On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.
I had NO IDEA that's who was involved in this. That man is a pig - she should have told his minion to go fuck himself, and then some.
And this:
A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."
As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.
Some Democrats who signed up to hear Vice President Dick Cheney speak here Saturday were refused tickets unless they signed a pledge to endorse President Bush.
The measure was a security step designed to avoid a disruption, which Bush campaign spokesman Dan Foley alleged Democrats were planning. Democratic Party officials denied it.
Several Democrats, at least, encountered the screening measures Thursday after calling from a line that self-identified as ACT, America Coming Together, an activist group that supports Kerry, Foley said. Others attempted to give false names and were denied tickets, he said.
Two men who had sought tickets reported they were required to give name, address, phone number, e-mail address and driver's license number, then were presented the pledge of endorsement when they arrived to pick up the tickets Thursday.
One of them, John Wade of Albuquerque, said he signed the pledge because he wanted the tickets but then changed his mind.
"I got to thinking this is not right," Wade said. "They're excluding people -- that's what has me so upset."
He returned the tickets and campaign workers returned his pledge.
Vietnam veteran Michael Ortiz y Pino said he refused to sign the pledge and was refused tickets.
Ortiz y Pino said he was asked if he associated with veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups.
Neither man wanted to give driver's license numbers but did so.
"I said why do you need that?" Ortiz y Pino said.
A campaign worker, he said, replied: "Secret Service stuff."
Kerry campaign spokesman Ruben Pulido Jr. said there had been no plan by the campaign to disrupt Cheney's event.
"I think that every American should have the right to see their vice president and hear from him firsthand what he plans to do for our country," Pulido said.
He also said the Kerry campaign had not attempted to screen Bush supporters out of Kerry's appearance at the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque on July 9.
On that occasion, about a dozen Bush supporters wearing flip-flop beach sandals began chanting "Viva Bush" and waved their flip-flops over their heads. They contend Kerry has flip-flopped on the war.
I'm not taking sides, simply sharing an interesting Web banner ad that, according to a friend of Michael in NY, is making its way around Israel of late.
Astute reader Kenlac noted how yesterday's Washington Post op ed blasting Kerry has a paragraph that sounds an awful lot like a paragraph in a Boston Globe op ed published the same day. Are the Post and the Globe publishing GOP talking points? Did one plagiarize from the other? Or is this simply a very odd coincidence?
"He talked movingly of how his combat experience would temper his decision making: 'I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe.' The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy."
What op ed writer Jeff Jacoby said in the Boston Globe on the same day:
"He spoke of his empathy for the young grunts 'carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place' and about his respect for 'all who serve in our armed forces today.' Couldn't he have spared a few words to salute those troops for their two great achievements of recent years -- the toppling of vicious tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq?"
Usually, two seconds after an event the major media outlets start releasing instant polls about its impact and chat with focus groups about how they feel. I've always thought they moved too quickly and were silly in a way. But here it is two days after John Kerry's acceptance speech and still no poll results about his bounce? I'm sure they'll pop up on Monday, but what gives?
Erin writes in that CNN.com has a great article about how fear is quite a useful vote-getter. She notes, correctly, that Michael Moore pointed this out in F-9.11, the fact that Bush uses fear to keep himself in power.
Of course, I fear Bush, so does that make me want to vote for him more?
No big surprise here, but I still get a kick out of how cro magnon these guys are.
"Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women ... which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."
Bitches.
"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation."
Exactly, because we all know that the Vatican reserves the sex thing for small children.
The results from the latest Zogby Poll are in, and Dubya is in a heap o' trouble:
The most recent Zogby poll shows deeper trouble for President George W. Bush beyond just the horserace. Mr. Bush has fallen in key areas while Senator John Kerry has shored up numerous constituencies in his base. The Bush team's attempted outreach to base Democratic and swing constituency has shown to be a failure thus far, limiting his potential growth in the electorate.
Check out Atrios' post for the detailed poll breakdown, it's quite good.
A campaign worker for President Bush said on Thursday American workers unhappy with low-quality jobs should find new ones -- or pop a Prozac to make themselves feel better.
'Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?' said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.
The comment was apparently directed to a colleague who was transferring a phone call from a reporter asking about job quality, and who overheard the remark.
At least, that's the only explanation I can figure for today's lead editorial criticizing Kerry's speech. Yes, they either were higher than a kite while watching it, or they simply didn't watch it at all. Or, I guess there's one more plausible explanation, the Post must have thought that this was BUSH'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH - judging by the things they wished Kerry had done, they must have thought he was running as the Republican candidate.
Case in point. The Post criticizes Kerry for offering "not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein."
