film is the insight it brings to the Republican version of Carville's War Room — the seething research room at RNC headquarters in D.C. where GOP head of research Barbara Comstock and her deputy, Tim Griffin, ply a rough trade.
The key ingredient of the 2000 elections is undoubtedly the enormous growth in the past four years of the people who do "oppo," the nickname for the opposition research departments in each campaign.
That both sides maintain teams dedicated to unearthing material on the other is not new. What is new is the intensity of the digging, the sheer breadth and depth of the search, and, most of all, the now seamless and instant deployment of the results directly into the mass media.
In fact, the film reveals how much the media has come to depend on the "Oppo" research for material. Traditionally, newspaper journalists and TV producers have conducted independent research of charges made by a campaign. That has now dwindled, both due to news organizations being more and more stretched and because the media believes that the backfire effect on the campaigns would be far too devastating if the information provided were wrong.
In the film we see RNC glee as the Associated Press accepts their oppo research on a Gore misstatement during the first presidential debate. During their months of filming BBC producers also observed producers for NBC's Tim Russert, among others, calling to enquire if the team had any new material. This was apparently normal practice.
"It's an amazing thing," says RNC researcher Griffin in the film, "when you have top-line producers and reporters calling you and saying 'We trust you.... We need your stuff.'"
This increasing dependence on the zeal of the oppo teams has paid far richer dividends for Bush than for Gore. And for two reasons: First, the Bush/RNC team has been far more assiduous and painstaking in its work. And second, the fruits of its labors have been of considerably more value to its overall strategy.
For instance, one of the Gore/DNC campaign objectives has been to discredit Bush's Texas record, in much the same way that President Bush successfully trashed the Massachusetts Miracle that was Dukakis' intended trump card in 1988. The Gore campaign has achieved its task in pure terms — there is certainly an awareness that Texas isn't quite the Garden of Eden that Bush has been portraying. But at the same time they were also trying to convey the belief that Bush, as a one-and-half-term governor of a state where the chief executive has very little power, would therefore lack the hands-on experience necessary to run a nation. Highlighting the fact that the Texas legislature meets for only four months every two years makes the case well. But the corollary is that it has weakened the overall argument against Bush. It is difficult to make the case that the Texas governor can be held very accountable for failures if the gubernatorial power is so weak.
Meanwhile, the Bush campaign came up with a much more effective plan. It was apparent early on to the Bush team that the election could not be won on what are traditionally described as "the issues." As the polls continue to show, the majority of the issues favor Gore and the Democrats.
Instead, said the RNC tacticians, Bush had to ensure that the election be about personality and likeability. But it also had to subtly be about Bill Clinton. So the primary remaining task has been to color Gore not just as less likable than Bush. There had to be a way of linking him to Bill Clinton so that Bush could run against Clinton.
Gore has done everything he can to dodge this tactic, principally the questionable tightrope act of declaring that he is "his own man" and in the process both distancing himself from Clinton and the eight-year boom that has accompanied his presidency. This left the Bush team with one key objective. To redefine the popular image of Al Gore.
If one looks back a couple of years, the prevailing conventional wisdom about Gore was not about lies, deceits, exaggerations and embellishments. It was how wooden he was. Robo-Veep. Gore even made fun of it, often making a self-deprecating quip that he was so boring that his Secret Service code name was Al Gore. Yes, there had been the Buddhist temple incident and the White House fund-raising phone calls, but those seemed to be viewed as technical breaches of obscure laws rather than examples of outright mendacity. His overall image was of a boringly earnest Boy Scout. His Rose Garden defense of a just-impeached Clinton, an act of understandable loyalty.
That was not enough to run against. With those clothes, Gore could run as a dull Clark Kent whose biggest sin would be his lumbering and pious integrity. The Bush team had to find a way to make this uncharismatic cipher take on the hue of Clinton. Gore's chameleon-like approach to the campaign played into their hands.
As Gore stumbled from alpha male to Prozac-ed debater — like an over-the-hill teen pop star searching for a comeback image — the Bush team decided on its plan. It would take all of Gore's perceived weaknesses and find a way to define them as all being part of the same character flaw. And the kicker would be that it was the same defect that the public had detected in Clinton.
The Bush team had a willing accomplice in this. Gore, like many politicians, has a long-identified habit of decorating his speeches with self-aggrandizing filigree. But it is usually dismissed by the public as being par for the course. The Bush campaign's intuition was that if this trait could be vulcanized as being the core of Gore rather than just one of the many traits — good or bad — then they were made.
How to do this? Simple. Establish a massive database of every utterance in Gore's 26 years in public service — and then pounce on any and every discrepancy like a bulldog lawyer seeking to discredit a witness. It wouldn't matter how tiny the variance. Any deviation could be characterized as an embellishment, an exaggeration, an untruth, a dishonesty. And then finally the word that would superglue Gore to Clinton. A lie.
