Invader

Who needs taxes when we can just keep spending.

George Bush on tonight's debate:

"What I'm going to tell the people tomorrow night is we're not going to go back to the days of tax and spend," Bush told supporters in Arizona...

Yep. We're just going to stick with a policy even the freaking Heritage Foundation, for God's sake, acknowledges is "spend and spend."

Projection

Tired. Pathetic.

"Masterdebater" Remastered.

A quick follow-up on my post "George W. Bush: Masterdebater," in light of the recent news that the President only wishes to participate in two out of the three proposed debates:

I stand by my position that Bush is a skillful debater, in the sense that he's quite successful at coming off as a "regular guy," castigated by his uppity, book-larned lib'rul opponent. However, I also think it likely that Kerry is aware of Bush's "poor li'l ol' me" strategem (given that he's used it twice now, against both Ann Richards and Al Gore), and that, moreover, the Bush team understands that Kerry is familar with the President's preferred mode-of-attack (or mode-of-appearing-to-be-unfairly-attacked, as it were). In which case, they're likely looking to minimize the chance that Kerry will short-circuit Bush's scheme, and cause the "regular guy" to look not sympathy-deserving, but merely like a simp.

G.O.P. Diddy

It must have been a bit of a slow day over at Media Matters, since they took the time to report that Bill O'Reilly, in an interview with P. Diddy, suggested that the rap mogul/J. Lo stalker "should be a Republican." The reason, according to O'Reilly: "Because you [Diddy] are self-made."

Funny... I would've said he "should be a Republican" due to the fact that he's a gun-toting, anger-management-challenged, self-aggrandizing CEO, who lets his underlings take the fall for his own misdeeds, and has built his success by shamelessly exploiting the work of others. But maybe that's just me.

George W. Bush: Masterdebater

I've also posted this at Catch, and since 99.9% of my visitors are referred here by that site (the other 0.1% arrive via Google searches for "ass invader") , I apologize to anyone who's seeing it for the second time. Cross-posting it here is largely for the benefit of my friends and family, most of whom are familiar with this blog, but, when told I've written something for "Catch," typically respond something along the lines of "What? You wrote something for Cats.com? Is it about how Garfield has been losing his edge recently?"

Anyhow, here's the piece:

In spite of emphasizing rhetoric that appealed more to their base than to undecided voters, the Republicans will, in the aftermath of their convention, almost certainly receive a bounce in the polls. Due to the highly polarized nature of the electorate, this bounce will be small, at best - as was the case for the Democrats, following their convention; however, it should be significant enough to move George W. Bush into the lead in the polls.
In light of this possibility, a number of my friends have responded, "Just wait until the debates. That's when Kerry will put that dumbass Bush away." Unfortunately, though, as much as I'd like to agree that this is the case, I cannot; for Bush has proved himself, first in his 1994 gubernatorial contest against Ann Richards, and again in his 2000 campaign against Al Gore, exceptionally skilled at the art of debate.

Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not trying to suggest Bush is some sort of poor man's Socrates. In fact, if the Presidential debates were scored on the basis of the participants' command of rhetoric, and factual knowledge, a la a high school- or college-level debate competition, Bush would be lucky to rate much better than, well, "poor," as it were. But no such critical judgment comes to bear on the national stage - a fact of which Bush is keenly aware.

No, in the presidential debates, the only judges are the public - most of whom, in all likelihood, lack the knowledge that would allow them to readily judge whether a statement is true, and lack the objectivity that would allow them to judge whether an argument is logically sound. Hence, the goal of a shrewd candidate is - by any means necessary - to make themselves look good at the expense of their opponent.

Bush, as speaks to his success, understands this fact exceptionally well, and employs it to devastating effect. In particular, what he seems to grasp is that , while Americans will tolerate a dimwit, they absolutely fucking hate an egghead. Hence, in his debates with both Ann Richards and Al Gore, he's played a sort of intellectual rope-a-dope, cowering against the ropes, while allowing his opponents to punch themselves silly. However, after absorbing his beating, Bush delivers no knockout blow to his exasperated adversary. Rather, merely by playing the punching bag, he solidifies his status as an everyman, while his opponent is painted by the press as "humorless," "pedantic," "tiresome," or worst of all, "a scold."

