54 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

I think you’ll find the dialogue awkward and the characters unconvincing…

Jul 17, 2004 - 7:45 am 2. Armed Liberal:

Well, maybe you can be on the panel with Tim Rutten….

A.L.

Jul 17, 2004 - 8:21 am 3. DennisThePeasant:

The Politics of Truth[sic]

LOL

Jul 17, 2004 - 8:53 am 4. David Thomson:

ìHe is quoted in the Senate report as explaining that for certain passages of the book, he used “a little literary flair”.î

Is this a subtle way of Joe Wilson saying that he took liberties with the truth? I think so. The major media have so far hid his disgrace. Wilson was very instrumental in bring down President Bushís poll numbers. Inevitably, the full disclosure that Wilson is a lying sleaze ball will hurt the Kerry campaign. I enjoy watching the elite media squirm. These rascals are being thoroughly embarrassed.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:05 am 5. mrp:

Roger received a nice plug in Mark Steyn’s July 18 Chicago Sun-Times column. “Novelist and Internet maestro” indeed!

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:12 am 6. Fausta:

Wilson writing The Politics of Truth. Truth is stranger than fiction, for sure.

Ah the ironies of life.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:29 am 7. Rick Ballard:

Compliments are in order to Rutten for spelling Roger’s name correctly. Odd that he cites Wilson’s lame rebuttal based upon the CYA (oops, CIA) statements that the Senate panel included in their report – but rejected in their findings. Same for his risible “No support was offered.” closing sentence to the British report summary. Did he expect a revelation of sources and methods used by the intelligence services?

On the one hand we are left with the conclusions of two reports generated by the legislative branches of two governments both of which rather categorically support a conclusion that Saddam was seeking unranium in Africa. Mr. Rutten makes a to do over the fact that Iraq had 550 tons of yellowcake on hand. He neglects to identify the supplier of the 550 tons nor does he bother to discern the quantity of yellowcake that must be processed in order to obtain sufficient enriched uranium to produce nasty toys for Saddam.

Mr. Rutten concludes with “There you have it: full disclosure. As they say on television, you decide.”

Well Mr. Rutten, my decision is that you belong on the same list as McGeogh, Nagourney, Priest, Milbank and Jacoby – all major leaguers of the same caliber as Adam Clymer. Myabe Sid Blumenthal will buy you a drink when you go on the Salon cruise. Lord knows, you’ve earned it.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:31 am 8. Kevin P:

Roger:

Congratulations! Tim Rutten and the LA Times have picked you out as “the pro-war blogger” to symbolize their pathetic defense of their once proud poster boy Wilson.Notice that Rutten tags you with the “pro-war” moniker to make sure his readers know that you are a unsuitable source for any information that doesn’t fit into their anti-war world view.Since you are pro-war that means you are a knuckle dragging caveman who can’t be trusted. Then he gives his paper a pass for not writting about Wilsons gaffes by saying the Wilson story was not news or stating the fact that the MSM wrote long”dense accounts”about Wilson.The accounts about the coommision report were long and dense but their references to Wilson “Misspoken words” were short,evasive or buried deep at the tail end of the story. Compare that to the numerous front page and above the fold coverage of Wilsons original accussations and they are hardly being “fair and balanced”.

Notice in Ruttens “objective” report on the baby killing bloggers he does not mention the memo that Plame wrote praising her husband qualifications for the Niger trip. Why would he want to give his readers all the story on Wilson when he can cherry pick snippets from Wilsons side of the story and pretend that it is “full disclosure”. Notice he doesn’t mention the “forgery” question. I guess that falls into the “Well we already covered that in our dense coverage last week when of course the Times decided to ignore that one too.

Keep it up Roger. You are doing a great job. You might not get the outside table at the Ivy anymore but you will be able to sleep at night.Just make sure you wipe the drool off your chin and that you wear gloves to protect your knuckles because you have gone from being a seeker of truth,light and justice like the LA Times and gone over to the dark side with the rest of us capitalist baby killing war mongers.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:34 am 9. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, what the hell? If Michael Moore can be a documentarian, why can’t Wilson’s book be nonfiction?

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:37 am 10. Fresh Air:

Roger Simon: “Internet maestro.”

Glenn Reynolds, watch your back!

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:53 am 11. Kevin P:

Roger:

I am not sure on how he is going to do this but somehow the anti-war, anti-Bush objective reporter Tim Rutten of the LA Times will have to tie you in somehow to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion Of Christ”.He has a almost pathological need to tie in that movie with people who are on the Darkside of his enlightened nuanced worldview.It is amazing how he can bring that movie into almost any discusion of any topic.It will be fun to see how he does it.

Jul 17, 2004 - 10:17 am 12. Samuel:

A little literary flair? (I know you tongue is in your cheek and Joe Wilsonís use of such term ridiculous). Evan Thomas of Newsweek (no Republican to be sure) says that the media presents the news to favor Democrats and likens it to s 15 point spot. Evan has always been an intellectually honest man. What, if Joe Wilson were a Republican seeking to bring down a Democrat, would the storyline be?