And so, on the night of the first debate we see a pumped-up Tim Griffin barking orders to his large team of "oppos." Jim Lehrer tosses Gore the question about him having cast doubt on whether Bush has sufficient experience to lead. Gore demurs and parses his response. Griffin leaps into loud action. Within minutes, his team have tracked down an obscure Gore quote buried within the transcript of a lengthy speech. Gotcha! "It directly contradicts what he just said in the debate! He just lied!" crows Griffin. Seconds later Griffin has fed the contradiction to the Associated Press. This is beyond post-debate spin. This is play-by-play impeachment. And incredibly effective.
Moments later the topic is the Balkans. Gore speaks of how World War I started there and says "my uncle was a victim of poison gas there." The RNC oppo staff giggles at this and Griffin bellows: "This family stuff is killing me... let's check his uncle!" There is a flurry of activity — and then palpable disappointment that Gore's uncle really was a gas victim. "OK, so that is not a lie..." Griffin grimaces, and phones the bad news to a waiting colleague: "Hey... we confirmed the uncle tear-gas story...."
But when Gore makes what turns out to be his misstatement about visiting Texas fire sites with FEMA director James Lee Witt, Griffin senses blood. "Have Jeanette take a look at that!" he cries. And his hunch is right. Gore has transposed dates or people. And that gives Griffin another opportunity.
The BBC cameras catch him on the phone exulting to a colleague: "You know what this would be perfect for is... Get one of these AP reporters or somebody on it for the next few days and then we get a lie out of it... and roll a few days with a new lie!"
And "LIE" was what they got. The New York Post trumpets "LIAR LIAR" on its front page — and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore's perceived chronic character flaw. And so it has gone every week since the debates. The image is enshrined.
Did it matter that that Gore has in fact visited Texan fire sites (but with another FEMA executive)? Did it matter that he had made other visits to Texas with James Lee Witt? Were Gore's words a misstatement or a lie? What would have been the benefit in intentionally lying about such a trivial fact? Was it important either way?
To Griffin it didn't matter.
"Research is a fundamental point," he says. "We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war. Research digs up the ammunition. We make the bullets."
The enduring legacy of the 1992 campaign was the large sign in Carville's War Room, bearing a phrase that subsequently entered the political lexicon. "It's the economy, stupid."
Behind Griffin in the RNC Oppo Room, the BBC camera captures a large sign he has erected. "On my command unleash hell on Al."
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 13, 2001
And if you think it isn't still happening, consider this;
Why are we suddenly going to impeach Clinton again? To bury the story of Funeralgate: Bush Charged With Lying Under Oath About Influence-PeddlingHow many voters knew that President Bush is credibly charged with lying under oath about influence-peddling in a whistle-blower lawsuit that's scheduled for trial this year? Known as Funeralgate, Eliza May's wrongful termination lawsuit also questions the credibility of Bush's nominee to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Joe Allbaugh, formerly his campaign manager, whom the AP article about his nomination reported is "at the center" of the potentially sensational case. (1) Allbaugh's confirmation hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is scheduled for Feb. 13. If Democrats break the conspiracy of silence about Funeralgate by calling Eliza May to explain her allegations against Bush and Allbaugh, the country may get a jolting preview of a presidential lawsuit that could make the Paula Jones case look like mere gossip.
May, the fired executive director of the Texas Funeral Service Commission, charges that Gov. Bush lied under oath in an affidavit when he flatly denied that he had spoken to anyone involved about a regulatory crackdown her agency instituted against one of his major political contributors - or that he even had any knowledge of the facts of the matter. His sworn affidavit has already been contradicted at least four times, including by conflicting testimony from one of his appointees in a deposition taken on Oct. 17.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html (2)
Learning exactly what Bush swore and exactly how his affidavit has been contradicted would have caused voters to question Bush's claim to moral superiority. Arguably, the withholding of that basic information from the electorate and the failure of the press to ask Bush to explain his side of the story amounts to the elite media having thrown a presidential election.
Though from the start legal experts warned that Bush was at extreme jeopardy from May's case and should settle it before being required to testify, all efforts to get this 23 month-old lawsuit disposed of have failed. After his sworn affidavit was contradicted, the court approved adding Bush as a defendant in April of last year. Asserting that Bush "knowingly permitted his staff to intervene improperly" in an investigation by her agency, her suit alleges that his actions were intended to "subvert the lawful conduct of public officials in the performance of their official duties." A Jan. 26 article in the Austin Chronicle on the latest developments in the case, entitled "The Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die," reports that Bush will be ordered to testify this year.