Fortunately, John Kerry seems to grasp Bush's talent as a a debater - acknowledging, in his recent appearance on the Daily Show, that the incumbent "won" his debates against Ann Richards and Al Gore. Which - hopefully - means that when it comes debate time, the Great Democratic Hope will do what all learned fighters do when faced with the rope-a-dope, which is to remain in the center of the ring, and force their opponent to come after them. A strategy that, translated from boxing into rhetoric, would equate to stepping back when Bush starts in on his "aw-shucks" routine, and making a statement, or a proposal, that the President would have no choice but which to respond. Keeping Bush on the offensive is, somewhat paradoxically, the only chance Kerry has for victory.

But, then again, what do I know. All I know about boxing I learned from Punch-Out.

Zell Miller's Speech to the RNC: The Annotated Edition

Normally, I don't engage in what I like to call "Mystery Science Theater 3000" blogging - posting someone else's work, interspersed with snark. Not that I don't find that sort of thing amusing. Just that the market on it is already pretty much cornered by TBogg, World O'Crap, Sadly, No!, and The Dark Window (the Fab Four of snark - I'll let you decide which one is Ringo).

But Zell Miller's convention speech inspired me. Inspired me to break from form in order to pay fitting tribute to what may be one of the most rhetorically clumsy, morally bankrupt, howling-at-the-moon crazy political speeches ever made.

So, without further ado, Zell Miller's convention speech, the annoted edition:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

Well, them and our "History's Greatest Turncoats" Commemorative Plate Set. Heaven forbid if the cat were to knock Benedict Arnold from the Mantle.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

This statement is where sanity says its fond fairwell, and gets off the Zell-train. From here on out, we ride the wingnut express.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

Even after witnessing yesterday how his own children turned out? Plus - and I hate to be a gossip, but - I've heard from the neighbors that he gets into the liquor cabinet and runs up the long-distance whenever he comes over to sit.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

We also knew there some crazy men who would permit Negroes to sit at the same lunch counters as us, if they could, but that's a story for another time.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

There is also no better example of someone whose name alone prevented them from winning office. I mean, seriously, would you vote for someone named "Wendell Wilkie?" Wasn't that the name of one of the Little Rascals?

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Unlike, say, a certain incumbent President

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Well, that showed integrity, especially since he was never President, and putting "here lies a president" on his grave would have been a blatant falsehood.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Gee, and here I thought you didn't need us spineless, terror-loving, good-for-nothing Democrats.

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

Um, they didn't accompany you on your self-serving lurch to the Right?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Now, if Zell were participating in a high school forensics meet, this is the point at which the judges would be rolling on the floor, laughing. Western Europe, and South Korea were both occupied by invading nations, and when we sent our army into those regions, they did so with the express intent of removing the invaders, thus making them "liberators." Iraq, however, was not occupied by a foreign power - that is, until we invaded, which makes our army "occupiers." Liberator = A nation that frees another from the rule of a foreign power. Occupier = a nation that imposes its rule on another nation. Zell Miller's Analogy = False. Now, let me add that I'm not making any moral judgments regarding "liberation" or "occupation." There are certainly instances of "liberation" that are lamentable, such as Imperial Japan's "liberation" of some of our Pacific Territories during World War II. And there are instances of "occupation" that are commendable, such as our occupation of post-World War II Germany. I'm just pointing out what a silly and pointless rhetorical error Zell is making here

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Sure, Reagan didn't actually lead this army of liberators anywhere. But he spent a lot of money on it, damn it! And isn't heaping cash on military contractors what Republicans do best?

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

And as Jesse of Pandagon points out, it is Zell who has given us plagiarization from a chain email.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

Because as long as you cling tight to that belief you'll be willing to send them anywhere, no matter how flimsy the reason for doing so.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

You all remember the many wars America fought under Carter, right?