Roger you said the terms “Conservative” and “Liberal” make your eyes glaze as the definitions just don’t hold, in this I agree because they are used to ignite prejudicial images from both sides. But I have another I am sure you can’t deny. How about “Republican” and “Democrat”? The media is so blatantly in the tank for “Democrats” that it is no wonder that Barbara Bush (Dubya’s mother) predicted he would lose in 2000 because the media so savaged and hated him as to make it almost impossible (all the more remarkable he won).

Don’t expect too much, after all is this not the same media that shilled for Alger Hiss? What is Joe Wilson compared to him? Republican have to wait 20 years for the vindication of History as the media savaged Reagan easily as bad. We’ll have to pray Dubya wins and wait 20 years for complete vindication.

I have said over and over again that my world is a very Democratic world and what Democrats are buying and selling these days disgusts me! So I say screw the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative”, but even more how about this… “SCREW YOU DAMN DEMOCRATS!”. Screw you Jay Rockefeller, screw you Dianne Feinstein, and screw all the rest of you who try to sound reasonable yet reject or distort simple truths that are critical for the saving of civilization. Even more importantly “SCREW YOU DAMN MEDIA THUGS!” It is this simple, it is about “RIGHT” and “WRONG” and the Democrats are wrong again and the MSM follows them in the very pit of irresponsibility that causes honest minded liberals like Ed Koch, Roger Simon, to get disgusted and it causes someone like me say screw you Democrats I am gone! They are great at being right on small rhetorical issues and out of bounds on the critical ones. They have been this way since the victories of Civil Rights. The media has followed them down this vomiteous path. National Healthcare for all Americans, and nuclear bombs for our enemies!

Democrats and the MSM need grow up and get serious, winning is about the United States and not one Party and certainly not about domestic issues with little life and death value. When you prove worthy of such leadership you will rule again. When people get to know the John Kerry I know they will rightfully reject him and for that I thank God. But thanking God sounds kind of Republican doesn’t it?

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:12 am 13. Kevin P:

Roger:

I just can’t stop myself when it comes to the objective Mr Rutten.Notice how the blaring front page treatment and unobjective coverage of Wilson’s original story is called “naTural” by Mr. Rutten and the page 9 coverage of the lies is not addressed. Notice how any reporter or,Let me wash my hands first, blogger who reports on the chinks in St. Joe’s armour is part of a ‘republican” smear attack. By the way, Does the RNC know that you are pro-choice,pro-gay marriage and if it wasn’t for the WOT you would probably vote Democratic? I am suprised that a party known for a nazi like love of conformity and order would allow someone who has a mind of their own work for them. If I may be so rude, how much is Karl Rove paying his minions of disinformation these days?

Notice that Rutten never mentions that Wilson’s website is being funded by the Kerry campaign. I guess that is another one of those pesky facts that objective Tim has decided that his readers really don’t need to know about. It is so comforting that Mr. Rutten vets these things for us a doesn’t burden us with the need to make up our own minds. Tim, thank you, thank you. thank you.

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:29 am 14. Barry Dauphin:

LOL Times

Wilson answers latest charges of distoring the facts

reported by Tim Rotten

No sooner had the incomparable Joe Wilson bravely beaten back his critics with his response in the WaPo when new charges emerged. The sentence in dispute was: “In fact, with 2-year-old twins at home, Valerie did not relish my absence for a two-week period.” Several senior Adminsitration officials and anonymous relatives challenged the idea that anyone in their right mind could stand being around Wilson for more than a few minutes. One official indicated that “the President of Niger begged us to take him back.”

Witnesses claimed to have seen agent Plame literally jump for joy when informed that her husband would have an extended stay several thousand miles from Washington. She was noticeably disappointed when informed of a typo. Originally Wilson’s travel orders read “two years.” This reporter pressed Wilson for comment. He said that he stands by his statemennt that Valerie did not relish his absence for two weeks. Truthful as always. I report, you deride.

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:36 am 15. PeterUK:

“a little literary flair”.î

or a little literary f…. liar.

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:37 am 16. Barry Dauphin:

ABB News

reporting: Tim McPoo

In a follow up to the investigation into charges that Iraqi PM Allawi executed several insurgents, ABB has learned new information. The execution was attended by several Americans, including cafeteria workers from Halliburton and the Bush twins. ABB has uncovered that Halliburton has been contracted by the interim Iraqi government to provide last meals to any insurgents Allawi executes. In a further development, Halliburton apparently also charges the insurgents for the meals, resulting in a double charge.

This reporter has had the opportunity to interview PM Allawi. I asked him where he got the gun. Allawi said, “I recently rented Bowling for Columbine and saw that bank where you get a gun for opening a checking account. So I went there.”

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:52 am 17. PeterUK:

It could be though,that Wilson was too embarrassed to report his true findings.The main exports of Niger are yellowcake,cowpeas,onions and goats,feed the first three to the latter and you have formidabie WMD.Could Wilson have come back and announced that Saddam Hussein was obtaining GMD from Niger? He would be a laughingstock throughout the diplomatic world.