Huh? Since when is Kerry supposed to praise President Bush in his acceptance speech? This smacks of the same PC bull that requires every politician who criticizes the war to over-emphasize that THEY DON'T HATE THE TROOPS, REALLY THEY DON'T. Everyone knows that none of us "hate" the troops, it's a red herring, and it's meant to chill criticism. In this case, Kerry is supposed to praise Bush's policies, or else he isn't a friend of democracy? This criticism is simply bizarre.
Second case in point: "Mr. Kerry could have spoken the difficult truth that U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for a long time."
Why the fuck should Kerry hang that albatross around his neck? It's Bush's fault that our troops are in Iraq, not Kerry. And Kerry is supposed to be the one promising they'll be staying a long time? Who said they have to? Since when it is a fact that we MUST keep our troops there a long time? I don't think there's necessarily a national consensus AT ALL on that point. Yet the Post says Kerry MUST say this?
Third case in point: "a President Kerry, too, would face momentous decisions based on inevitably imperfect information, whether about Iran or North Korea or dangers yet to emerge. How would he respond? Will it always be safe to wait?"
Ok, so now Kerry is supposed to go into every detail of how he'd handle a HYPOTHETICAL crisis in Iran or North Korea that doesn't even exist yet? WTF?
Fourth case in point: "His promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs and end dependence on Middle East oil are not grounded in reality."
Why? Why is it not grounded in reality that we need to stop outsourcing jobs and/or being reliant on Middle East oil? Especially on the oil front, it's not grounded in reality that we need to increase our energy independence? Who wrote this Post editorial anyway, Halliburton?
The Post's conclusion: "Mr. Kerry will be judged not in a vacuum but against the record compiled by Mr. Bush. But he will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs."
I watched that speech last night and it was amazing. Feel free to write a letter to the editor telling the Post to go Cheney itself. The days of our kow-towing to the ineptitudes of this supposedly-liberal media are over.
I just got back from the airport 3 hours after I arrived because US Airways didn't just lose my bags AGAIN (they lost them on the way to Boston as well) - no, THIS TIME they lost 100s and 100s of bags from people on flight after flight after flight coming in from Boston. Among the celebs who joined us in our baggage pain was CNN's Judy Woodruff's entire crew and CNN's Paul Begala (perhaps Rupert had a hand in it).
The thing that's really annoying is the utter chaos of the scene on the ground. Literally over a hundred passengers milling about with no clue what was going on, and US Air giving all sorts of bizarre and conflicting answers. Including, my favorite, that the problem was in Boston. Really? Then why did it take them almost an hour to take even a single back off of my plane once we disembarked in DC? Surely Boston wasn't responsible for them letting the bags sit on the plane in DC.
An utter utter utter disaster. At least I got even. I took out my laptop, looked up my press list, and got at least 2 crews from two TV networks there to do coverage. Message to US Air: Don't piss off hundreds of journalists who haven't slept in a week.
Mike Signorile talked on his show yesterday about how the media is out to get Teresa Heinz, and I think he's right. There has been report after report panning the woman, and I admit, when she appears on TV, she's not all "Laura Bush warm milk and cookies." But you know, not all women sit there silently with pretty smiles on their faces all day long standing by their man. Some women actually have brains and fortitude. Not that Laura doesn't have brains, she seems like a nice lady and seems smart enough. But Teresa is a corporate CEO type whereas Laura is a very nice librarian. When did it become the rule that only librarians could be first ladies?
I mean, you read crap like this and you'd think the lady is a monster. Then you actually go and attend a meeting with the lady and she's something totally different. She's warm, funny, beautiful, and appears to have an incredibly loving, empathetic soul. Is she all milk and cookies? No she's not. She's the kind of mom who would probably slap you upside the head (well, at least metaphorically) if you mouthed off, came home drunk, etc. But so what?
If any of these journalists actually sat down with Mrs. Kerry in a more private setting, when she's not in front of the entire country under a microscope, they'd see that she's a hell of a lot more than what they're making her out to be.
And to those journalists who are too blind, too partisan, too jaded, or too lazy to see Mrs. Kerry for the class act she really is: Shove it.
"To the extent that there was some trepidation by convention-goers about whether Kerry had the stuff, it was pretty much melted away by the speech. To me, the whole thing was the ultimate judo move. What Kerry did was take everything the Republicans had been throwing at him and Democrats over the past few years, grab it and flip it over, including throwing their 2000 election campaign refrains back in their faces ("help is on the way", "restore honor and dignity").... It was a strong speech. It was a proudly liberal speech.... Good job."
"From my position in front of the TV and computer, this was a successful and satisfying convention (great speech from Obama, unexpectedly powerful speech from Kerry)."
"Not a stem-winder -- and Kerry would have been foolish to try. But a solid speech. And I thought he hit all the right points -- with the right emotional tenor. In a way, sitting in the hall and watching the back of Kerry's head most of the time is no way to judge how it appeared on TV. But that's my snap judgment."
"I believe, truly, that this is the perfect speech for John Kerry. It addresses every slander against him and absorbs the vulnerable edges into positive portions of a great man. This is phenomenal.
Stunning. He did it. I didn't think he could, not after Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Cleland. But he did it. He gave the perfect speech for this moment, for this race, for this crowd. He couldn't rely on his charisma and so he instead told the country where it needed to go. He couldn't do flash so he did substance...and he did it. There's nothing I can say beyond that...I'm sorry...I just don't have the words for it. I'm inspired. I'd forgot what this felt like."
I interviewed a second source yesterday who confirmed that during the 11AM services at Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA on Sunday, July 11, 2004, the crowd was told that Jerry Falwell will be delivering the opening invocation (prayer) at the upcoming Republican Convention in NYC. The source also confirmed that the crowd was told this would be a historic first, that there has never been a prayer opening the convention (hard to believe this fact is true).
You'll recall that earlier this week, gay religious leader, the Rev. Mel White, reported that he too heard the same information delivered from the pulpit during the July 11 service.
Two sources now confirm that the assembled thousands of churchgoers were told that Falwell is speaking. The only fact that remains in doubt is whether Falwell is in fact speaking, or whether he and his people misled his flock.
I think it's time to call the Republican National Committee and the Bush campaign and ask them if America's top homophobe-for-God is in fact going to be up on stage during the GOP Convention. And if so, ask them why they're promoting someone who believes September 11 was caused by gays, pro-choicers and members of the ACLU?
I almost lost it today when who goes walking by but none other than our favorite bitch, Omarosa! I HAD to run up and ask for a photo - she graciously posed for a good ten seconds while I fumbled with my camera - this lady likes her photo ops. She started doing an interview with some guy, so I went over to her people (yes, Omarosa has "people"), and asked "So, why exactly is she here?" I was told that Omarosa is fundraising for John Kerry, and she's been here all week. And lo' and behold, if you look closely at her jacket, it says Kerry 2004 on it.
Now, I have no idea if she's officially or unofficially helping the Kerry campaign, but geez, will this lady ever realize that her 15 minutes are OVER. (Now she'll probably sue me.)
This was a real treat. We're taking a two minute commercial break while taping the radio show this afternoon, and radio show host Corey Johnson (all of about 23 years old) jumps up in front of a white-haired man walking by and says "Senator Cornyn, I'm from Texas!" (which Corey most certainly is not). The Senator responds politely and shakes Corey's hand. Corey then says to him in a real loud voice: "I just want you to know that I am appalled and ashamed that you would support the homophobic and bigoted Federal Marriage Amendment." (Cornyn was one of the two chief sponsors of the amendment in the Senate.) Cornyn's jaw dropped and he just stood there blank-faced and confused, he didn't say a word, his staffers didn't say a word. He finally said "well, then I guess you won't be voting for me." Cornyn then said "thank you" and turned to walk away, while Corey shouted back "NO THANKS to you!"
It was absolutely amazing. To watch one of the biggest Senate homophobes stopped in his tracks by a 23 year old with incredible chutzpah. Truly one of my FAVORITE moments from the week. Below is Cornyn moments after Corey's surprise attack.
I think Kerry's speech was a home run. The one thought that kept running through my mind was "I could see this man as president." That, in my view, was the number one thing Kerry needed to accomplish tonight - convincing America that he is presidential - and he did that, well. He also showed us that he's a human being, not just a machine still in search of a heart (insert Cheney joke here). I was gladdened to see him take several jabs at Bush and Cheney - the restoring truth to the White House thing was fabulous, and I'm sure intentionally reminiscent of Bush's campaign promise in 2000 to return integrity, or whatever it was, to the White House. Loved the line about John Aschroft as well.
My big worry: Will Kerry stand by all his big words tomorrow? Meaning, when asked directly "are you saying the president intentionally misled the country?", Kerry needs to answer "yes." And not give one of those half-weasley answers that Republicans are trying to make his trademark. He gave a strong speech, he needs to stand behind it in the days to come.
My only other concern is that the speech intentionally didn't get into the issues the base is concerned about - gay rights, black issues, abortion, etc. I think that's a smart move politically as it has great appeal to the middle, and doesn't give the Republicans anything to complain about. BUT, I hope this doesn't mean we're seeing the making of a big liberal closet in which all the base issues of concern to the party are thrown into and locked behind an impenetrable door where we'll never see or hear from them again, that would be bad.
More tomorrow as I think about this more. But overall, he did everything he needed to do. Prepare for the Republican attack dogs to let loose.