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

Yes, I'm sure you could go on and on all night. But let's pause for a moment, to look at a speech you gave just three and a half short years ago, which, as Atrios points out is still posted on your website:

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

Um, the U.N. has relocated to Paris?

I want Bush to decide.

What if he's out of office? Will Kerry still have to call him if there's a threat?

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

Not like this administration, who merely wants to privatize it.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

No

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

Again, no.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

Well, unless their initials are OBL.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

And then, he'll bodyslam them, and then get them in the sleeper hold!

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I'll bring up here one of Lawrence Britt's 14 defining characteristics of fascism

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Yes, Zell, I'm sure you do admire that fact.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

Yep, he keeps it going strong on those Weekend-long benders.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

I'm afraid to ask just who was home when you knocked on that door.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

And God Bless your crazy soul, Zell. May you continue serving up easily-skewered nonsense for years to come.

O'Reilly: Annoying (and wrong) even when muted.

At the fitness center to which I belong, there are eight flat-screen TVs mounted above the treadmills, two of which are permanently tuned to Fox News (I guess the assumption is, athletic types tend to be conservative - though it certainly isn't the case that conservatives tend to be athletic types). Fortunately, all the TVs are set on mute (to listen to them you have to tune in to a specific station on an FM radio). However, Fox, with its alarmist, video-game graphics, its bottom-of-the-screen "crawl" full of insipid nonsense and RNC talking points, and its anchors, with their blow-dried coifures and shit-eating grins, needs not make a sound to get on my nerves. Especially, as was the case this evening, when their most stalwart blowhard, Bill O'Reilly, takes to the air.

Tonight, the "splotchy bully" (as Al Franken is fond of referring to him) was broadcasting from the RNC, where he had, among his show's "talking points" (they were printed on the screen for the benefit of the few literate members of his regular viewing audience) "Protesters Hurting Democrats," "John Kerry In Trouble," and "Republicans United" - just his typical blustery, right-wing demagoguery (though he made sure to point out that he was "in the middle" of the convention and the "liberal media who are covering it").

One item, however, stood out: "New York Times has far-left-wing bomb-thrower review Bush-bashing books." Now, who was this ultra-leftist, I wondered (and how did he or she get into the pages of the moderate-to-right-leaning New York Times?) Noam Chomsky? Howard Zinn? The presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party? Bomberman? (OK, I have no idea what his political affiliation is, but he's pretty good at bomb-throwing)

Well, as it turns out, the wild-eyed liberal to which O'Reilly was referring was none other than Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate Magazine. Oh, and yes, the label "far-left-wing" is definitely suited to Weisberg, who is such a foaming-at-the-mouth Marxist that he supported the War on Iraq, and presides over a magazine that features writers of virtually every political stripe, including some conservatives.

But, hey, in O'Reilly's world, anyone who doesn't advocate nuking the entire Middle East is a potential pinko. Fair and Balanced, Fair and Balanced.

The Country's reaction to "Fahrenheit 9/11": Some Predictions

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opens in limited realease today in New York and Washington, D.C., and in the rest of the country on Friday. And while I do plan to see it, I am, like Orcinus, looking forward more to the reaction to the film than the film itself (like most political junkies, I'm already familiar with much of the film's content, such as the evacuation of the Bin Laden family, George Bush's plentiful vacation time, and the fact that nary a lawmaker read the Patriot Act).

That said, here is what I predict will happen:

1. The film will do incredibly well. It probably won't give Dodgeball or Shrek 2 much competition, in terms of earnings, simply because it's not as well distributed. But it will likely break opening weekend records for a documentary (here are the top five grossing documentaries of all time, by the way - given that the No.1 film - Bowling for Columbine - earned $21.6 million in total, breaking the opening weekend record, as well as the overall record, shouldn't be difficult). Expect to hear of packed showings, lines around the block, and other reactions typically reserved for a major Hollywood blockbuster.