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:57 am 18. Knucklehead:

Yo, Kevin P, go easy on that knuckle dragging stuff – it makes my head hurt. How far we warmongers have sunk that we now have a fedora-wearin’ screenwriter carrying our water. Sigh…

Jul 17, 2004 - 12:19 pm 19. David Thomson:

ìHe (Joe Wilson) called Bush a “liar” and he called Cheney a “lying sonofabitch,” on stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa.î

This is why the John Kerry campaign is extremely worried about the revelations that Joe Wilson is a lying scum bag. The poll numbers of both Bush and Cheney have taken a serious beating over the question concerning their truthfulness. One merely needs to look at the poll results of just some six months ago and those taken today. Even political opponents of the President took for granted his basic honesty and integrity. Kerry has every reason to be scared. His campaign may very well completely collapse. I accurately predicted that the picking of John Edwards would not result in a significant jump in the polls. It is my conviction that the same will also hold true for the Democratic Convention.

Jul 17, 2004 - 12:29 pm 20. Kevin P:

K-Head:

Do I need to explain everything to you.Here is Vast Rightwing Conspiracy 101.First you get a respectable frontman(Roger) to write your propaganda for you. Herr Karl has wisely chosen a Hollwood,non-threatening,fedora wearing, write anything for money,scribe to take Roves thoughts and schemes and transfer them to paper.That way the RNC talking points are transmitted to the true knuckle dragging, drooling,war monger, baby killing shocktroops,(us) so we know when to start the next uprising.I would give you more info bur first we have to check your aryan roots and make sure you are one of us.Remember, Rove runs everything.When you begin to doubt him remember that he has plans within plans and that Roger is just one cog in the great machinery and the Fedora is an important part in the whole plot.You will receive further instructions.

Jul 17, 2004 - 12:53 pm 21. chuck:

Wow, Samuel, some strong feelings there. I would probably write something similar if I let myself go, perhaps shorter and nastier though. I ask myself why I feel such animosity towards the Democratic party, a party that I belonged to for so many years. Betrayal is the word I come up with, I feel betrayed by the triviality, immaturity, and sheer lunacy of the party. It’s not like some other party, say the Republicans, whose oddities I can tolerate as the eccentricity of the neighbors, no, it’s like finding that my wife has run off with a derelict with whom she had a long standing secret affair. Not only do I feel betrayed, but I wonder how I could have been such an idiot, overlooking all the signs and clues.

Jul 17, 2004 - 1:08 pm 22. PeterUK:

Chuck,

I see it like your favourite haunt,somewhere where you are comfortable, familiar faces and surroundings.Then one day the management changes,the old regulars drop off one by one,new faces appear,the place is gutted and redecorated,you are the odd one out and you don’t belong anymore.It is time then to move on,because eventually you get pushed out.

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:19 pm 23. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

So, here we are, happily savaging someone who well deserves it, while much of the population thinks that Bush and/or Cheney lied about uranium from Niger.

So we know Bush was truthful and Wilson a snake, but will it shift any votes?

Is there any coverage in the MSM? Even on Fox? Or is this just one more of Samuel’s predicted thousand cuts that will never be remedied.

I have met a remarkable number of people who think Bush is a liar and was a deserter in the National Guard – these people have been pumped full of distrust by the MSM. I don’t see any forces changing that yet.

On a positive note, I have yet to meet a Vietnam Veteran (including my Democrat mailman today) who is not against Kerry, although I have run into one (1) on the internet who believes that Kerry told the truth.

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:23 pm 24. Katherine:

“A little literary flair” eh?

That would explain practically everything one reads and hears from all MSM.

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:27 pm 25. TR Farmer:

Congratulations on making them squirm, Roger. I can’t wait to see which letters the Times decides to print in response to this article. Bet mine won’t show up!

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:33 pm 26. TedM:

John Moore,

I know how you feel. Samuel’s 1001 cuts are working only too well. The cuts are now mostly “facts” with a portion of society.

And we still defend against them day after day. Sometimes I feel like the boy at the dike. The leaks are springing faster than I can plug them up.

The worst part is what some of us discussed over a year ago. The LLL and MSM crowd have made the President the issue instead of the fanatics who are on a crusade to destroy the non Islamic world.

BTW, I have just finished Sam Huntington’s Who Are We. If you want more to worry about, just read it.

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:46 pm 27. chuck:

PeterUK,

Yeah, that works too. I have actually seen that happen several times here in town. Now, if only the analogy holds, the Democratic party will go out of business for lack of customers. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will happen.

John Moore,

The sad thing about propaganda is that it works. Same thing about negative campaigning, etc. By and large, most of us really don’t have the time to stay informed, it’s a full time job, unpaid at that. That’s why the decline of the MSM is so destructive: these are the folks we pay to do the job for us.

Jul 17, 2004 - 2:49 pm 28. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Chuck

Yes, propaganda is powerful – which is why it is used.

As for negative campaigning, sometimes it is appropriate. For example, few people know the terrible information about Kerry’s behavior in Vietnam and when he got out. Only negative campaigning will make that information available, because the MSM (including the LA Times which attacked Roger) is unwilling to publicize it. In other words, selective failure to report is just as bad as propaganda.

Lots of Vietnam Veterans know. There are a number of Vietnam veterans’ organizations, including the one I work with (Vietnam Vets for the Truth ) that have uncovered information (well, a lot of it is just sitting there in the public domain) that, if it applied to Bush, would be a gigantic scandal, but since it applies to Kerry, it is ignored.