www.dallasnews.com/specia...uneral.htm
www.auschron.com/issues/d...ures5.html
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html (3)May contends that Bush and his staff impeded her investigation of the world's largest chain of funeral homes, Service Corporation International, whose founder and CEO, Robert Waltrip, is a bountiful supporter of the Bush family. The tough-talking Houston tycoon, whose mortuaries are said to bury one in nine Americans, contributed $45,000 to Governor Bush and over $100,000 to the Bush presidential library, as well as providing a $70,000 honorarium for a speech by President Bush, the use of his corporate jet, and other generosities.
www.salon.com/politics200...print.html
www.salon.com/news/featur...index.html (4)Following complaints about gruesomely inept embalmings - including a protest by anguished parents that their son's body "leaked maroon fluid" and drew gnats -- May launched an investigation of SCI mortuaries by conducting surprise inspections. The TFSC inspectors allegedly found that unlicensed embalmers had been employed with macabre results. Presented for open viewing, a man's body had been so overpumped with embalming fluid that it was oozing from his eyes, ears and mouth - causing his younger brother to run away screaming, "That's not my brother!" But Waltrip was defiant. Enraged by May's 'raids,' he exercised what his spokesman called his "constitutional right" to take his protests "up the ladder" to Gov. Bush.
www.reporternews.com/1999...s0816.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...082399.htm
www.latimes.com/news/poli...bush/19990 905/t000079438.html (5)May alleges that she was then pressured by Bush aides to back off. According to her lawsuit against Bush, Waltrip, SCI, and the TFSC, she was summoned to the office of Joe Allbaugh, then Gov. Bush's chief of staff, for an intimidating meeting with Waltrip. She says Allbaugh allowed state Senator John Whitmire, who represents Waltrip's home district, to grill her about the investigation in front of the mortuary tycoon. Allbaugh's office told the AP that his role was "simply to listen," but at another meeting with Allbaugh, May she says that he told her, "This isn't going anywhere."
www.auschron.com/issues/v...neral.html
www.auschron.com/issues/v...side1.html (6)After SCI was fined $445,000 by the commission for improper embalming procedures and other violations, May claims the legislature came under pressure from SCI and the governor's office to shut down the agency - and that in Feb. of '99, she was fired as a result of Waltrip's wrath, using the excuse that another commission employee had complained that she asked him to research SCI's campaign contributions. SCI hasn't paid the fine, which presumably may be a reason why the lawsuit hasn't been settled. And after being restructured and losing most of its enforcement powers, the agency has been undergoing a "sunset review" and reportedly may be eliminated soon. (7)
On July 20, 1999, in an affidavit intended to persuade the court to reject May's request to depose him, Gov. Bush swore: "I have had no conversations with Texas Funeral Services Commission officials, agents or representatives concerning the investigation of SCI by the Texas Funeral Services Commission or any dispute arising from it. I have had no conversations with SCI officials, agents, or representatives concerning the investigation or any dispute arising from it. I have no personal knowledge of relevant facts of the investigation nor do I have any personal knowledge of relevant facts concerning any dispute arising from this investigation. I have never asked anyone to take a role or to become involved in any way in this investigation or any dispute arising from it or given direction to anyone who might be involved in the SCI investigation or dispute."
Of course, there would have been nothing wrong with Gov. Bush having known about the investigation of SCI or the dispute arising from it or having spoken with those involved about the matter. But that he locked himself into such unequivocal denials is the crux of his problem, which may result in the distraction of another sensational presidential lawsuit. The obvious question is why Bush's lawyers had him risk locking himself into such flat-out denials when he knew they could be contradicted. Why was it so necessary for him to avoid being questioned under oath?
Given this incautious affidavit, May's lawyers introduced an August 1999 Newsweek expose' www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp by Michael Isikoff, who developed the Monica Lewinsky scandal by covertly working with Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones's lawyers and the Office of the Independent Counsel. Isikoff got key Funeralgate players to go on the record with contradictions of Bush's sworn statement. He told of a meeting on April 15, 1998 with Waltrip and his lawyers in Allbaugh's office during which Bush stopped by and said to Waltrip, "Hey, Bobby, are those people still messing with you?" Isikoff reported that when Waltrip said they were, Bush turned to the wealthy mortician's lawyer/lobbyist, Johnnie B. Rogers, and asked if he was "taking care of him." (9)
Twice when asked about this, Bush told reporters that his questions about the matter didn't count as a conversation, but merely a "brief exchange." So, apparently Bush's defense may depend on what the meaning of the word 'conversation' is. But by acknowledging that he initiated exchanges about it -- however brief -- with involved parties, he appears to have impeached his claims to have had no knowledge of the investigation or dispute. (10)
The latest contradiction of Bush's affidavit comes from one of Bush's appointees, Charles 'Dick' McNeil, a former chairman of the funeral commission, who testified in a deposition taken on Oct. 17 that in the fall of 1998 Bush briefly inquired about the agency's "problems" with SCI. McNeil swore that during a short conversation Bush said, "Have you got - you and Bob Waltrip - are you and Mr. Waltrip got your problems worked out?" After McNeil answered that they were still trying to work on it, and added, "I hope that we have not been an embarrassment to you or any of this administration," he says the governor said he wasn't an embarrassment to him and told him, "Do your job." Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Dallas Morning News that McNeil was mistaken.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html
www.dallasnews.com/texas_.....html(11)After state district Judge John Dietz, a Democrat, ruled in August that May's lawyers had to wait until after the election to depose Bush and Allbaugh, May's lawyer, Charles Herring, Jr. told the Dallas Morning News that because McNeil's deposition is "flatly inconsistent with the governor's sworn statement . . . we will proceed with our efforts to depose the governor." Now, reportedly, their depositions are pending. And May's team has filed evidence with the court that Texas Attorney General John Cornyn was also involved in the alleged conspiracy by "covering up their prior improper, illegal actions" in preventing May and the TFSC from enforcing the law. (12)
Potentially, it appears that May's lawsuit about funerals gone dreadfully wrong could be a far more serious matter than the Paula Jones case since it involves allegations of influence-peddling and a cover-up of serious official misdeeds rather than personal misconduct. As the Austin Chronicle's Robert Bryce put it, "the most disturbing part of this mess is that at no time did Bush, Allbaugh, SCI, Cornyn, or Whitmire act on behalf of, or show any concern for, Texas consumers. Instead they acted to protect the fat cats. That's the scandal." May, however, is a Democrat, who once served as the Texas Democratic Party treasurer, and the Bush team asserts that the suit is politically motivated and frivolous.
www.salon.com/news/featur...print.html (13)
But considering that the Jones case was dismissed as meritless, the inauguration of the younger Bush, who campaigned as the un-Clinton, may not mean an end to sensational presidential courtroom drama. He and his nominee to fill the shoes of James Lee Witt at FEMA may have their denials that they punished an agency head for acting to protect the public credibly disputed. A worst-case scenario with the May case trial could have both Bush and Allbaugh's credibility in ruins during an Oklahoma City bombing disaster.
Belatedly - and before the confirmation of Allbaugh - the public needs to hear specific explanations for Bush's contradicted affidavit and for his special assistance to Waltrip. Because, call it karma, revenge, justice, the way of the world, or just reality, the Eliza May case about funeral fraud and stinky oozing bodies looms as the irresistible means for a Gothic comeuppance.
(1) "Bush Taps Allbaugh To Head FEMA," by Scott Lindlaw. AP. The New York Times. 1-04-01.
www.nytimes.com/aponline/...ofile.html(2) "It's His Funeral," by Robert Bryce. "Naked City." The Austin Chronicle. 10-27-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html"Inconsistency raised in case," by George Kuempel. The Dallas Morning News. 10-24-00.
www.dallasnews.com/texas_...4tex..html"Surprise Testimony in Texas, " Newsweek-on-line. MSNBC.com 10-30-00.
"Fear and Loathing in Austin," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 11-10-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...ndup2.html"The funeral scandal time line," by Robert Bryce. Salon Magazine. 8-20-99.
www.salon.com/news/featur...index.html(3) "Experts say Bush should settle whistle-blower suit," by Richard Alm and Mark Curriden.
The Dallas Morning News. 8-26-99.
www.dallasnews.com/specia...uneral.htm"Bush named a defendant in whistle-blower suit," by Jim Vertuno. AP Austin Amer.-Statesman. 4-18-00.
austin360.com/news/1metro...wsuit.html"Bush named as defendant," by Robert Bryce. Salon Magazine. 4-18-2000.A
www.salon.com/politics200...print.html"Bush named a defendant in Texas wrongful-termination lawsuit," Nandotimes.com 4-18-2000.
www.nandotimes.com/nofram...-0,00.html
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html"The Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 1-26-01.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html (4)"Funeralgate Hits Texas," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 7-9-99.
www.auschron.com/issues/v....scci.html"The Plot Thickens," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 5-5-2000.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...ture5.html"The Funeral-Home Flap," by Michael Isikoff. Newsweek, Aug. 16, 1999.
www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp(5) "The Funeral-Home Flap," by Michael Isikoff. Newsweek, Aug. 16, 1999.
www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp"Going up the ladder isn't cheap," by Molly Ivins. The Abilene Reporter News. 8-16-99.
www.reporternews.com/1999...s0816.html"Funeralgate Hits Texas," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 7-9-99.
www.auschron.com/issues/v....scci.html"Bush Tangled in Funeral Industry Suit," by Claudia Kolker. L.A. Times. 9-5-99.
www.latimes.com/news/poli...79438.html"Bush Faces Lawsuit in Texas," by John Mintz. The Washington Post. 10-23-99.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...082399.htm"Meet Al Gore's Top Man," edit. by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. CounterPunch. 11-26-99.
www.counterpunch.org/coelho.html"The Plot Thickens," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 5-5-2000.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...ture5.html"Burying the Opposition: The Funeralgate players," by Robert Bryce. The Texas Observer. 5-28-99.
www.bushfiles.com/bushfil...ition.html"Bush Linked to Alleged Political Reprisal," by Paul Duggon. The Washington Post. 8-3-00.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...080399.htm"Fired state funeral agency director says governor is lying," by M. Curriden and G. Kuempel. The Dallas Morning News. 8-19-00.
www.dallasnews.com/specia...uneral.htm(6) "Bush Tangled in Funeral Industry Suit," by Claudia Kolker. L.A. Times. 9-5-99.
www.latimes.com/news/poli...79438.html"Embalming for Dollars," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 7-9-99.
www.auschron.com/issues/v...lming.html"Going up the ladder isn't cheap," by Molly Ivins. The Abilene Reporter News.
8-16-99. www.reporternews.com/1999...s0816.htmlSHRUB: The Short But Happy Political Life of G.W. Bush by Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose. 2000. pp.103-6.
"A Pattern of Intimidation? or Just Business?" Timeline from The Austin Chronicle. 7-9-99.
www.auschron.com/issues/v...side1.html"Buried in Scandal," by Robert Bryce.The Austin Chronicle. 3-99.
www.auschron.com/issues/v...neral.htmlUnder the Influence," An Investigative Report by the Center for Public Integrity. 11-2-00.
www.*public-i.org/story_16_022800.htm"Pols Try To Bury Funeral Probe," Lobby Watch. Texans For Public Justice. 3-19-99.
www.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/funeral.html"Bush's scandal not a sexy as Clinton's," by Sara Fritz. The St. Petersburg Times. 4-24-2000.
www.sptimes.com/News/0424...t_as.shtml"The funeral scandal time line," by Robert Bryce. Salon Magazine. 8-20-99.
www.salon.com/news/featur...index.html"Bush Taps Allbaugh To Head FEMA," by Scott Lindlaw. AP. The New York Times. 1-04-01.
www.nytimes.com/aponline/...ofile.html(7)"The Plot Thickens," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 5-5-2000.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...ture5.html"Burying the Opposition: The Funeralgate players," by Robert Bryce. The Texas Observer. 5-28-99.
www.bushfiles.com/bushfil...ition.html"Comptroller sending 'SWAT' team to funeral agency," by Michael Holmes. Abeline Reporter-News. 8-17-99.
www.texnews.com/1998/1999...m0817.html"Review criticizes prepaid funerals," by Amy Schatz. The Austin-American Statesman. 10-20-00.
"It's His Funeral," by Robert Bryce. "Naked City." The Austin Chronicle. 10-27-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html"Bush names new funeral commission," by Michael Holmes. AP. Abeline Reporter-News. 9-4-99.
www.reporternews.com/1999...m0904.html"Burying the Past," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 9-3-99.
auschron.com/issues/dispa...ture3.html"The Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 1-26-01.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html"Bush accused of false remark," by Juan B. Elizondo Jr. The Austin American-Statesman. 8-19-99.
www.austin360.com/news/fe.../0819.html"It's His Funeral," by Robert Bryce. "Naked City." The Austin Chronicle. 10-27-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html"Pulling a Clinton?" by Robert Bryce. Salon Magazine. 8-5-99.
www.salon.com/news/featur...index.html(9) "The Funeral-Home Flap," by Michael Isikoff. Newsweek, Aug. 16, 1999.
www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp(10) "Lawsuit accuses governor of impeding investigation," The Huston Chronicle. 4-19-00.
"Around Texas, Bush 2000 update," The Lone Star Report. 8-20-99.
www.lonestarreport.org/bu...01w2k.html"It's His Funeral," by Robert Bryce. "Naked City." The Austin Chronicle. 10-27-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html(11) "Inconsistency raised in case," by George Kuempel. The Dallas Morning News. 10-24-00.
www.dallasnews.com/texas_...4tex..html"It's His Funeral," by Robert Bryce. "Naked City." The Austin Chronicle. 10-27-00.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked6.html(12) "Inconsistency raised in case," by George Kuempel. The Dallas Morning News. 10-24-00.
www.dallasnews.com/texas_...4tex..html"The Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 1-26-01.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html(13) "Bush's scandal not a sexy as Clinton's," by Sara Fritz. The St. Petersburg Times. 4-24-2000.
www.sptimes.com/News/0424...t_as.shtml"The Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die," by Robert Bryce. The Austin Chronicle. 1-26-01.
www.auschron.com/issues/d...aked5.html"Who is Eliza May?" by Robert Bryce. Salon Magazine. 8-20-99.
www.salon.com/news/featur...print.html"Influence Peddling, Bush Style," by Dan E. Moldea & David Corn. The Nation. 10-23-00.
www.thenation.com/doc.mht...3&s=moldea"Bush in contempt on Formaldegate?" by Robert Bryce. The Texas Observer. 9-3-99.
texasobserver.org/septemb...tible.html"The Funeral-Home Flap," by Michael Isikoff. Newsweek, Aug. 16, 1999.
www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 13, 2001.
Cherri, you may be the ultimate example of a person that has turned their soul over to delusional hatred. Is your life so bad that you must escape reality by living in the abyss? This forum is rich with opposing viewpoints and political debate but you are WAY over the edge. For the sake of your loved ones, and for yourself, please seek professional consultation before this sickness eats away your mind.
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.
What's worse Cherri, you think that people who don't think like you suffer from some mind bending propaganda. I find the article interesting. "Republican version of Carville's War Room", Bush beat them with their own tatics. An interesting twist, doncha think?
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 2001.
Cherri, the Democrat-Ain't
-- (nemosis@awol.com), February 13, 2001.
Thanks Cherri. I appreciate you posting this article.I guess the Bush supporters just plain don't want to address little items like this. Their reality cannot contain the fact that their boy bush may not be the moral savior they were hoping for.
How fitting for a Christian candidate's staff -
Behind Griffin in the RNC Oppo Room, the BBC camera captures a large sign he has erected. "On my command unleash hell on Al."
Seems I live in the same delusional, unrealistic world that you do!
-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 13, 2001.
Cherri, your subject line says it all.What do you think marketing is all about? I'm not in advertising but it doesn't take an aerospace engineer (there ya go Lars) to figure this out! Selling anything, be it laundry soap or a presidential candidate, is first and foremost a job of convincing the target that they NEED the product. Or in the case of politics, that the other candidate will bring with them into office famine, pestilence and plague.
Looking for honesty to be a major ingredient in the marketing of a politician? Good luck. All races break down into various grades of slime for hire. The honest approach would be "My party's slime ball is less slimey than the other party's slime ball. Candidate 'A' mutilates the facts far fewer times than Candidate 'B'. Vote for Slime Ball 'A'."
I never forget these guys and gals are lower forms of life and hence not worthy of the empty bragging which pervades this place. It's really quite comical, IMO.
-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 13, 2001.
So this is spin too? I watched the show on TV where this happened. The guy was bragging about his ability to brainwash the public, and it appears he managed with some of you.But when Gore makes what turns out to be his misstatement about visiting Texas fire sites with FEMA director James Lee Witt, Griffin senses blood.
"Have Jeanette take a look at that!" he cries. And his hunch is right. Gore has transposed dates or people. And that gives Griffin another opportunity.The BBC cameras catch him on the phone exulting to a colleague: "You know what this would be perfect for is... Get one of these AP reporters or somebody on it for the next few days and then we get a lie out of it... and roll a few days with a new lie!"
And "LIE" was what they got. The New York Post trumpets "LIAR LIAR" on its front page — and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore's perceived chronic character flaw. And so it has gone every week since the debates. The image is enshrined.
And you just ate it up Maria
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 13, 2001.
See Cherri's evil twin here
-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 13, 2001.
Wow Cherri,You are so filled with hate - just like the right-wingers who persecuted Clinton for the last eight years.
So sad...
-- guess who (kiss.my@ass.com), February 13, 2001.
I think the most remarkable thing about all this is not that anybody is doing it--they all are--but that Al Gore and his team did a lousy job of handling their reactions. Some of these attacks could have been ignored successfully, but Gore chose to react. He "I'm my own man" speech showed me that he truly wasn't.
-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.
You mean, political campaigns engage in public relations? The horror, the horror! Fortunately for us, though, only the OTHER PARTY does this. Our own party would never dream of it, telling only the unvarnished truth wherever it might lead. The only reason the truth always seems to hurt the other party is, our guys never make mistakes, or vote for the wrong bills, or tell any lies.And Cherri has PROOF, carefully selected from an unbiased sample of all articles she can find that she agrees with, and *nothing else*. And absolutely nobody is telling her what to think, either. Honest.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.
Every village has to have an idiot. Thanks Cherri!
-- public (opinion@this.place), February 13, 2001.
Cherri is not an idiot. She is a very intelligent lady who is quite fustrated that her candidate did not win. This causes her to post some stupid articles and views to the internet. For the last 8 years we have had a lot of smart conservatives and Republicans saying a lot of stupid things about Bill Clinton for the same reason (fustration).Again I will add that Cherri is not stupid, nor Debra, or many other of the posters here.
-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), February 13, 2001.
Thanks Dr.I don't understand how the fact that I dislike the way the Bush campaign was run equates to hating him.
I used to be firmly republican, would have voted for McCain if he had been picked, voted for him in the primary.
I do not believe Bush's background qualifies him to run the country. This does not mean I hate him personally, as a matter of fact I don't hate him, I feel sorry for him.
Showing information about him and his past is my way of putting out information for others to read and use as they see fit. I do not demand any one think like I do, I do not demand that anyone believe anything I post. Why is it automatically assumed that I am a Clinton supporter? Why does it always have to be all or nothing, either black or white? If I disapprove of the dishonesty used in the election then I must hate Bush and everything to do with his presidency and the republican party- right? Wrong. I have not given my views on Clinton, I have given very few personal views on Gore. I support big business and industry, but do not approve of profit gained by morally wrong or legally corrupt means. I do not think money is good or bad, as a matter of fact I believe the way in which money is obtained directly reflects the entity or person receiving it.
Money itself is neutral, possession of it does not automatically define the entity owning it. A business which makes a lot of money is not automatically good, a person with little money is not necessarily bad. If it is obtained by illegal or morally corrupt means, the amount of it can reflect the degree of moral corruptness of the person or entity that possesses it.The fact that I do not agree with the way in which Bush gained office does not mean that I believe in or agree with government handouts. I do not believe that people who have the ability to work should live off of the government, but then the same should apply to big business. Corporate welfare is just as wrong as able workers receiving welfare.
I believe that there are people, especially seniors who have worked all of their lives, who need help and should be helped by the government. I don't believe that people with genuine needs should be taken out and shot (or abandoned with no help for basic needs) to prevent the taxpayers from having to support them.
I agree that welfare went from a form of temporary help for people in need to an extremely bloated program of hand outs and lifetime, generation after generation way of life for some people. At one time it was structured in such a way that a person who tried to get off of it and support them self would be met with so many roadblocks that they gave up even trying. Others grew up on it and considered not only considered it an acceptable way of life, but came to believe that the government owed it to them.
This was caused by a number of things, people growing up in neighborhoods where this was a way of life, increasing numbers of social programs that went from helping with necessities in an emergency, to where providing the necessities were expected from them.
Businesses came to hold the same attitude, they expected to be consumers to buy their products, even when standards plummeted and more effort was made towards quantity and less towards quality. When the consumer rejected their low quality products and business failed, they expected to be bailed out.Society and government went toward trying to provide people in need with temporary help to the extreme of providing everything a person needed and then some. Extremism in anything can destroy the original intent.
I don't understand the mentality of people who seem to need to put a label on someone and attribute entire social attitudes to them just because they hold certain beliefs.
I do not like corruption, I do not accept corruption and the manipulation of fact and people being used to put a person in office. Logic forces me to believe that were the office to be reached in an open and honest manner, based on a platform the people wanted, then why was there a need for manipulating public opinion? If Bush honestly won the election then they would not have made the incredible efforts they did to prevent the legal counting of ballots dictated by laws which have been used before without protest? If everything is the way it should be then why the hostility and effort to discredit anything I post? Why are personal insults made against me if the facts speak for themselves? Am I or what I post such a threat that I must have every conceivable negative social belief attributed to my way of thinking? Why is it said that because I don't agree with what happened that I also believe in government handouts and am the scum of the earth? It gets a little old reading people writing what they think is in my mind, when they have no clue. Do you think that if you say it that makes it a fact? Is the effort to insult my moral character necessary because people must be convinced that I am an extreme fanatic who hates Bush and so anything I post should not be believed?
I remember during the Y2K debate the same thing happened. People who could not refute what I wrote would attack me personally in an effort to discredit me.
Is it really necessary to insult someone just because you don't hold the same views on a subject?
Is it impossible for me to disagree with the election and still be a normal, caring human being?
Why are my mental abilities insulted instead of the points I write about discussed or refuted with logic and reasoning?
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 14, 2001.
Write a book already. Have flint help.
-- Author Unknown (Post@too.long), February 14, 2001.
Cherri Says:“It gets a little old reading people writing what they think is in my mind, when they have no clue.”
One CLUE might be the volumes of posts you have put up on this forum for the past few weeks. There are few people that I know ‘personally’ that provide this much insight into their mindset. Other than those on this forum that might have met you, it is your posted words that lead to this judgement. Like all forum participants, you are welcome to post your opinion and thus open to comments from opposing views. Your dislike of GWB seems to be to the extreme so you should expect a return in kind.
Personally, I always found you to be a voice of reason during the bad old days of the TB2000 forum and enjoyed your posts and comments very much (you looked great in your Air Force uniform). But that was before I discovered that you were a delusional liberal, totally void of any lucid thought:>).
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 14, 2001.
Cherri:The problem is, the facts *do not* speak very clearly at all. All the courts but one decided the same way. That one, the FSC, was obligated to overrule their own lower courts, only to be overruled by the USSC. Now, you claim the election was not legal. Yet it was, according to all but a single court. Why do you choose to select that one court and reject all the rest? Because "the facts speak for themselves"?
And in fact there were multiple counts. There was the initial count by machine, which Bush won. There was the mandatory recount, which Bush also won. There was the recount plus partial re-recount in Gore's cherry-picked counties, which Bush also won. There was the next partial re-recount after the FSC determined that when the law said 7 days, they really meant 19 days! And Bush won that one too!
Now you say Bush's election was invalid because the votes were not counted "properly". OK, just what constitutes "proper"? From every appearance, it would seem that "proper" was a code-word that meant "keep counting using different standards until Gore wins."
I ask you directly: IF Gore had won the initial count, would you have accepted it, or would you have demanded one recount after another, and so long as Gore kept winning you'd claim none of the counts were any good? Does that strike you as ridiculous? Yet that's *exactly* your complaint when Bush wins each count.
So the facts don't speak for themselves at all. You speak for yourself, creating "facts" to suit your preferences. For me, the closest thing to a fact is that we had a statistical tie, and we selected a pretty much arbitrary winner. EITHER candidate would have been arbitrary.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 2001.
Well now apparently the truth is coming out of all your supposed "recounts" Flint, and shows Al Gore won. How do you explain it Flint? Maybe cause you do not have FACTS? That what you believed were recounts were in fact inaccurate partials? If there were indeed these recounts you speak of, how come the ones now show such differences??? Do you need a map Sir?And I still see you are in denial over the(what was it 6-8)counties who publically admitted they never did ANY recounts at all.
Member a chap named Brian? He left here when it became apparent he was pissing in the wind with people to who the facts are boards to step over as they mindlessly spew some crud they heard the PIG utter.
BTW, most of the lower court rulings were what? What was the intent in the Absentee Ballot tampering cases? That it was far more important to have everyones vote counted than abide by laws completely written with full instructions leaving absolutely no ambiguity. Hell those two judges allowed 15,000+ votes included in which Florida law says should have been tossed(and they agreed). Doing so in the face of precedence which disallowed tampered absentee ballots before. Laws in this area are CLEAR(requiring no judicial inquiry) because this has been a problem before in Florida. But no matter, this was a Presidential election and the lower court judges ruled the votes in while finding clear violations of the statutes.
The rulings in Florida, FSC down, supported as full and accurate a recount as humanly possible. Bush and co however did what they could to stop this at every turn and bored the country to sleep. Longer it went on, the more it looked like a whining Al Gore.
Just be grateful all, that not more Americans know of the real Florida saga. If they did, well I assure you the Clinton rugs and china crap would vaporize pronto. Million Mom Marches? try Ten Million pissed off Patriots marching.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.
Doc:[Well now apparently the truth is coming out of all your supposed "recounts" Flint, and shows Al Gore won. How do you explain it Flint? Maybe cause you do not have FACTS? That what you believed were recounts were in fact inaccurate partials? If there were indeed these recounts you speak of, how come the ones now show such differences???]
OK, let's examine the facts. One single newspaper (the Sentinel) has done by their own admission a partial recount of about 10% of the votes. Why are their partials better than anyone else's? Why don't you tell us their counts are partials?
And who did the Sentinel endorse for President? Might this influence their interpretations of the ballots? Why do you omit this?
Also, by their own admission, the Sentinel is counting legally invalid votes as Gore votes if they believe the intent of the voter was to cast a vote for Gore. Why don't you mention this? Your "truth" is also based on partial and admittedly inaccurate recounts. The only difference is, their decisions are not being monitored by the opposing party.
And on the basis of these partial and legally invalid counts, the Sentinel *projects* that Gore would have won by 32 votes! Wow!
You sure fall all over yourself buying into "facts" and "truth" that tells you what you want to hear. Now, if the Wall Street Journal's reporters (using their own standards for counting votes) decide that *their* projection from 10% of the votes says Bush won, would this count as a "fact" for you, or would you claim they didn't count right?
However, your enthusiastic willingness to adjust your "standards" to fit your desires demonstrates *exactly* why none of these counts can be trusted. No matter who they say won.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 15, 2001.
From Florida Election Law:Chapter 101.011 ...
(4) If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if it is impossible to determine the elector's choice, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office; but this shall not vitiate the ballot as to those names which are properly marked, and nothing in this code shall be construed to prevent any elector, at any general election, from voting for any qualified candidate other than one whose name is printed on the ballot.
-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 15, 2001.
Problem here is what is sitting on Poole's website, you are suffering from programmers blindness Flint.Gee no kidding these press exercises are not the height of accuracy or even fairness, were the counts certified as official any better? That IS the point. And few would argue everything was done to make them more accurate, even you I bet.
It is nice to see Buddy doing some reasearch. Make sense that passage if we had a complete and as accurately humanly possible count to smack it off. Amounts to a what-if as it is.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.