2. A right-wing organization will protest and/or disrupt showings. Already, there was an attempt, by Republicans, to curtail the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 by enlisting a PR firm which set up a phony grass-roots organization named Move America Forward that encouraged boycotts of theaters showing the film. With that effort failed, expect protests outside theaters by some of the more militant elements of the Right, in addition to - possibly - attempts to actually shut screenings down, by unscrupulous means. In fact, if you google "Fahrenheit 9/11" and boycott, the first site returned is a message board hosted by a certain radical-Right organization known for its confrontational tactics, with plenty of calls to protest, or "shut down," Moore's "traitorous" film.

3. The media will continue to spin this film as "highly controversial," and portray theatre-goers as wild-eyed "Bush Haters.". If your local television station covers the opening of the film, expect to hear that the film is "highly controversial" (despite the fact that it's been thoroughly fact-checked) and that it's been "heavily criticized" by the Right (with probably no mention of the mostly rave reviews it's received from non-partisan and even some right-wing critics - Fox News, of all sources, gave it a nod). Also, expect to see carefully selected shots of the most stereotypically "liberal" members of the audience (they'll probably go out of their way to zoom in on the white guy with the dreadlocks and the tye-dyed t-shirt), and sound bites from the most inarticulate attendees they can corral. This was the sort of coverage that the local stations in my area provided of the major anti-war rallies in spring of 2003, and while the press isn't whipped into the same patriotic fervor now as it was then, I can't expect they've changed their ways that much.

I'll review my predictions on Monday, and we'll see whether or not I'm the Jimmy the Greek (minus the racism) of societal prognostication.

Unreasonable

I recently caught Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on C-Span promoting his new book, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America.

While I haven't read it, I imagine it would provide an intriguing counterpoint to David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, which may as well be titled "Money: Why Conservatives Have Already Won the Battle for America."

Brock's book is an excellent, if deeply unsettling read, for anyone curious as to why and how the mainstream media has lurched so far to the right over the past thirty years. He describes, in detail, how a vast network of right-wing think-tanks (Heritage, AEI, etc.) and media outlets (the New York Post, the Washington Times, Fox News, etc.) have ensured that nearly any story reported in the American press gets a conservative spin.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of what he describes is the fact that these think-tanks, newspapers, television networks, and other organs of right-wing propaganda are so well-funded, and have had such success establishing themselves as "reputable" sources, in the eyes of the public, that there seems no conceivable way to diminish their influence. Of course, Brock is doing his part, with his new website, Media Matters, which attempts to catalog conservative disinformation that enters the public discorse. But, noble as this is, it's akin to trying to stop a herd of stampeding elephants (pun intended) with a pea-shooter.

So, with apologies to Mr. Reich, it seems that, in fact, no matter how reasonable the argument, it's of little use, when it's drowned out by a wall of noise produced by a virtual army of bought-and-paid-for pundits. The "battle" of which he speaks is far from a certain victory for liberalism.

Bill O'Reilly: Keeping America safe from them pesky Negroes

Bill O'Reilly, who only last year saved America from the danger of being sold Pepsi by Ludacris, is at it again. Apparently (via Jimmy Kimmel Live - sorry, but no link for the time being - no doubt one is coming soon), he's called for his viewers to boycott the Fox Network (biting the hand that feeds him - he must be really, really serious) until they drop the show "Method and Red," which, he asserts, stars "thug rappers" Method Man and Redman.

Of course, calling Method Man and Redman (both of whom have predicated their musical and film careers on their devotion to rockin' the doob, if you will) "thug rappers" is akin to calling Phish "hardcore death metal." But, that doesn't matter to O'Reilly, who almost certainly drops a load in his Depends upon seeing a black man not wearing a suit and tie on the street (and even then, his bowels probably quiver). Any black male on television who isn't Bill Cosby, or describing sports results, is a threat to him and his viewers.

I hence encourage all readers of this blog to watch "Method and Red," if only to spite Bill O'Reilly. Although of course, this may be just a publicity stunt, on the behalf of his bosses, to boost viewership of the show (a la his unintentional promotion of "The O'Franken Factor). In which case... uh... well, just keep on not watching his show, and go get yourself a copy of Tical.