Somehow I doubt Tim Rutten, who attacks blogs, has any interest in exploring the charges made against Kerry by Vietnam Veterans including Kerry’s entire chain of command (all of his commanders and their bosses up to CINCPAC). He probably doesn’t care that over 250 SWIFT boat veterans (including that chain of command) signed the letter saying that Kerry was unfit to command. He probably doesn’t care that 3 POWs (so far) have asked their fellow veterans not to vote for Kerry. He probably hasn’t noticed that recent Vietnamese propaganda attacking the US quotes some of Kerry’s worst lies about his “brothers-in-arms”, using Kerry’s name. He probably doesn’t care that Kerry met with our enemy, and then began a campaign of propaganda against the United States, making outrageous false charges which still stick to the country and those of us who are Vietnam Veterans.

It is disgusting. The MSM is so smug – they know bloggers must be wrong – we aren’t real journalists. And yet, studying their reaction to the charges by Kerry’s commanders’ press conference, and knowing how the journalists present were personally reacting, it is clear that they are behaving simply as the propaganda arm of the Democrats. At that press conference, when the charges came out, they were visibly unhappy and confused, and it took them a while to figure out how to deal with it (take the completely false Kerry counter-spin, add in some guilt by association, and smear the messenger, or in the case of AP, simply spike the whole story).

Jul 17, 2004 - 3:08 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

And Roger, I hate to be negative, but you do realize you will never get a good review in the LA or NY Times again, right? And be prepared to catch buckets of self-righteous bullshit on the panel.

Jul 17, 2004 - 4:04 pm 30. Syl:

Congrats, Roger, for the two cites!

Hey, folks, don’t worry. There’s no bias in the media, except for Foxnews which has a Republican bias and Fox and Friends should be renamed to Fox and Bush Friends….according to Neil Gabler anyway. But everything else is hunky dory except that the MSM doesn’t question Bush policies…just follows the party spin. (Fox NewsWatch)

Sigh.

Jul 17, 2004 - 4:26 pm 31. Knucklehead:

John Moore,

I’m going through this right now with a bunch of my buddies (we all all Carter admin era vets). The Bush was AWOL (or at least hiding his NG records) and Kerry is Vietnam War vet who served a full tour and wad decorated. I’ve used the Swiftboats Vet site to help dispute the Kerry part.

Unless people are news and politics junkies who go digging they only have what the MSM delivers to them and that is relentlessly ABB.

It really is tiresome and tedious to keep dealing with meme after meme from the MSM. If you get past the Kerry as War Hero part you have to deal with the Bush Lied part. Once you get past that comes the Iraq was uneccessary meme. They aren’t being ABB deliberately they are just soaked to the skin in the never ending media BS.

Keep plugging, but it can seem darned discouraging from time to time. Someday the MSB bastards will get their comeuppance. If the lies keep getting exposed slowly but surely and their viewership/readership keeps dwindling (anyone been following the falsed up numbers for Newsweek and several newspapers?), sooner or later their money supply will start dwindling and, maybe, the days of easy and profitable partisanship will start to collapse around them. I can only hope.

Jul 17, 2004 - 5:12 pm 32. Knucklehead:

BTW, in addition to the MSM soaking ordinary people get there is also the “I don’t want it be this hard. I don’t want to put that much effort into it. Why do you?” Gee, maybe because we are at war, we need a war president and cabinet, the media half the country trusts imlicitly is lying through their teeth to the entire country and nobody is calling them on it, and maybe the other candidate is really unqualified for the job (and don’t get me started on the VP!). Ask anyone what they think of lawyers in general and ambulance chasers in particular and they’ll spew venom but somehow they don’t know what Edwards did to make his millions or that he’s funded to the gills by the trial lawyers. How is this possible?

Jul 17, 2004 - 5:19 pm 33. Erik:

Most people dont pay that much attention, they simply aren’t that interested in things outside their own personal lifes. They listen to the news, and read papers, but they just take what’s there at face value, and believe it to be true.

It’s just easier to accept it as a ready packaged truth, than it is to go against what everyone else believes.

I think that the best thing to do is to simply keep stating facts, and to present easy ways to verify those facts.

There have been several things that I more or less accepted as truth, without really thinking about it. Then when reading internet discussions, I got exposed to people that kept arguing with evidence for another view. And they did so repeatedly, offering up the evidence so I could check it myself. When I started checking it out, I was amazed when it turned out that they were totally correct.

Now I check the sources of most things I hear, and it’s amazing how much of the “known truths” that dont stand up to scrutiny…

You’d be amazed at how many things I hear in daily life that is just accepted as truths…

I have used the approach with facts when debating here too, and it’s amazingly effective. People here aren’t used to it, they are used to political buzzwords and rethoric, based with appeal to “known truths”.

So when I state facts, and give sources, and ask them to present their sources to counter mine, they simply cant answer.

Now, most of those I debate with usually resort to namecalling, but I mainly take the debate for those that listen, and not to convince those I debate with.

I honestly believe that just offering another view is important, and if you state your case with facts, without namecalling and propaganda, one by one, little by little, people will start to at least check it out for themselfes.

But living where I do, I sometimes think it’s not worth the trouble. It would be much easier to just tow the same line as everyone else…

At least it would make it easier at social gatherings…

Jul 17, 2004 - 6:12 pm 34. Knucklehead:

Erik,

Thanks. You helped me with something that was starting to form up in the vast, empty wilderness between my ears.

