View Story | 140 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I wrote about this here (the Lying Socialist Weasels' new group blog). For a much better (and far more thorough) overview, check out this story, also in today's Washington Post.
The comparison between the two stories is stark, and I predict the latter's detail and even-handedness will more than cancel out Ms. Williams' drivel.
by Jonathan on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 07:08:19 PM PDT
I did look at the other WaPo story (and I'm going to be updating my piece to include a reference to it). The potential problem there is that it's five times as long as Williams' op-ed, and you actually have to read it all to get the full impact. Williams makes bullet points that stick in the mind.
While I think it's great that there's a serious candidate in the race for the White House, somebody that is willing to take the time to make sure he uses the right word in a policy speech (I'm sure I'm not the only one who winced when Bush described his embryonic "war on terrr" as a "crusade") that doesn't mean I want a white paper every time the RNC throws out a little oppo research. Even the quintessential wonk himself knew that you couldn't be all-wonk, all the time. When your opponents hit you with sound bytes, you have to give a response that fits the same format, even if you expand on it later or in other forums.
Michael Musing's musings
by musing85 on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 07:29:32 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I think Kerry will get an awful lot of mileage out of the simple notion that several of his votes in the Senate were the result of Bush misleading Congress, just like he misled most of America. We have to remember that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, for example, yet are now having doubts. They believed Bush, too, so Kerry can position himself as representing a majority. He's actually in a strong position of guiding the nation from trusting to not trusting Bush.
Combined with Bush's own blatantly political lying and flip-flopping, I think Kerry's in a pretty good spot.
Although I was a Dean supporter, I was always a tad worried that his position, while powerful, could be too easily taken as an "I told you so". Kerry won't have that problem, at least in this area.
by Jonathan on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 07:59:14 PM PDT
Americans were NOT for the war. Once the troops went in, suddenly they were for it. Not a moment before (well, maybe when Colin Powell lied about it, right before the troops went in). Now Americans are too stupid to remember they opposed the war until the troops were on the ground (and then they had to rally for the troops--what a crock!).
Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!
by Asak on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 03:16:39 AM PDT
I'm not saying that most thought it was a great idea, especially without the UN. But enough believed what Bush was saying, and believed they should give a show of support, that Kerry could use it to his advantage.
by Jonathan on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 08:46:12 AM PDT
"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry, 1971 but what we needed to hear in 2003/2004
by Demise on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 10:58:57 AM PDT
by reef the dog on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 04:19:51 PM PDT
The country supported the war, although it was close, and it was only close because they were mislead.
Seriously, I remember reading all those polls. It did come down to about a 2/3 majority in favor. Heck, I even satired it, strangely enough.
-- Linearly Accelerated Media.
by wah on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 04:42:48 PM PDT
by itchyredness on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 06:39:12 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 140 comments