The MSM or “conventional wisdom” or whatever it is just does not often stand up to scrutiny, investigation, thought, and counter argument backed up evidence. I can’t answer the “why” questions about why the MSM or conventional wisdom wants to be so often incorrect and keeps pushing bad information so tenaciously. But why questions aren’t always important to answer.

In the case of the current WoT, for example, OBL/AQ in Afghanistan with the Taliban was not some isolated case of a bunch of lunatics with too much time on their hands getting together, planning, and pulling of a lucky strike against the Great Satan. It was just the most dramatic in a series of escallating and increasingly bold attacks that originated from several places withing and expanding and increasingly dangerous and hostile “Islamic world”.

In business we frequently talk about “the elevator pitch”. This notion is, basically, that you have an important and true story to tell about your company and its products. There are always people you wish to do business with that you have enormous difficulty getting to talk to so that you can present your important and true story in a way that is important and true to that person (its not enough that you believe it is important and true for you, you have to know how and why it would be important and true to the person you’re going to speak to).

So the “elevator pitch” is basically honing your story with the imaginary scenario that you step on to an elevator in some lobby somewhere and, lo and behold, there is the person you want to talk to and, lo and behold, you are both going to the top floor and you’ve got 60 seconds alone with this person. What are you going to say?

The MSM and “conventional wisdom” pushers constantly have those of us inclined to dispute them pushed back on our heels. They have memes #1 through #144 all layed out and ready to go and if you can spend the effort to get through the entire list, they just return to #1 and start all over.

Rather than respond and react to the never ending memes, what is the elevator pitch? How do we get ahead of this? If you have 60 seconds to try to convert an victim of the MSM, or convince one that happens to be undecided, what are you going to say.

I’m going to spend some time trying to get this together, but I would very much enjoy hearing from this group how y’all would use your 60 seconds or so to tell the important and true story about the WoT to some Inadvertant Moonbat who was blissfully convinced that Bush Lied, the WoT is not necessary or could be handled through international police action, Iraq was a big mistake, and the President needs to be “punished” by voting for his opponent regardless of who it is.

I’m slow so it will take me a good day or two to put mine together but whatever help you quicker and clearer minds can provide will be greatly appreciated.

I don’t need to change the world – if I can turn one voter from Kerry to Bush and move one undecided in the proper direction, I figure that would be a victory. If I can get two or 3 of each, we’re talking landslide city here

Thanks in advance.

Jul 17, 2004 - 6:45 pm 35. chuck:

Knucklehead,

Well, not being one of the brilliant ones here, all I can offer is a personal experience. A friend of mine went to see 9/11 with his very liberal girlfriend. He had some questions after, so I pointed him at the Hitchins and Jarvis reviews, and later Kopel’s 59 deceits.

The thing that impressed him was Jarvis’s remark that we were not the enemy, as Moore implied, rather, the terrorists were the enemy. Something that some folks need to be reminded of. Hitchins he found too literary without the specific details he needed to refute his GF arguments laid out in clear order. I suspect that Kopel’s screed will answer to what he needs.

My conclusions: remind the person who the enemy is. It isn’t Kerry or Bush. Be prepared with specifics so you can defend your view, and also offer the other person sources/material that they can defend themselves with. They too will need to withstand peer pressure.

Jul 17, 2004 - 8:06 pm 36. PeterUK:

Knucklehead,

It is hard to make a cogent case in a short time and the more detail the more scope for argument,initially it is neccessary only to sow doubt.This can be done with what are known in the trade as “Killer Facts” something that undermines one of the pillars of the opposition’s doctrine which are irrefutable.These don’t have to be directly related to the argument in hand but question a basic premise represented by the buzz phrases that most people use instead of thought.If one were particularly devious one could replace the buzz phrase,but presuming one wants to be fair,taking apart the existing buzz phrase will do.

It is important to get the killer fact, in even if you have to manufacture an opening,politicians do it all the time.

Singlemindedness is crucial but it has to be remembered not to flog it to death as this closes peoples minds down.

So everywhere you go spread a little doubt,it’ll turn into sunshine later.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:07 pm 37. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

Writing an elevator pitch based upon the situation today is not a difficult task. The pitch that will count is the one that follows the realization of the DNC/MSM dream – what do you say after the next major terror strike here? All of the pump priming done to date by the DNC/MSM is meaningless unless a strike occurs. They’re holding a pair of deuces today and the only draw that improves their hand involves a good deal of American blood spilled right here at home. The US is simply too large and Americans too fat, dumb and happy to be protected.

I’d be very interested in reading what you come up with for a “day after” pitch. You might as well work on it now because we won’t get to Nov. 2 without needing it.

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:15 pm 38. richard mcenroe:

Just when you think there might NOT be media bias.

They’ve edited the commercial for the new Manchurian Candidate. Where it used to say “first privately owned vice president of the United States” it now says, “…privately owned President of the United States…”

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:26 pm 39. Old Grouch:

Knucklehead:

This started out being a longer post, but I thought I’d get this much out where everyone could hammer on it . So, as a fragmentary outline.

1 Concentrate efforts on people who will listen with an open mind. The radical “Anybody-But-Bush”ies, the yellow dog Democrats, and the transnational socialist crowd are not worth your time.

2 Honest opponents who might rethink their position, given more information:The “My issue is gay marriage/abortion rights/federal deficits/destruction of liberties by the Patriot Act/drilling for oil in Alaska/etc.” people (e.g., Andrew Sullivan). Some of this group see the war as either unimportant (compared to their pet issues) or already won. Others realize that we are at war, but believe that Kerry’s future conduct would be sufficiently constrained by circumstances (regardless of campaign promises) that the war can be ignored for four years in favor of domestic politics.The “no war/wrong war/bungled war” opponents, who may profess that they “might have considered voting for Bush, if not for (going to/picking the wrong target in/bungling the execution of) the war.”The “I wanna go back to September 10th” group.

3 Questions to encourage thought:Regardless of “who started it” or past American policy failures, do you understand that we are at war, that our enemies have declared our destruction, and that we have to deal with it, or surrender.Do you understand what “surrender” means? Do you want to live under Islamic law?Do you realize that our opponents won’t be bought off, negotiated with, or treatied out of existance.Do you realize that the “mainstream media” have not been telling the whole story re. the above?Do you trust the Democratic party (in general) and John Kerry (in particular) to take our situation seriously? Do you trust them (him) to act in America’s interest?

More thoughts tomorrow…

Jul 17, 2004 - 9:49 pm 40. Erik:

I sometimes doubt if it is even possible…

I tend to try to avoid topics like that, unless they are mentioned too obviously in my presence.

Then I try to use facts as effectively as possible, preferrably in one-liner style.

It always amazes me how they can claim what they do with absolute conviction, when it is so obviously and blatantly wrong.

For instance:

“There is no freedom in USA anymore”

-OK, so where are the refugee camps in Europe that harbors the americans? Where are the american asylumseekers? And how come MM, Chomsky, etc… still live in the US? They even make lots of money there now..

And how come that for last year, 4 times more people moved to the US than from the country. (US Census)

Why are muslims, jews, hindus, christians, etc, living to the USA, instead of in their original countries?

“USA just invades everywhere and use military force everywhere”

-Right, I just looked out the window and saw all the Marines lined up outside my house… Please…

“There’s no free speech in the USA anymore”

-OK, so why are you still talking then? As well as MM, Chomsky, etc, etc…

“Kerry is a warhero and Bush is a warcriminal”

-OK, so why did Kerry, on tape and under oath in front of the congress, confess that he had participated in warcrimes? (BTW, why wasn’t he prosecuted for those warcrimes? Or purgery, if he actually didn’t commit them?)

And he tossed his medals back over the fence to give them back. Regardless if it was ribbons, medals, someone elses medals, etc, his stated intent was to give back the medals. The fact that he still has them does not negate that for all publicity purposes, he gave them back. So why does he claim them now?

“Allawi murders people, he’s just a new Saddam”

-But you’ve been claiming Iraq was better off under Saddams regime, so what’s your problem? You should really welcome that as a step in the right direction…

“War never solved anything”

-It stopped Idi Amin and Pol Pot, as well as ethnic clensing i Yugoslavia.

So far, that type of countering seems to work fairly well. It seems to throw them off a bit, and in any case, it tends to stop them from bringing up similar topics in my presence…

Maybe I should count that as a step in the right direction…

Jul 17, 2004 - 10:30 pm 41. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

As it relates to the war, which has of course become the central battleground for the Democrats, their main pillar is “Bush Lied!” This is obvious enough, though the care with which it was constructed illustrates it was a very deliberate group effort. This pillar is built on the premise that Bush had some omniscient level of intelligence, inaccessible to our mortal lawmakers. But in contrasting speeches made on the floor of the Senate with Bush’s several speeches on Iraq, we find almost no daylight between them. So then we move on to the “false premises” derivative, which is another way of saying the same thing. This is an immediately untenable position since it requires interior knowledge of Bush’s motives. Yet the Democrats and MSM insist on pushing this line, using the missing weapons as Exhibit A in their specious case that Bush is a liar.

Putting the fools in front of the 9/11 Commission aside (Dick Clarke, Joe Wilson, et al), the most powerful evidence Bush didn’t lie is the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which summarizes the National Intelligence Estimate used by Bush to make the case for war

According to the NIE, Saddam was actively producing hundreds of tons of chemical weapons, had extremely active ongoing research and development of lethal biological agents, and was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. You add to these things Saddam’s pathological behavior, history of making war on his neighbors, a leaky sanctions regime that funnelled vas amounts of cash into his pocket, and you have a powerful case for preemptive war.

Personally, I still think a lot of stuff is going to show up (some of the weapons depots are miles in length and breadth), but even if it doesn’t, this country’s best intelligence agents (and those of many other countries) all said Saddam had the weapons.

You may argue the CIA and NSA failed the president, but you cannot argue the president made his case in bad faith. And the evidence for all to see is sitting in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

Jul 17, 2004 - 11:24 pm 42. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Erik

Regarding Kerry war crimes. The ones I remember him testifying to were not actually war crimes. For example, this decorated combat veteran expert thought that using .50 cal machine guns against people was a war crime. It isn’t – I verified this with a JAG (who happened to be in Tikrit at the time) after I had dug through various international conventions,

Also, as far as we can tell, he was not under oath, although how you can have someone testify at a Senate hearing without swearing them in is beyond me.

For good source of everything Vietnam Era on Kerry, go to wintersoldier.com. You can also find the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth website from there.

And don’t forget to drop by Vietnam Vets for the Truth, drop in a donation, and tell any Vietnam Vet you now about it (yeah, I’m part of that organization).

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:04 am 43. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

A tactic I use if there isn’t a lot of time is to establish that Kerry is an opportunist (using his Vietnam Era history), and then ask why you would trust someone who would make terrible lies about his country out of simple opportunism.

Kerry has a bunch of negatives from that era. The media has been spiking the reports so far. But I think that some of the information is going to get out to the general populace.

Of course, the Kerry campaign is perfectly willing to slander the messenger, like they did the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, and the MSM will accept the smears uncritically.

But there are 1000 cuts that can be used against Kerry too. He was loathed by almost everyone he served with, is loathed by every Vietnam Veteran I have met, and came as close to treason as you can get without having a red T branded on your forehead.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:12 am 44. PeterUK:

Erik,

“War never solved anything” The best answer to this is that it solved the Third Reich problem,this is particularly useful because it is impossible for the opposition to bring up positive points about Hitlers’s regime and there is no residual blame which can be attached to the victors.Thee should never be any room for an “ah but!”

Jul 18, 2004 - 7:56 am 45. Syl:

Knucklehead

“The MSM and “conventional wisdom” pushers constantly have those of us inclined to dispute them pushed back on our heels. They have memes #1 through #144 all layed out and ready to go and if you can spend the effort to get through the entire list, they just return to #1 and start all over.”

This, as I understand it, is the structural state of affairs for ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ arguments for the whole of time. Liberals attack, conservatives defend.

Anyway, this would be my elevator spiel:

Forget Saddam, forget the Patriot Act, forget Bush. The terrorists believe having pets is a sin and would kill all our cats and dogs.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:37 am 46. Knucklehead:

I’d like to thank Old Grouch, Eric, Fresh Air, John Moore and others I’m too lazy to scroll up and get the names of. Good points. There is a comprehensive story to be told that pre-empts the ridiculous memes or turns them on themselves. An “elevator pitch” really begins life as a comprehensive and extensive “true story” and is then distilled into the main points that can be easily delivered and understood and, hopefully, whets interest and generates further discussion. You’ve all given me good info. Its going to take longer than I initially thought, and some other things have decided they need attention over the next few days, so it will take some time. But I will be perstering some of y’all to punch some holes and patch some cracks Thanks again!

And nobody is going to convert the believers. As far as I can tell the general population is somewhere around 40-45% on each “side”. That leaves somewhere between 10 and 20% “undecided” or “subject to being turned”. That is the group that really matters.

In my more optimistic moments I suspect that the MSM has turned up the volume and shrillness too early and loud and cannot hold the crescendo long enough without wearing out the audience and making them wish the unpleasant noise would stop already and, therefore, their actions will backfire on them. Sort of like every time you’re just about ready to give Today’s Youths a pass on that hip-hop racket they listen to, some kid parks across the street and sits there thumping so loud that cracks start appearing in your walls.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:30 am 47. Erik:

John Moore,

thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.

I have checked your website, and the wintersoldier site, but it was a while ago now.

I must remember it wrong, I was fairly certain Kerry claimed things like “cutting off limbs, raped” etc, in his testimony to congress, and also claimed he too took part in similar acts on a regularly basis.

Also, lying under oath and lying to congress might not be legally the same, but I still think it is the same thing morally…

I doubt that any of the leftist around here know the testamony well enough to catch that, but facts should be correct, or it will come back to bite you later. Thanks again.

PeterUK,

actually, I deliberately keep the Third Reich out of it. It’s too obvious, and tend to be treated as a borderline “Goodwins law”, too simplistic. Picking a few other examples seems to throw them off balance more, especially if none of the parties are the US. Pol Pot was stopped by Vietnam, Idi Amin by Tanzania(?), and EU-countries fully supported using force in Yugoslavia, they just didn’t have the manpower.

And there’s always the 1940’s to add to the list if need be…

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:00 pm 48. Erik:

Knucklehead,

when I studied in the US, my Political studies professor made a political map of the US. As he explained it, the Republicans and Democrats are “catch-all parties”, and each have roughly about 1/4 of the electorate “locked in” to their agenda, and those are unlikely to vote for the other side. The struggle is for the 50% in the middle, that share values and agenda with both parties. They can turn either way, and the winning politician is the one that catch the most of that middleground. (bell-curve?)

I know this is simplistic (it was told in passing as a comparison for Western European politics) but I have noticed it’s not a bad example.

I think it is also valid in Europe, leftwing and/or rightwing parties are unlikely to get more than 5-15% of the vote, there simply aren’t any more voters available for them, even if they try to move towards the middle. And the middleground in a multiparty system is occupied by other parties, so they cant be “catch-all” parties without loosing their base to a another party.

The reason I bring this up is that I’m not sure that there is a solid 40-45% for each party, I think that sounds way too much, 20-30% sounds more likely to me, the rest is probably in play based on where they stand on different issues, but each side has (so far) locked in about 20% of those.

I might be way off here, and I would really like it if someone could give me feedback on this, and tell me where I got this wrong.

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:12 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

Erik,

You’ll achieve a much better level of understanding if you do some basic research yourself. The use of the term “electorate” is a good place to start. The Pew Research Center is a good place to start.

Jul 18, 2004 - 2:26 pm 50. Erik:

Rick,

OK, I take it I was way wrong.

I actually read as much as I can about these things, and have been since I took that class, but apparently it’s not enough. Thanks for the links, I will read up more.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:58 pm 51. Rick Ballard:

Erik,

I must apologize for giving the impression that I thought you were off base. Your grasp of American politics would put you in the top quintile of Americans. If I were questioned on Swedish politics my answers would be labeled “non-responsive”. My suggestion that you dig into the Pew Research Institute was premised upon my understanding of your current level of knowledge. From the point where I presume you to be the next step is to look at the aggregated data available and begin to draw your own conclusions.

Why depend on a professors presumption or conclusion when you can create and defend your own? I mentioned electorate because it has several different meanings. It can mean “those eligible to vote” or “those registered to vote” or “those likely to vote”. Each of those groups will break down statistically in different manners. So your observations concerning party affiliation may or may not be correct dependent upon which group of the “electorate” you are referring to. Also note that there are many people eligible to vote that consider themselves to be affiliated with one or the other party but have never voted.

I appreciate your comments here and I’m willing to discuss any aspect of American politics that you find puzzling – as long as I have some competence in the area.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:10 pm 52. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó On my first trip through Benning, BCT/AIT, we were treated to the old saw about the Geneva accords forbidding engaging personnel with the .50 cal.

“So we use the .5o caliber machine gun to engage equipment,” the instructing sergeant said. A pause. “Helmets are equipment. Belt buckles are equipment…”

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:23 pm 53. Erik:

Rick,

OK, now I see where the misunderstanding was, I shouldn’t have used “electorate”, I should have just said “people”.

The professor in this case was speaking very generally, basically saying that all people in a country will have political views that are spread out from one extreme to the other. It will look like a bell curve. I believe he said far right to far left to simplify, but I think it would be valid for any question, most people will take some middleground on most issues.

He described this by making an horisontal oval shape, showing less people in each end, and more people the closer you get to the middle.

Then he circled the left 3/4 and said that that’s the potential voters for one party, circled the right 3/4 and said it was the potential voters of the other.

This would illustrate that the 50% in the middle could turn either way, they agree with both parties, more or less.

This was done as a comparison to a european system, with multiple parties, where a far left party couldn’t claim more than maybe 10-20% of the voters. If they try to expand their “potential voters” by moving to the middle, a new far left party will pop up and grab the far left voters.

This usually leads to one “far left” party, one “far right” party, and 3-4 parties that fight for the middle, where the most people, and voters, are.

A “winner takes all” system as the US tends to favor 2 parties, that has a wider “voter potential”, than a scandinavian type system, that tends to generate 4-7 parties in the parliament, each of them with a smaller “voter potential”.

(5% of all votes gets seats in parliament, and if they make the party program too wide, people will choose a party that targets their own opinions more precisely.)

It wasn’t said as a political statement, it was more as an illustration of how politics work, and what the difference between european multiparty systems and the US system is. It made sense to me then, and it still makes sense.

Of course, it’s a generalized illustration, and not an absolute fact.

The class was “Western European politics”, but I learned lots about the US system in it, since the US was used as comparison. And I sat next to a guy that was interested in history and politics… Extremely interesting, and fascinating.

That would mean that in the case of USA, the “base” that is talked about is basically the area outside the other partys “voter potential”, for lack of a better word. That’s the voters that are very unlikely to vote for the other party, no matter what.

The rest of the voters will be inside both parties “voter potential”, they would agree more or less with both agendas, and could turn either way.

In the primaries, most of the voters will be the ones that are in the base, since they are the registered voters. That’s why candidates try to move to the ends, so they can get as much of the base as possible. Once they get the nomination, they cant stay there, because that puts them outside the “shared middle”, so they need to move to the center, but without alienating their own base. The further to the end they have to move, the longer it will be back to the center…

This spring, there was lots of discussions on that topic, Bush dont need to fight for the nomination, so he didn’t have to do that, while the Democrats saw themselfes have to go further and further to the left to find their base…

The reason I brought this up was that I dont think that it’s a solid 45% on each side, it sounds more sensible with maybe 20-30% on each side. (roughly 1/4 “voter potential” each).

If it was any more than that, it would basically mean that there isn’t any middle among americans in general anymore, and the curve over all peoples opinions would basically look like a twin peak rather than a bell curve. (The “solid” voters can not be close to center.)

Someone here talked about knowledge of polls and voting patterns, so I thought I should bring this up. It would actually be interesting to know what the “voter potential” looks like, if it really is so polarised that only 10% is “in play”, and the other 90% are allready committed to a candidate.

Polls usually just ask either-or questions, and they dont really tell just how solid the commitment to that vote is, which is what I was wondering about.

Thanks again for the Pew institute link, it’ll be a great resource.

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:19 pm 54. Erik:

Richard McEnroe,

reminds me of my military service…

We were told that on guard duty, we were required to warn the intruder that we would fire.

Then the officer says “but if you are in a hurry, warn *after* you shoot the guy, just be sure to report it to me in the correct order…”

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:28 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: