welcome, 0tim0... your karma is 804. [ logout ][ pals/blocks | messages | submissions | profile/prefs | faq ]  
  [ chat | who's online | backlinks | top karma ][ hide sidebar ]  
 top stories
3 new stories  
246 new comments  
 etcetera
3 new stories  
296 new comments  
 media
3 new stories  
93 new comments  
 politics
7 new stories  
373 new comments  

Discussions You're Following

MoveOn Puts The 'Ad' Back In 'Advocacy'
found on the BBC
written by MAYORBOB, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Tue 6 Jan 10:44am

Flame War
The 15 finalists for an ad contest aiming to "tell the truth" about the Bush presidency have been selected. The contest, sponsored by the decidedly left-leaning MoveOn, was open to any and all who wished to submit a 30-second spot that broke from the standard ho-hum type of campaign ad. MoveOn said that it was interested in finding ads that were "of the people, for the people, and by the people." The finalists, posted on the Bush in 30 Seconds website, will be judged by a panel ranging from Michael Moore and Donna Brazile to Margaret Cho and Moby. The winning ad will be aired on national TV during the week of President Bush's State of the Union address this month.

MoveOn received more than 1,500 entries, covering all of MoveOn's top seven reasons for opposing Bush, and many more. They include pieces suggesting that Bush lied in his State of the Union address last year when he said Saddam Hussein needed to be tackled, and one that suggests today's children will end up paying for the government deficit.

There was even an ad that briefly turned the contest into a Godwin moment for MoveOn, making graphic comparisons of Bush to Adolf Hitler. The ad was among those placed on the MoveOn site for general viewing during the voting period, and unsurprisingly, it received instant criticism from Republican and Jewish leaders. MoveOn removed the ad from their site at the end of the voting period and said that they had been screening entries for "bad taste" and would never have allowed such an entry as a finalist in the contest. Fine for MoveOn, which is essentially saying "my bad" for running the ad. However, the folks at democrats.com find that the whole thing is "one more victory for GOP censorship, bringing us ever closer to a Nazi dictatorship."

[ more plastic... ]    


show by
1.  Participatory Democracy
 by bokeh  [ message privately ]2.5 nuanced 
  at Tue 6 Jan 11:06amscore of 2.5 nuanced
  
First, an aside about the "Hitler" ads: Yes, they were stupid and juvenile, but MoveOn didn't make them. The resulting media tempest in a teapot makes it sound like MoveOn actually commisioned the goddamn things. For example, Fox news "analyst" Liz Trotta (an editor at that temple of journalistic ethics, The Washington Times) made the unchallenged claim on O'Reilly that the organization is affiliated with the "World Socialist Organization".

More importantly, I say big ups to MoveOn for allowing a platform for ordinary folks to have a say in the medium that happens to be the most influential yet the most exclusively one-way form of communication ever, namely, television.

And a rhetorical question: MoveOn got over 1500 usable entries for this contest. How many pro Bush ads do you think the RNC would get from the regular folks if they had such a contest? Of course, the answer is that they'd never need such a thing because the corporate media do such a fine job for Mr. Bush as it is. But I'm just wondering.....

If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane? --Charles Fort
 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
 
    2.  Re: Participatory Democracy
     by CaptainLiberal  [ message privately ]3 astute 
      at Tue 6 Jan 11:26amscore of 3 astute
      in reply to comment 1
      
    How many pro Bush ads do you think the RNC would get from the regular folks if they had such a contest?

    They'd get plenty. Just tapping the resources at Free Republic would probably produce a huge number of ads. As much as it seems to bother you, there are plenty of "just folks" out there who like Bush as President.

    I'm not one of them, but pretending they don't exist is a good way to get blindsided in the next election.

    Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
     
      10.  Re: Participatory Democracy
       by Anonymous Idiot  0  
        at Tue 6 Jan 12:22pmscore of 0
        in reply to comment 2
        
      But could you imagine what an ad for Bush made by freepers would be like?

      Can you imagine it being something that you might consider remotely compelling? Or even take seriously?

       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
       
        14.  Yeah, but how many literate ones?
         by bokeh  [ message privately ]2.5 astute 
          at Tue 6 Jan 12:40pmscore of 2.5 astute
          in reply to comment 2
          
        They'd get plenty. Just tapping the resources at Free Republic would probably produce a huge number of ads.

        Well, I did say usable ads.

        But seriously,

        ...there are plenty of "just folks" out there who like Bush as President.

        I know that, and it is frankly amazing to me. But do you think there would be so many of them if we actually had something like an adversarial media in this country? Would Bush have 50% approval ratings if every time he got in a flight suit a reporter would remind folks about his AWOL status? If we had spent as much time and money investigating 9/11 as we did Whitewater? If the press got as hot and bothered about Harken or Halliburton as they did about a deal in which Clinton was not only cleared of wrongdoing but lost money? And on and on and on....

        My point being that the hopeful aspect of this contest is the opportunity for we the people to do that which our free press (Paul Krugman excepted) is failing miserably to: describe what is actually being done by this administration.

        If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane? --Charles Fort
         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
         
          82.  Re: Participatory Democracy
           by superdude  [ message privately ]3.5 compelling 
            at Tue 6 Jan 7:17pmscore of 3.5 compelling
            in reply to comment 2
            
          Just tapping the resources at Free Republic would probably produce a huge number of ads. As much as it seems to bother you, there are plenty of "just folks" out there who like Bush as President.

          You mean like the dozen or so people they managed to mobilize for their pro-war rallies?

          Sites like Free Republic seem to have more popular support than they actually do. Free Republic could never survive as a "conservative" message board without heavily filtering posts from users.

          Think I'm joking? Sign up for an account, and post something liberal in one of the discussions. They'll close your account.

          All the conservative message boards have policies like this. They strictly guard the "conservative" nature of the site. They have to. If a free-wheeling discussion is allowed to take place, the site will eventually cease to be conservative. That's why Plastic is perceived by conservatives as "liberal." It isn't actually liberal--there is no charter that states "Plastic.com is, and forever shall be, a liberal site." It just looks that way to people who are used to having the views of 70-80 percent of the population filtered out of the discourse.

          The Rush Limbaugh show operates in a similar fashion. No guests, no liberal co-host, calls carefully screened. No one to challenge his misinformation.

          This brand of conservatism is like some strange, laboratory-created beast that could never survive in nature. It only survives under the carefully controlled laboratory conditions of places like Free Republic and conservative talk radio.

           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
           
            18.  'could you imagine...'
             by JC65  [ message privately ]1  
              at Tue 6 Jan 1:07pmscore of 1
              in reply to comment 10
              
            No need to imagine what the freepers would do, it's already done.

            Source

             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
             
            20.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
             by CaptainLiberal  [ message privately ]2.5 interesting 
              at Tue 6 Jan 1:12pmscore of 2.5 interesting
              in reply to comment 14
              
            If we had spent as much time and money investigating 9/11 as we did Whitewater? If the press got as hot and bothered about Harken or Halliburton as they did about a deal in which Clinton was not only cleared of wrongdoing but lost money?

            Yes, I think they'd still like him, because largely they think those things are not important, because he's "their" candidate. Just like a majority of Americans didn't find it important that Clinton lied under oath. People are willing to overlook personal odiousness for the guy who carries their flag, and Bush is carrying the flag of a group of people who feel underrepresented (regardless of how patently ludicrous that is).

            Even when he acts against their interest, they see it as having to "compromise" with their enemies (liberals/democrats) in order to more fully push a conservative agenda. Bush has given his supporters (which do number roughly half of the voting public) just enough to keep them happy, or at least as happy as we were with Clinton.

            Clinton did the exact same thing. He'd spit in the eye of his base one minute (Defense of Marriage act, Gays in the military), because it made things flow more easily on the things he considered important.

            Frankly, I suspect the MoveOn ads are going to backfire. They already have, to an extent, what with the RNC running the "Hitler" ad on their site and blaming it on MoveOn. The problem with an adversarial ad, is that a large number of people are going to see it as way more negative than they see their candidate. At which point, they have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of seeing awful things said about a guy they like. Do you really think they're going to believe MoveOn over their political leadership?

            And attack ads aren't going to win over the few middle of the road people anyway. Between now and the election, both sides are going to throw around so much bullshit that many people are just going to tune them out.

            Finally, I hope that MoveOn has the sense not to use one of the "he lied, they died" ads. They won't work. Presidents enact policy and troops live or die by that policy. It has always been thus. More importantly, there are a ton of people who remember what a high body count is really like. The ads might work if you had the faces of fifty thousand soldiers to show, but so far, the ads are looking at less than 500 American soldiers killed in a war. If you put that up against any war other than the first Gulf War, where we decided not to go in, the number doesn't look so horrific. And that's exactly what's going to happen to anyone who deosn't autmatically revile any kind of war. They're going to compare it to past deaths, and decide that, while the price is high, it might be worth it. How many dead soldiers did it take to run LBJ out of the White House?

            What is sometimes forgotten by the left is that it's considered an honor to die for your country in many places in the South, which is where Bush's base lives, and where a good number of those dead soldiers came from.

            Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
             
              42.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
               by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 informative 
                at Tue 6 Jan 3:25pmscore of 0.5 informative
                in reply to comment 14
                
              Would Bush have 50% approval ratings if every time he got in a flight suit a reporter would remind folks about his AWOL status?

              Well the New York Times already debunked that myth perpetrated by the bastion of journalism that is the Boston Globe. Of course the crazies still repeat it like gospel. I know, I know, the New York Times is part of that vast right wing conspiracy dedicated to ensuring President Bush's reelection. One glance at the editorial or oped page is enough to convince any fair minded person that the NYT is merely a mouthpiece for RNC.

              My point being that the hopeful aspect of this contest is the opportunity for we the people to do that which our free press (Paul Krugman excepted)

              Funny that you hold Krugman up as the idealized represenative of the free press. His columns are so rife with inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies that the largest growth industry in journalism is now made up of pundits who ridicule his hysterical yammerings. Andrew Sullivan owes his career to exposing Krugman's embarrassing mistakes.

              Basically, you seem to yearn for a press that mercilessly attacks Bush with wild speculations while leaving any pretense of objectivity or adherence to the truth at the door.

               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
               
                46.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                 by John the Cynic  [ message privately ]1  
                  at Tue 6 Jan 3:34pmscore of 1
                  in reply to comment 20
                  
                Bravo CaptainLiberal! Someone on the left who gets it. Now if only some of your compatriots would remove their blinders and realize that an opposing point of view doesn't make one evil. Back in my youth I was quite the Leftist. I remember being SURE that Ronald Reagan was going to kill the poor, rape the environment, and worst of all- START A NUCLEAR WAR. Hmm- none of it happened. (I changed viewpoints a la the Churchill dictum, just in five years, not twenty).

                For a little perspective on body counts. I just finished Steven Ambrose's Wild Blue, which details Sen. George McGovern's (yes, him) experience as a bomber pilot in WWII. There is one scene where the Americans are landing ships to build an airbase in Italy. The Germans got wind of the delivery and launched an air attack on the port. In a matter of minutes, 1,000 servicemen lost their lives. This tragedy received less than a paragraph in the book. Kind of puts Iraq's causualty count in perpesctive.

                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                 
                  52.  How about facts to back up your HystericYammering?
                   by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]4 clever 
                    at Tue 6 Jan 4:12pmscore of 4 clever
                    in reply to comment 42
                    
                  Well the New York Times already debunked that myth perpetrated by the bastion of journalism that is the Boston Globe. Perhaps you could share the supposed "debunking." As far as I can tell Bush shirked his obligations to the nation and never made up for the time he was missing from his assigned duty.

                  His columns are so rife with inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies that the largest growth industry in journalism is now made up of pundits who ridicule his hysterical yammerings. Andrew Sullivan owes his career to exposing Krugman's embarrassing mistakes.

                  If its half as bad as you allege you should be able to provide dozens of links showing "inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies" of P. Krugman and showing Krugman as the largest source of a growth industry. A few lies would be nice to start.

                  Frankly your comment seems a lot more like "hysterical yammering" like a lot of the political pundits you aparently listen to.

                  Perhaps you would also like to explain how the patriotic George W. Bush managed to secure a billet in the Texas National Guard in the first place:

                  It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

                  Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

                  Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied. His commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP's son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush's father the congressman — a supporter of the Vietnam War — standing proudly in the background.


                  Certainly sounds like he used political connections to keep himself out of harms way and escape from the possiblity of being sent to Vietnam, then used those connections to shirk his obligations and not get punished for it.

                  The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                   
                    54.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                     by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1 funny 
                      at Tue 6 Jan 4:25pmscore of 1 funny
                      in reply to comment 52
                      
                    I'd like to thank George W. Bush for his service to the country in the Texas Guard in a time of War. If you'll recall, the US avoided being invaded by any foreign country during that time frame, so he helped to keep us all well protected.

                    (Heh heh heh...)

                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                     
                    56.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                     by Jelly  [ message privately ]1  
                      at Tue 6 Jan 4:31pmscore of 1
                      in reply to comment 42
                      
                    Well the New York Times already debunked that myth perpetrated by the bastion of journalism that is the Boston Globe

                    Got links?

                    Funny that you hold Krugman up as the idealized represenative of the free press. His columns are so rife with inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies that the largest growth industry in journalism is now made up of pundits who ridicule his hysterical yammerings.

                    Geez, "largest growth industry in journalism?"
                    Again, got links? Often these debunkings get themselves debunked in short order. But its a slow day at work, so I'd love some extra reading...

                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                     
                    59.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                     by jandrese  [ message privately ]3 clever 
                      at Tue 6 Jan 4:53pmscore of 3 clever
                      in reply to comment 46
                      
                    Back in my youth I was quite the Leftist. I remember being SURE that Ronald Reagan was going to kill the poor, rape the environment, and worst of all- START A NUCLEAR WAR. Hmm- none of it happened.

                    Well, two out of three ain't bad.

                    There's some entertainment value in watching people juggle nitroglycerin. -- Larry Wall
                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                     
                      61.  Speaking of "hysterical yammerings"...
                       by bokeh  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                        at Tue 6 Jan 4:55pmscore of 1.5 astute
                        in reply to comment 42
                        
                      Well the New York Times already debunked that myth...

                      The Times article doesn't quite debunk the AWOL story, unless you think that "concerns may be unfounded" is an airtight refutation. Fine, if you don't want to go as far as "AWOL", it is a fairly uncontroversial fact that Bush had better things to do than fulfill his (non-Vietnam combat) National Guard commitment in a timely manner. As a meme, it has far more factual meat than, say, "Al Gore said he invented the Internet!", yet the "Gore lies" meme is far more prevalent. Why do you suppose that is?

                      (Krugman's)...columns are so rife with inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies that...Andrew Sullivan owes his career to exposing Krugman's embarrassing mistakes.

                      Let's see...Paul Krugman is an economist at Princeton, which, prima facie, seems a fairly compelling qualification for discussing economics. At least compared to who you appear to find his most salient critic, Andrew Sullivan, a puzzling curiosity who self-identifies with two groups (Republicans and Catholics) which publicly vilify his third (homosexual).

                      Basically, you seem to yearn for a press that mercilessly attacks Bush with wild speculations while leaving any pretense of objectivity or adherence to the truth at the door.

                      Erm, no. But I'd settle for one that scrutinized Bush with at least as much gusto as it did Clinton.

                      If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane? --Charles Fort
                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                       
                        65.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                         by Anonymous Idiot  -0.5 obnoxious 
                          at Tue 6 Jan 5:17pmscore of -0.5 obnoxious
                          in reply to comment 42
                          
                        Someone who finds Andrew Sullivan more credible than Paul Krugman is surely a jackass.

                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                         
                          66.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                           by SteamboatDreamboat  [ message privately ]2.5 astute 
                            at Tue 6 Jan 5:22pmscore of 2.5 astute
                            in reply to comment 14
                            
                          Would Bush have 50% approval ratings if every time he got in a flight suit a reporter would remind folks about his AWOL status?

                          I'm sure that there are reporters that would love to reming GWB about his past. They're just not allowed to the press conferences.

                          "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman
                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                           
                            71.  Heh heh...
                             by bokeh  [ message privately ]1  
                              at Tue 6 Jan 5:47pmscore of 1
                              in reply to comment 66
                              
                            They're just not allowed to the press conferences.

                            I assume you use the term "press conference" loosely.

                            If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane? --Charles Fort
                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                             
                            83.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                             by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                              at Tue 6 Jan 7:35pmscore of 0
                              in reply to comment 82
                              
                            Replace "Free Republic" with "Democratic Underground" and "liberal" with "conservative" and you'll get the exact same results.

                            Away with you and your bigotry and black-and-white thinking.

                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                             
                            88.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                             by Ajax  [ message privately ]3.5 compelling 
                              at Tue 6 Jan 8:16pmscore of 3.5 compelling
                              in reply to comment 82
                              
                            That's why Plastic is perceived by conservatives as "liberal." It isn't actually liberal--there is no charter that states "Plastic.com is, and forever shall be, a liberal site." It just looks that way to people who are used to having the views of 70-80 percent of the population filtered out of the discourse.

                            Plastic is perceived by liberals (like me — no, really! Read through my posting history!) as "liberal", too — because we outnumber conservatives here at least four or five to one, at least as far as "people who regularly submit stories and post comments" are concerned.

                            You are right that there is not, has never been, and IMHO ought never be an official posture on what political slant (or lack thereof) Plastic should have, but even a cursory glance through the sub-queue will reassure you that most of what is submitted for publication (and the overwhelming majority of political stories viewed with approval by the sub-queue voters) looks at things from a fairly-to-flamingly liberal perspective.

                            As editors like myself tirelessly point out, Plastic can only run the stories that get submitted. So it's not a matter of "just looking that way because xyz." It is that way, as Plastic's small but determined conservative contingent will tell you.

                            Of late we have had a couple of determined, well-spoken people submitting stories from a conservative perspective (by which I mean a real conservative perspective, not "mostly-moderate-but-hawkish-on-Iraq" or "libertarian-who-hates-Hilary-Clinton-and-Ted-Kennedy" or "wouldn't-vote-if-you-paid-me-but-hates-being-P.C.") By and large, those contributions they have made which do not stay completely away from politics have not been well-received by the Plastic community, even when they are well-written and/or make good points worth exploring in a discussion thread.

                            "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.
                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                             
                              89.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                               by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]2 clever 
                                at Tue 6 Jan 8:18pmscore of 2 clever
                                in reply to comment 20
                                

                              Finally, I hope that MoveOn has the sense not to use one of the "he lied, they died" ads.
                              Personally I think they should just air Bush all the time, everything he ever said or did, about everything, without any byline; Eventually the public will be so tired of seeing Bush on every station they'll vote him out of power. Let his record speak for itself, without any spin, good or bad.

                              ty for the learning experience
                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                               
                              97.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                               by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]1.5 informative 
                                at Tue 6 Jan 9:00pmscore of 1.5 informative
                                in reply to comment 52
                                
                              Perhaps you could share the supposed "debunking

                              Bokeh has kindly linked to the New York Times article downthread.

                              But to insert a little common sense into this discussion, lets examine the evidence. First and foremost, Bush was granted an Honorable Discharge. There is no contemperaneous evidence that he was AWOL. No one disputes this, and it is prima facia evidence that he did not desert.

                              That aside, think of all that has to be true for TomPaine.Com's theory to be true. First, Bush must have gone AWOL for a year and still recieved an Honorable discharge with no disciplanary action taken. Then, hundreds, if not thousands of reporters in the mainstream national meida must somehow collude to keep the secret. In an indusrty that overwhelmingly votes Democratic and is composed of highly ccompetitve status seekers, it seems more then just a little implausible. To believe that Bush shirked his duty is to believe that every single reporter is turning down the chance to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. Or you can beleive the NYT times reporter who examined his record and basically states that while not exemplary, it doesn't corraborate the wild charges made on TomPaine.com

                              If that isn't enough for you, George Magazine (no Republican shill) examined his record. I quote:

                                    Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman.

                                    On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and documents show that he proceeded to cram in another 10 sessions over the next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous points, achieved the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974.

                              Krugman and showing Krugman as the largest source of a growth industry

                              You can start at the the conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid and go from there. Read the archives.

                              Perhaps you would also like to explain how the patriotic George W. Bush managed to secure a billet in the Texas National Guard in the first place

                              He was willing to make the long commitment neccessary to learn how to fly jet planes. In the George magazine article, his first commander insisted that he was given no special treatment.

                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                               
                                101.  Re: Speaking of "hysterical yammerings"...
                                 by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 irrelevant 
                                  at Tue 6 Jan 9:30pmscore of 0.5 irrelevant
                                  in reply to comment 61
                                  
                                it is a fairly uncontroversial fact that Bush had better things to do than fulfill his (non-Vietnam combat) National Guard commitment in a timely manner

                                Actually, I think the George magazine investigation pretty conclusively proves that he did, in fact, complete his tour in a timely fashion. Honestly, do you think every mainstream publication in the nation would sit on this story if they could prove that he was AWOL? If anything, his record shows that he was an excellent pilot. He probably was in more danger flying the death trap that was the F2 then say an army journalist who was in Vietnam for four months and was never fired upon. To quote his flight instructor:

                                "I can, however, give you some personal observations upon which I base my opinion of Governor Bush.....
                                George W. Bush put himself totally into the task of becoming the best aviator in the class. His unit flew Century Series jet fighters, which required the best pilots. There was no room for error, as these airplanes were unforgiving, and the price for a mistake was often the pilot's life. George W. Bush appeared to have that "fighter pilot attitude" from our first meeting. This attitude can best be described as: "I can handle the situation--regardless of the odds." He was extremely competitive and eager to learn every thing about his machine and the enemy's tactics. He was quick to pick up the flying skills necessary to maneuver an aircraft into a position to shoot down an enemy aircraft."
                                Colonel Thomas G. Lockhart, USAF Ret

                                As a meme, it has far more factual meat than, say, "Al Gore said he invented the Internet!", yet the "Gore lies" meme is far more prevalent. Why do you suppose that is?

                                As I've stated, the meme simply isn't true, which would explain its failure to catch on. However, in the Gore case, there is no substantive difference between saying, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" and "I invented the Internet." The "I invented" line was merely a more catchy, condensed version of what Gore said. Moreover, Gore had a long record of puffing and either lying or exaggerating his experience in attempts to bolster his resume so it, or something like it, was destined to catch on as shorthand for Gore's long standing avoidance of the truth.

                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                 
                                  103.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                   by profwhat  [ message privately ]2 astute 
                                    at Tue 6 Jan 9:33pmscore of 2 astute
                                    in reply to comment 88
                                    
                                  Personally, I remember first perceiving Plastic as liberal on my first day here, when I noticed that the topic icon for "Dubya" was a worm with George Bush's head. As time went on and I saw Democrats iconed with a cool sunglassed-and-turtlenecked Donkey and Republicans with an elephant that looked like Thurston Howell III, I was convinced.

                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                   
                                    104.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                     by theblackflag  [ message privately ]1  
                                      at Tue 6 Jan 9:34pmscore of 1
                                      in reply to comment 97
                                      
                                    In an indusrty that overwhelmingly votes Democratic and is composed of highly ccompetitve status seekers

                                    Note that I'm not trying to be inflammatory or anything.... but I am curious what facts these two comments are based on. I hear them all the time from one side of the absurd left-right dichotomy and was wondering if this is based on some kind of study, survey, spy cameras in voting booths, telepathy or what. The last comment, especially, seems to not be based on any facts or is it?

                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                     
                                      105.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                       by superdude  [ message privately ]3.5 compelling 
                                        at Tue 6 Jan 9:36pmscore of 3.5 compelling
                                        in reply to comment 88
                                        
                                      Plastic is perceived by liberals (like me — no, really! Read through my posting history!) as "liberal", too — because we outnumber conservatives here at least four or five to one, at least as far as "people who regularly submit stories and post comments" are concerned.

                                      I find it bizarre that people think this is noteworthy.

                                      If you get a group of scientists together, you will find that 9,999 out of 10,000 agree that the Earth is not flat. Does that mean the scientists are "biased" if they don't give 50 percent of their time to exploring the Flat Earth Society's discredited views?

                                      What has happened in the US is that the Flat Earth Society has been redefined as "conservative." It should be more like this:

                                      Dennis Kucinich: Liberal

                                      Howard Dean: Conservative

                                      George W. Bush: Flat Earth Society Loon

                                      Really. That's how they would be classified anywhere else in the industrialized world. That is how they are classified among anyone who has not been brainwashed by their church or bought by a corporation with a direct financial interest in promoting belief in a Flat Earth.

                                      By these criteria, Plastic isn't liberal at all. It's somewhere near the center. Which makes sense, for a site that doesn't adhere to a set political agenda.

                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                       
                                        107.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                                         by John the Cynic  [ message privately ]1 compelling 
                                          at Tue 6 Jan 9:44pmscore of 1 compelling
                                          in reply to comment 59
                                          
                                        Boy I set myself up for that one.

                                        Good one.

                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                         
                                        108.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                         by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 irrelevant 
                                          at Tue 6 Jan 9:48pmscore of 0.5 irrelevant
                                          in reply to comment 104
                                          
                                        There have been plenty of surveys of reporters in which they are asked to identify which presidential candidate they voted for. I don't have the time to track them down right now, but journailsts have voted pretty handily for the Democratic candidate in every election since 72 at least. Even Mondale won a majority of journalists despite being destroyed in the election.

                                        The second statement was based soley on personal experience and my own intuition. I just can't imagine that every single mainstream reporter would deny themselves the chance at fame and glory that such an exposure would bring in order to serve the purposes of a President that they probably don't much like.

                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                         
                                          110.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                                           by norcalwindows  [ message privately ]1.5 compelling 
                                            at Tue 6 Jan 9:53pmscore of 1.5 compelling
                                            in reply to comment 65
                                            
                                          Someone who agrees with the AI must surely be a jackass...so call me Eyeore. Anyone who ever studied Political Science or Economics, even at the high school level, has read Krugman's academic efforts, and can appreciate his considerable reputation in both fields. The man is an icon in his field(s) and has only in the last few years gained national public prominence, primarily for his debunking of Bush's economic theories-made-law.

                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                           
                                          111.  And On The Second Day
                                           by uncarved block  [ message privately ]1  
                                            at Tue 6 Jan 10:01pmscore of 1
                                            in reply to comment 103
                                            
                                          did you catch the "Clinton's" icon portrays them not as clean pink pigs, but literally swine? IIRC, it even includes the cigar that Bill (like Arnold) tried so very hard to keep out of his public image
                                                In any case, the Plastic icons, courtesy of Terry Colon, indicate only that Joey Anuff and his new project were closely linked to Suck.com. Is Plastic liberal? Well, I like to joke that Polymers run the entire gamut from libertarian-left to libertarian-right, but without all that messy middle ground. Ain't many New Democrats around here, in any case :)

                                          Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                           
                                            112.  Still no facts to back up hysterical accusations
                                             by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]3 informative 
                                              at Tue 6 Jan 10:02pmscore of 3 informative
                                              in reply to comment 97
                                              
                                            Wow you claim that Paul Krugman is a proven liar and sponsored a growth industry and you couldnt even find one documented lie — that's pretty lame. I took a glance at the archives, and frankly they represent political opininions and disputes with Krugmans analysis and dont begin to support your hysterical allegations.

                                            I looked at Brokeh's link and he noted the abstract doesnt debunk anything and says they "may be unfounded."

                                            The remainder of your defense to the allegation that Bush used his influence to cut in line and get a place and then not get punished for shirking his duty is esentially circular — is the fact that he wasnt punished for shirking his duty. So is it your claim that no one who shirked their responsiblities managed to get an honorable discharge anyway?

                                            So why hasnt this been reported in the press? Because it happened a long time ago and its hard for an outsider to prove what happened. In contrast, Bush should be able to have scads of people and documents to prove he met his obligations and to show where he was for that year. — but he hasnt.

                                            As for the George magazine, first of course I dont have a copy, nor does your obligation to the national guard just amount to racking up points when you feel like it. As noted in the TOm Paine account, which I assume you didnt bother to read, he used his connects to get points without actually doing anything and may have been after he already got out:

                                            Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills — in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job.

                                            Again the point is not that criminal charges should have been filed, neither I nor the Tom Paine article suggest that, but rather that Bush shirked his duties, played the system, used his connections, and has failed to come clean to the American people about his past.

                                            Perhaps you would also like to explain how the patriotic George W. Bush managed to secure a billet in the Texas National Guard in the first place

                                            He was willing to make the long commitment neccessary to learn how to fly jet planes. In the George magazine article, his first commander insisted that he was given no special treatment.


                                            That explains nothing, as noted in the article there was a long line of people willing to make the "long committment necessary "to learn how to fly jet planes — somehow George W. Bush got to jump to the front of the line. First his first commander probably had nothing to do with him getting in. Second, if his commander did, it sure is not a surprise that his commander denied having done anything wrong with his treatment of George W. Bush. Third, Bush's dodging his responsiblities wasnt under his first commander.

                                            Based upon your posts here, it appears that no amount of reasoned substantiated discourse could possibly change your mind.

                                            The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                             
                                              113.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                               by Ajax  [ message privately ]1  
                                                at Tue 6 Jan 10:10pmscore of 1
                                                in reply to comment 105
                                                
                                              Really. That's how they would be classified anywhere else in the industrialized world. That is how they are classified among anyone who has not been brainwashed by their church or bought by a corporation with a direct financial interest in promoting belief in a Flat Earth.

                                              Permit me to disagree, or at least suggest that you engage in hyperbole.

                                              "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.
                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                               
                                                114.  Re: And On The Second Day
                                                 by Ajax  [ message privately ]1  
                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 10:16pmscore of 1
                                                  in reply to comment 111
                                                  
                                                Is Plastic liberal? Well, I like to joke that Polymers run the entire gamut from libertarian-left to libertarian-right, but without all that messy middle ground.

                                                It seems apropos to point out that, whatever Terry and Joey thought about the Clintons, they certainly didn't seem to have any illusions about third party alternatives.

                                                "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.
                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                 
                                                115.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                                 by The Real Dr Evil  [ message privately ]1.5 interesting 
                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 10:27pmscore of 1.5 interesting
                                                  in reply to comment 108
                                                  
                                                There have been plenty of surveys of reporters in which they are asked to identify which presidential candidate they voted for. I don't have the time to track them down right now, but journailsts have voted pretty handily for the Democratic candidate in every election since 72 at least.

                                                That's true, at least according to a book I read by a neocon. I'm prepared to believe it, anyhow.

                                                I'm more curious as to why this should be the case: aren't journalists among the most informed and better educated members of society? Doesn't their opinion count for something?

                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                 
                                                  120.  Re: FYI
                                                   by coprolalia  [ message privately ]1  
                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 11:22pmscore of 1
                                                    in reply to comment 46
                                                    
                                                  i was just discussing this on plastic-chat. CaptainLiberal is a liberal in name only. i honestly cant remember the last time i saw a post of his that was left-of center. of course, since he is from texas, i guess they have different definitions of liberal down there. but from what i can see, the closest CL gets to liberalism is the centrism that passes for leftism these days.

                                                  My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway
                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                   
                                                    122.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                     by jandzero  [ message privately ]1  
                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 11:54pmscore of 1
                                                      in reply to comment 105
                                                      
                                                    Brilliant. Oh, for a mod point to give you.

                                                    vacuum-formed and vacuum-sealed
                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                     
                                                    123.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                                     by TheMCP  [ message privately ]3.5 compelling 
                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 12:13amscore of 3.5 compelling
                                                      in reply to comment 97
                                                      
                                                    That aside, think of all that has to be true for TomPaine.Com's theory to be true. First, Bush must have gone AWOL for a year and still recieved an Honorable discharge with no disciplanary action taken.
                                                    Oh, given his family's political influence I could believe that easily.
                                                    Then, hundreds, if not thousands of reporters in the mainstream national meida must somehow collude to keep the secret.
                                                    Not at all.

                                                    A few years back a major science fiction author explained to me that he basically couldn't get his work published by any major publisher any more, because there were really only four or five major publishing houses that handle science fiction, and all of their editors know each other... he had angered one, and suddenly none of the rest would touch him with a ten foot pole.

                                                    Similarly, while there are many news media outlets in the US, the vast majority actually belong to only a handful of owners... all major corporations. Reporters don't decide what gets published or aired, editors do. Moreover, editors don't have the final say on what gets published or aired, the owners of the company do.

                                                    So, I can easily believe that a relatively small number of people in high places said something four years ago to the general effect of "the public doesn't want to hear negative stories about Bush right now, and we want to sell papers (and/or ads), so don't push that one too hard." So it gets buried in a sidebar on page 14 of section 2. Then, once he was installed in office, it becomes "That's old news, drop it."

                                                    So, yes, I can believe he could have been AWOL and got away with it, just like I can believe it could have been a cocaine addict and got away with it, or could have cheated his way into the presidency and got away with it, or could have lied his way into starting a war for political gain and got away with it.
                                                    He was willing to make the long commitment neccessary to learn how to fly jet planes.
                                                    Have you ever taken flying lessons? It's a big thrill. For me it was the next best thing to sex.
                                                    In the George magazine article, his first commander insisted that he was given no special treatment.
                                                    Do you seriously expect he would say "Oh yes, I gave him all the breaks at the expense of everyone else"?

                                                    End of line.
                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                     
                                                    130.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                     by superdude  [ message privately ]1  
                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 1:07amscore of 1
                                                      in reply to comment 113
                                                      
                                                    Permit me to disagree, or at least suggest that you engage in hyperbole

                                                    It might sound like hyperbole, but consider: We invaded Iraq! Can anyone explain why without citing a Toby Keith lyric?

                                                    Dennis Kucinich, crazy fool, thinks the minimum wage should keep pace with inflation. He wants to raise it to at least $8.50 an hour. Oh my God, he's a communist!

                                                    Kucinich is not exactly a centrist, but his ideology is nowhere near as far from the mainstream as Bush's. Bush is the fringe candidate in this election.

                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                     
                                                    140.  Re: Yeah, but how many literate ones?
                                                     by barc0001  [ message privately ]4.5 astute 
                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 4:54amscore of 4.5 astute
                                                      in reply to comment 46
                                                      
                                                    he Germans got wind of the delivery and launched an air attack on the port. In a matter of minutes, 1,000 servicemen lost their lives. This tragedy received less than a paragraph in the book. Kind of puts Iraq's causualty count in perpesctive.

                                                    Was that before, or after Roosevelt landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and announced "Mission Accomplished"? That was in the middle of a WORLD war, against an enemy of roughly equal technology level and fighting capability. In Iraq, you're fighting people who don't have tanks, planes, heavy weapons, or even electricity or running water and they're still putting people in body bags daily. On behalf of the servicepeople, you should thank God the Iraqi "insurgants" don't have access to stealth fighters, Apache choppers, heavy tanks and the like, or the numbers would be a lot higher. Maybe we'll see those WMD any day now....

                                                    If you want to compare something, don't compare apples and oranges. How many US servicemen got killed in Berlin after the surrender of Germany?
                                                    Also, there are thousands upon thousands of wounded that don't get as much headline coverage as the dead. A lot of reports are talking about the advanced body armor the soldiers are using this time around is saving their lives. There's just that whole side effect of them having unprotected limbs blown off, but hey, they can walk that off, right?

                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                     
                                                    141.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 9:22amscore of 0
                                                      in reply to comment 115
                                                      
                                                    Wait! This is the same profession that made Rush Limbaugh a millionaire...

                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                     
                                                      153.  Re: FYI
                                                       by CaptainLiberal  [ message privately ]1  
                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 11:03amscore of 1
                                                        in reply to comment 120
                                                        
                                                      Wow, copro. There's no question that I didn't follow the party line regarding the Iraq war, but I didn't realize I was so rightward on other issues.

                                                      I've always thought my desire for universal healthcare, divorced from employment was enough to throw me into the liberal camp. Or the fact that I voted socialist in the last election. Or the time I voted for Jesse Jackson in the primaries. Or Jerry Brown. But I guess that's not liberal enough.

                                                      Maybe, if I only responded to drug-related posts and talked in detail about my drug adventures, then I could be considered liberal.

                                                      Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                       
                                                        155.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                         by bitekman  [ message privately ]1.5 clever 
                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 11:14amscore of 1.5 clever
                                                          in reply to comment 105
                                                          
                                                        Would Plastic be considered centrist in China? Russia? Japan?

                                                        If you mean "Europe/Canada/Australia" when you say "the rest of the industrialized world", just say it.

                                                        I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse
                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                         
                                                        160.  Re: Still no facts to back up hysterical
                                                         by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 obnoxious 
                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 11:58amscore of 0.5 obnoxious
                                                          in reply to comment 112
                                                          
                                                        Wow you claim that Paul Krugman is a proven liar and sponsored a growth industry and you couldnt even find one documented lie —

                                                        I admit, I give up. At some point you just have to sit back and laugh at how close minded and dogmatic some people are. I thought you were capable of making the tiniest bit of effort to investigate a tangential point you seem fixated on, namely Krugman's integrity. Take a gander at Krugmans LATEST column for a bald faced lie:

                                                        "An unusually large number of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed..."

                                                        That line is demonstrably false. The Department of Labor site shows that there is nothing extraordinary about the number it all. It is less then it was in the mid 90's and higher then it was in 99.

                                                        In pretty much every column Krugman has written, he is forced to distort numbers in his attempts to demonstrate the doom and gloom that his forte. I'm not going to waste anymore time posting examples, needless to say, they are legion. If you believe that blatently distorting numbers is a "political dispute", I fear you are beyond the pale of normal discourse.

                                                        Based upon your posts here, it appears that no amount of reasoned substantiated discourse could possibly change your mind.

                                                        Right back at you. Quite simply, you can always believe in your conspiracies because they are impossible to disprove. Bush's father was a congressman, then he MUST have recieved special treatment, evidence be damned. It is an easy thing to make wild accusations based on only on circumstances quite another to actaully prove anything.

                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                         
                                                          162.  Re: Still no facts to back up hysterical
                                                           by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]2 scholarly 
                                                            at Wed 7 Jan 12:18pmscore of 2 scholarly
                                                            in reply to comment 160
                                                            
                                                          LOL

                                                          An unusually large number of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed..."

                                                          That line is demonstrably false. The Department of Labor site shows that there is nothing extraordinary about the number it all. It is less then it was in the mid 90's and higher then it was in 99.


                                                          You prove my point again and demonstrate what you accuse me of in your comment. You failed to demonstrate that it was lie, you just claimed to prove it. He said it was "unusually large" not "extraordinary" which is your word. Again you provide no link for the LBS data so its not even clear whether you are providing apples and oranges. Even assuming you have the correct data just because there was similar number once before in the mid-90's, does not mean that it is not "unusually large." It only shows its not completely unprecedented, which of course is not what he claimed. Once again if he the pathological liar you claim him to be and sponsor of the largest growth industry showing him to be a fool, it should be easy to show some facts. Once again you only provide your conclusions.
                                                          Likewise you claim:
                                                          I admit, I give up. At some point you just have to sit back and laugh at how close minded and dogmatic some people are. I thought you were capable of making the tiniest bit of effort to investigate a tangential point you seem fixated on, namely Krugman's integrity.

                                                          Wow you describe yourself to a T. You are the one who made the accusation yet fail to make the tiniest effort to provide actual facts. You stilll havent provided facts to back up any of your hysterical allegations. I love how you fail to respond to my other points respond only to the Krugman issue and then claim I am fixated on Krugman. You are a piece of work.

                                                          The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                           
                                                            163.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                                             by The Real Dr Evil  [ message privately ]1  
                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 12:29pmscore of 1
                                                              in reply to comment 141
                                                              
                                                            Oh, good point. Oh, except that obviously he's not one of the enlightened liberal journalists. ;)

                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                             
                                                            177.  Sorry, bullshit.
                                                             by vurt  [ message privately ]1.5 succinct 
                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 2:51pmscore of 1.5 succinct
                                                              in reply to comment 101
                                                              
                                                            Metcalfe, I do hate to dogpile on when you're already getting the shit beaten out of you, but

                                                            He probably was in more danger flying the death trap that was the F2 then say an army journalist who was in Vietnam for four months and was never fired upon.

                                                            is just about the worst bullshit I've ever read. Go ahead and do some research on, say, NVA guerilla attacks on Americans in Saigon or any S Vietnamese city thoughout the course of the war. Then find me some stats for how many ANG boys die in training. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that your sorry excuse for a slam on Gore and a pompom wave for Bush simply doesn't wash. It's "probably" the exact oppsite of what you said.

                                                            And in other news, your Lockhart link is 404.

                                                            And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                             
                                                              179.  so what?
                                                               by coprolalia  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 3:12pmscore of 1
                                                                in reply to comment 153
                                                                
                                                              i can think of at least one person (mad_clown) who pulls the same shit: argue on the board for views that get no closer to liberalism than the "vital center" position of the Democrats pre-McGovern, and who holds a number of right-wing views, and then says "just kidding!" when people call him a conservative, attempting to cite his hypothetical voting record or some other sort of "liberal" credential. it doesnt work for him, and it doesnt work for you. i personally dont give a shit what your views are, but arguing for centrist and right-wing views almost exclusively in practice while having the name "captainliberal" is -disingenuous

                                                              Maybe, if I only responded to drug-related posts and talked in detail about my drug adventures, then I could be considered liberal.

                                                              no, if you did that, you could be considered a dipshit. i attempt to correct factual errors w/r/t drug information because it's my field of study. i cannot recall ever relating a "drug adventure" in a post on this board. so please cram it, asshole.

                                                              My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway
                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                               
                                                                180.  Re: Still no facts to back up hysterical
                                                                 by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 3:18pmscore of 1
                                                                  in reply to comment 162
                                                                  
                                                                I realize that this is an exercise in futility, but I can't believe someone who is literate can be this obtuse. A

                                                                Again you provide no link for the LBS data so its not even clear whether you are providing apples and oranges.

                                                                Never has the adage that you can lead a horse to water to been proven so true. The data I talked about was contained on the frontpage of the link you claimed to have read. It is a nice shiny graph that is hard to miss. hard to miss It is quite clear that their is nothing unusual about the number. The only thing unusual about it is how low it is relative to the general unemployment rate. Of course, that is the exact opposite of krugman says.

                                                                love how you fail to respond to my other points respond only to the Krugman issue

                                                                I'm starting to think reading comprehension may not be one of your strong suits. Go back and read my last post and see if I didn't raise this point. Basically, you can always allege a conspiracy and then triumphantly claim that is hasn't been disproved. There are no facts to support your allegations about Bush, simply allegations based on Bush's name and his connections. For instance, you ignore the most cogent fact in this matter, that Bush received an honorable discharge, based on some sort of conspiracy. When your game is simply alleging unprovable conspiracies that "Bush was taken care of", there is not much refutation possible.

                                                                Since Krugman seems to be the topic of the day I'm sure you'll be surprised to see that Krugman was ranked the second most partisan pundit in 2003 trailing only Ann Coulter. The author of Lying in Ponds tracked every major columists articles for balance between positive and negative comments abour each party. His quote:

                                                                In response to readers' comments, I've tediously gone through all 382 of Mr. Krugman's Times columns, looking for "harsh criticisms . . directed against Democrats", but have been simply unable to find a column which consists mainly of substantive and unambiguous criticism directed at Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Terry McAuliffe or Tom Daschle or Al Sharpton or Howard Dean or Gray Davis or any other Democrat. That distinguishes Mr. Krugman from fellow left-leaning pundits such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Michael Kinsley, Thomas Oliphant, Mary McGrory, Helen Thomas, and even Robert Scheer and Molly Ivins, all of whom have found occasions to substantively criticize their own party in only the last couple of years. How many "crossover columns" would an ideologically strident but truly independent columnist write out of 382 opportunities? I don't know, but certainly far more than zero. Mr. Krugman is clearly a gifted economist and writer, but for whatever reason, his columns have scrupulously observed party boundaries, finding unlimited time to discuss Thomas White and Trent Lott but no time at all for Marc Rich or Al Sharpton.
                                                                a www.lyinginponds.com link

                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                 
                                                                  181.  Re: FYI
                                                                   by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 3:21pmscore of 1
                                                                    in reply to comment 153
                                                                    
                                                                  Maybe, if I only responded to drug-related posts and talked in detail about my drug adventures, then I could be considered liberal.
                                                                  I know some pretty right wing potheads.

                                                                  ty for the learning experience
                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                   
                                                                  182.  Re: so what?
                                                                   by CaptainLiberal  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 3:30pmscore of 1
                                                                    in reply to comment 179
                                                                    
                                                                  Y'know what, copro. Go fuck yourself. You don't have a fucking clue what I believe, and you apparently don't read very well, either, if you think I always come from the right or center, unless you've redefined those to mean the left and center of coprolalia.

                                                                  Go pester someone else, jackass.

                                                                  Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                   
                                                                    183.  Re: Still no facts to back up hysterical
                                                                     by norcalwindows  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 3:34pmscore of 1
                                                                      in reply to comment 160
                                                                      
                                                                    I however have no compunction against piling on, other than to in some way dissuade you from posting here, and otherwise furthering your education in matter political and economic, your own preconceptions notwithstanding.

                                                                    You say

                                                                    In pretty much every column Krugman has written, he is forced to distort numbers in his attempts to demonstrate the doom and gloom that his forte.,

                                                                    and yet, when simply asked for examples to prove (or merely substantiate) that point, your response is

                                                                    I'm not going to waste anymore time posting examples, needless to say, they are legion.

                                                                    The easiest thing for you to do would be to simply google the exact point you are trying to make — that many people criticize Paul Krugman for whatever reasons (you say he lies and distorts, so maybe add those words into your search), read some of the articles — that is real important because thats where you learn things that either back you up, or refute your claims — then link those articles to your response.

                                                                    The most important thing is to read some of the articles you google. There is nothing like trying hard to find something, anything, to support whatever point you are trying to make, and not finding anything at all. At that point, you may start to realize your ideas and opinions may be based more in personal bias and a desire to simply believe something that fits your worldview. On the other hand, when you do find information to supplant your own views, it makes for good conversation where other people engage in a manner that promotes learning on both sides of whatever discussion you are having, in lieu of the 'piling on' (you have made it very easy here) your unsubstantiated claims and combative tone has precipitated.

                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                     
                                                                    184.  Re: so what?
                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 3:36pmscore of 0
                                                                      in reply to comment 182
                                                                      
                                                                    coprolalia 1, CaptainLiberal 0

                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                     
                                                                    185.  Re: Sorry, bullshit.
                                                                     by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 irrelevant 
                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 3:39pmscore of 0.5 irrelevant
                                                                      in reply to comment 177
                                                                      
                                                                    is just about the worst bullshit I've ever read

                                                                    Calm down cowboy, it was meant tongue in cheek, which I admit doesn't translate well when written.

                                                                    That said, isn't that what this whole thread is about, crazy accusations without a shred of proof to back them up. I suppose I should demand that you "prove" that my assertion is erroneous, but you can consider it cheerfully withdrawn as a factual assertion.

                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                     
                                                                    187.  Wow Finally some Facts
                                                                     by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 3:57pmscore of 1
                                                                      in reply to comment 180
                                                                      
                                                                    I guess its better late than never, you finally provide some facts, but they dont go very far to prove your allegation:

                                                                    His columns are so rife with inaccuracies, hypocrisy, misquotes and downright lies that the largest growth industry in journalism is now made up of pundits who ridicule his hysterical yammerings. Andrew Sullivan owes his career to exposing Krugman's embarrassing mistakes.

                                                                    Your information suggests that Krugman might reasonably be described as having exagerated, but doesnt make a down right lie unless you relax your definition to include lots of statements (e.g. President Bush's State of the Uninion Address and he his VPs and administrations many statements claiming to know that Iraq had WMDs). So unless you are conceddig the whole Bush administaration is full of liars you have a long way to go.

                                                                    Furthermore, the nice shiny graph indicates that it depends on your framework on what unusual means. After all the number of discouraged workers is at a six year high according to graph you provide. It appears to have increased by 50% in the last three years. I am not saying that his statement is not misleading, it may be, just that the graph doesnt prove it. It depends on longer term historical data, and whether economists include it to be unusually large under the current circumstances. You have just shown that when viewed from one specific narrow lens that is not unusual, this doesnt make it the right lens. If you count this as a documented lie, then lies are pooring out of the White House when they trumpet many economic indicators that have improved in the last 2 or 3 years but pale in comparison to the 90s. Even assuming its misleading that does not show it to be a lie let alone hysterical yammering. If Krugman is anywhere near as bad as you claim you should be able to come up for a lot more. This link is a start but a very small one.

                                                                    Since you mention Ann Coulter, it turns out that your allegations against Krugman actually fit her like a glove: a www.spinsanity.org link
                                                                    If Krugman is half as bad as you claim you should be able to find an argument at least comparable to the one done by spinsanity on Coulter.

                                                                    As for the rest of your post, Im not even going to bother with more of your drivel — others have responded enough.

                                                                    The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                     
                                                                      189.  Upon Further Review...Charts deceiving
                                                                       by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 4:35pmscore of 1
                                                                        in reply to comment 187
                                                                        
                                                                      Upon thinking about it I realized that what Krugman said and what the chart purports to show are two different things.

                                                                      An unusually large number of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed

                                                                      While the chart shows the absolute number of discouraged workers and only indirectly the actual number of people who gave up looking for work. For the actually monthly tallies you need to go to a www.bls.gov link and check the box for discouraged works and then push the retrieve data button to get the information (I couldnt get a direct link). If you look at the data you will see that the number of discouraged workers in 2003 are at their highest level since 1994 for every month but September and that for the two most recent months available October and November they are at the highest levels for those particular months including 1994. When you look the numbers of discouraged workers on this table they certainly look unusually high.

                                                                      Likewise if you look at the data you will see the annual number of discouraged workers declined every year from 1994 to 2000 when it hit the lowest point during this period at. After declining every year, the annual number has increased since 2000 and between 2002 and 2003 looks to be by far the largest increase in the number of discouraged workers in the decade.

                                                                      So if you look more closely it appears that Krugman is actually quite accurate.

                                                                      The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                       
                                                                        193.  Don't worry, Cap'n.
                                                                         by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 5:30pmscore of 1
                                                                          in reply to comment 153
                                                                          
                                                                        It's just the rabid Deanites trying to exorcise all the "undesirables" from the party. Daschle's a "traitor" and Lieberman, who was the freaking VP candidate in the last election is a "Republican in sheep's clothing."

                                                                        The Deanites' messianic tendencies have led them to the conclusion that they, and they only, are the legitimate arbiters of who is a real Democrat or a real liberal.

                                                                        Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                         
                                                                        NEW: 194.  Well copro...
                                                                         by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 5:39pmscore of 1
                                                                          in reply to comment 179
                                                                          
                                                                        Let me be the first to assure you that there are an awful lot of people out there, myself included, whose political views aren't tailor made to win acceptance from people like you.

                                                                        You can scream "conservative" and "right-winger" until you're blue in the face, but it won't accomplish a damned thing except making you wrong, pure and simple. Who the fuck made you the arbiter of who's "liberal" and who's "conservative," as if it even really mattered (unless you're so far gone that you think that "conservatives" are, by definition, wrong about everything, in which case the definitions mean little more than "people who coprolalia agrees with" and "people who coprolalia doesn't agree with").

                                                                        Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                         
                                                                          NEW: 196.  Re: Well copro...
                                                                           by coprolalia  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                            at Wed 7 Jan 5:50pmscore of 1
                                                                            in reply to comment 194
                                                                            
                                                                          Let me be the first to assure you that there are an awful lot of people out there, myself included, whose political views aren't tailor made to win acceptance from people like you.

                                                                          did i ever say otherwise? i said it was disingenuous for you to identify yourself as a liberal and then ONLY take up right-wing or centrist positions. like you do, constantly. you are a particularly egregious offender, retreating behind the "i didnt vote for bush last term!" defense shield whenever anyone calls your politics conservative. what are you so ashamed of?

                                                                          My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway
                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                           
                                                                            NEW: 198.  Re: How about facts to back up your
                                                                             by wfolive  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 7:14pmscore of 1
                                                                              in reply to comment 97
                                                                              
                                                                            There was a recent article about the guy who writes "Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid" that showed, if you couldn't already tell from his borderline-psychotic name for his site, that he's to be a wack-job Krugman stalker who has devoted his entire life to destroying the guy. And for devoting his life to it he has still managed to come up with very little to work with judging by the weak stuff he's got on his site. For serious Krugman critiques (and plausible ones are certainly out there) you'll have to do better than that.

                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                             
                                                                            NEW: 199.  Re: Well copro...
                                                                             by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 7:37pmscore of 1
                                                                              in reply to comment 196
                                                                              
                                                                            First, when did I ever call myself a "liberal?" I've consistently said that I think both sides of the spectrum have valuable ideas to contribute.

                                                                            Second, you still haven't answered my question of what makes you the arbiter of who is "liberal" and who isn't. Do you really think that you know better than I what my politics are? I've never self-identified as a liberal and I've never self-identified as a conservative, and for good reason.

                                                                            Third, why do you think I have something to be ashamed of? Should I be ashamed if I agree with conservatives on some issues? Because I do so quite openly. And again, why is it so important for you to make sure everyone fits into your labels, despite their own self-identification? Surely you don't think that the validity of one's opinions or arguments is based upon one's political stance. If not, why is it so important for you to make everyone conform to your standards for self-identification?

                                                                            Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                             
                                                                              NEW: 200.  Re: Chart war
                                                                               by Metcalfe  [ message privately ]0.5 irrelevant 
                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 7:38pmscore of 0.5 irrelevant
                                                                                in reply to comment 189
                                                                                
                                                                              Correct me if I am wrong, but both charts use the following definition of a discouraged worker:

                                                                              Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

                                                                              Accordingly, there is no real difference between the charts. The Luskin chart uses percentages of the work force and throws in the overall unemployment rate for perspective while your chart* works with gross numbers. First and foremost, gross numbers are misleading, they fail to take into account the expanding workforce. Percentages are perferable because they put the numbers in context.

                                                                              That said, Krugman is still absolutely wrong. The Luskin chart demonstrates that when we've approached 6% unemployment in the past, the number of discouraged workers was around .04%. Currently, it is barely .03% Given the tiny vacillations in this number, the difference is extremely significant. Moreover, the chart demonstrates that the gross number is falling.

                                                                              Your other arguments don't really hold either. Krugman doesn't modify his statement as you do. Is Krugman trying to argue that he is surprised that the number of discouraged workers grew as the unemployment rate did?

                                                                              *Correct if I am using the wrong form or chart. I'm under the impression the number of discouraged workers for Nov was 457,000.

                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                               
                                                                              NEW: 201.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                               by Norman108  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 8:34pmscore of 1
                                                                                in reply to comment 113
                                                                                
                                                                              "Permit me to disagree, or at least suggest that you engage in hyperbole."

                                                                              While reasonably speaking, I can agree with what your're saying here, I also think superdude made a very, very important point that cannot be overlooked.

                                                                              Someday, the liberal, centrist and conservative debate will be framed around observations such as this. The admisistration of the moment will be seen as the reactionary, elitist mistake many true conservatives only tolerate, the church and the state will re-separate, our overblown terrorist paranoia will dissipate and the actual Right-Left debate on how to guide America will rejuvenate.

                                                                              In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                               
                                                                              NEW: 204.  Re: Well copro...
                                                                               by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 9:12pmscore of 1
                                                                                in reply to comment 199
                                                                                
                                                                              First, when did I ever call myself a "liberal?" I've consistently said that I think both sides of the spectrum have valuable ideas to contribute.
                                                                              I personally thought you were a fascist, a rather eloquent one, but that's what I got from your posts.

                                                                              ty for the learning experience
                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                               
                                                                                NEW: 207.  Just out of curiosity...
                                                                                 by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 9:43pmscore of 1
                                                                                  in reply to comment 204
                                                                                  
                                                                                since you're the first non-AI to accuse me of being a fascist (at least that I remember), I'd be interested in starting a PM discussion (since this thread has become enough of an off-topic clusterfuck already) and hearing your reasoning, preferably with references to past posts.

                                                                                Or were you just making shit up for rhetorical effect?

                                                                                Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                 
                                                                                  NEW: 208.  Re: Just out of curiosity...
                                                                                   by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 10:11pmscore of 1
                                                                                    in reply to comment 207
                                                                                    
                                                                                  Or were you just making shit up for rhetorical effect?
                                                                                  That was the impression I've gotten from your posts, as you've always seemed rather far to the right and a bit of an apologist for corporations. Since a cursory search of your posts gives me nothing to hang you with, I'm going to have to apologize... at least until I have proof :P (besides, anyone who likes Zorn and Bowie can't be all bad)

                                                                                  Now after reading through some recent posts, I'm starting to wonder where I got that impression from, maybe the vitriol associated with the Iraq invasion, or just the general derision pointed your way infecting my mind, whatever the cause I noticed a lot of your posts that I myself modded up and am quite lost right now. The world doesn't make sense any more.

                                                                                  ty for the learning experience
                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                   
                                                                                    NEW: 210.  Re: Just out of curiosity...
                                                                                     by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 10:52pmscore of 1
                                                                                      in reply to comment 208
                                                                                      
                                                                                    Well, fair enough and apology accepted. If you ever do run across any of those old posts (or future posts, for that matter) that led you to your original assessment, feel free to PM me. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale.

                                                                                    Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                     
                                                                                    NEW: 218.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                     by Stefu  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                      at Fri 9 Jan 2:39pmscore of 1
                                                                                      in reply to comment 103
                                                                                      
                                                                                    What about Clintons being two pigs? Granted, that icon's not as much seen these days, but still...

                                                                                    He asked "Be you angels?" and we said "Nay! We are but men! Rock!"
                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                     
                                                                                  4.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                   by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 11:41amscore of 1
                                                                                    in reply to comment 1
                                                                                    
                                                                                  I don't think that many people who are aware of MoveOn's positions on matters political are all that shocked by the number of anti-Bush ads they received. Certainly, when the contest was first announced, I said to myself "hmm, you know they're going to have to literally wade through the standard anti-Bush stuff to get at something that puts a fresh spin on the matter." I'm not even surprised that they received something as stupid and juvenile as the Hitler/Bush ads. Actually, I'm surprised that they only received two of that caliber.

                                                                                  What I do find just a tad shocking and, in the end, disingenuous on the part of MoveOn was the a). the decision to put ads up on their web site without first at least putting them through the "bad taste" filter, and b). leaving the two offending ads up until the voting had ended. It was obvious that the two ads had touched all sorts of raw nerves. And not, judging from the reaction of Jewish leaders, just partisan political raw nerves. That, to me, are the main issues involving the placing of the ads on their website. Obviously, MoveOn didn't commission or produce the ads. But by allowing their website to be used as a platform for promulgating them, they did place a semblance of an endorsement on them. And when they began receiving the flak, they should have pulled them, then and there, rather than let them run and then saying, "well, we would never have let them run anyway." This was an organization that was supposedly formed to counter the very real "politics of personal loathing" that surrounded the Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton. Odd, isn't it, how they don't seem to "get it" when George Bush is the one being villified?

                                                                                  Having said that, I would invite one and all to view the finalists which are unique and worth viewing. I share your feelings that MoveOn's intent in commissioning this campaign was a good thing. For a refreshing change, someone operating up in the political ether is actually asking for substantial input from those of us down on the firmament.

                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                   
                                                                                    11.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                     by anykey  [ message privately ]2 intriguing 
                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 12:27pmscore of 2 intriguing
                                                                                      in reply to comment 4
                                                                                      
                                                                                    "without first at least putting them through the "bad taste" filter"

                                                                                    Though I don't personally agree with the ads sentiment — One man's bad taste is another mans free speech. There was nothing wrong with MoveOn posting all of the ads, I find that kind of openness refreshing these days. This is simply a smear campaign by the Republicans and by the creators of the Hitler spot.

                                                                                    Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut
                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                     
                                                                                      13.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                       by cloudofdust  [ message privately ]2.5 compelling 
                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 12:29pmscore of 2.5 compelling
                                                                                        in reply to comment 4
                                                                                        
                                                                                      What I do find just a tad shocking and, in the end, disingenuous on the part of MoveOn was the a). the decision to put ads up on their web site without first at least putting them through the "bad taste" filter, and b). leaving the two offending ads up until the voting had ended.

                                                                                      If someone at Move On had pre-screened the entries before they were presented to the membership for voting that would have short-circuited the democratic process at the very heart of this contest. While the Hitler/Bush ads may have been tasteless they didn't violate the rules for submissions and therefore deserved to be seen and evaluated by the membership.

                                                                                      It might be shocking for a political organization to play by the rules it set up, especially when those rules create an uncomfortable situation, but disingenuous? I hardly think so.

                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                       
                                                                                        25.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                         by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]2 helpful 
                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 1:38pmscore of 2 helpful
                                                                                          in reply to comment 11
                                                                                          
                                                                                        "This is simply a smear campaign by the Republicans and by the creators of the Hitler spot."

                                                                                        Sounds to me like you're saying that a group of Republicans made the ads and submitted them to MoveOn in the hopes that something like this would break out. I'm assuming that MoveOn has information on where the ads came from. So, perhaps some time ought to be invested in where they came from.

                                                                                        Oh, you're saying that once MoveOn posted the ads to their web site and kept them up past the time they got called on them, that this constitutes a smear campaign. Okay. Right.

                                                                                        Let me ask you this question, would MoveOn have posted an ad which was clearly a pro-Bush ad? No, because clearly they were only into posting ads that were anti-Bush. Yet, they would have blocked the ad submitter's free speech. But, then, MoveOn is not a government entity and they enjoy the absolute right to post whatever they wish to their website as a matter of free speech. And seeing as how you brought up the notion of bad taste. Would you defend an ad which showed a George Bush lookalike having graphic anal sex with an actor who is identified as "Mr. Middle Class Taxpayer" on the basis that one person's bad taste is another's free speech?

                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                         
                                                                                          26.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                           by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1 disingenuous 
                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 1:46pmscore of 1 disingenuous
                                                                                            in reply to comment 13
                                                                                            
                                                                                          "It might be shocking for a political organization to play by the rules it set up, especially when those rules create an uncomfortable situation, but disingenuous? I hardly think so."
                                                                                          But, au contraire, because what were the rules of the contest? Did they state anywhere that MoveOn was going have the entries scrubbed for "bad taste"? I don't think so, unless someone can find a cite for it. Yet, when the voting ended, the offensive ads were removed and the head of MoveOn essentially said, "well, we would never have let them become finalists anyways." So, I stand by my original claim that, from that aspect, they were being disingenuous.

                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                           
                                                                                            27.  Enjoy your comeuppance you fascist swine!
                                                                                             by Anonymous Idiot  -0.5 obnoxious 
                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 2:08pmscore of -0.5 obnoxious
                                                                                              in reply to comment 26
                                                                                              
                                                                                            I'm just glad somebody had the mod points to challenge and downmod your worthless butt. Please leave and never come back.

                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                             
                                                                                              28.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                               by anykey  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 2:13pmscore of 1
                                                                                                in reply to comment 25
                                                                                                
                                                                                              My point was that the Republicans who are making a stink over this are making something out of nothing. They are blaming MoveOn for the production of the ad and attempting to "smear" their reputation just as the creators of the ad had tried to "smear" Bush.

                                                                                              Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut
                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                               
                                                                                                30.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                 by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 2:21pmscore of 1
                                                                                                  in reply to comment 28
                                                                                                  
                                                                                                Aha. We have found common ground then. Because I am more so appalled that the Republicans who are so heated in their fingerpointing of smearing are so willing to archive the spot on their website. As I posted in my original comment, MoveOn obviously didn't commission or produce the piece. My heartburn with MoveOn's acts have to do with keeping it on the site past when it became known as the piece of bile that was and then saying, "well, we really weren't going to run it anyway."

                                                                                                I don't think that I have a reputation as a Bush apologist here and so I have no real problem, indeed I have admiration, for the finalists that made the cut. And I'll give props to MoveOn for trying to get some political input from people that might have gotten overlooked.

                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                32.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                 by cloudofdust  [ message privately ]1.5 interesting 
                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 2:22pmscore of 1.5 interesting
                                                                                                  in reply to comment 26
                                                                                                  
                                                                                                But, au contraire, because what were the rules of the contest? Did they state anywhere that MoveOn was going have the entries scrubbed for "bad taste"? I don't think so, unless someone can find a cite for it. Yet, when the voting ended, the offensive ads were removed and the head of MoveOn essentially said, "well, we would never have let them become finalists anyways." So, I stand by my original claim that, from that aspect, they were being disingenuous.

                                                                                                Yes, MoveOn states quite explictly that they will be "scrubbing for bad taste."

                                                                                                There are some legal limits on what you can do (see below), and we're not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television, but other than that what you put in your ads is up to you (live action, animation, personal rant, whatever!).
                                                                                                It's doubtful that any broadcast outlet would accept an ad that compares a sitting president to Hitler (of course, comparing Saddam to Hitler would be fine) so there's the justification for the head of MoveOn saying the Hitler/Bush stuff wouldn't have made the finals.

                                                                                                I haven't really dug around on the site but it looks to me like all the non-finalist ads have been removed. So the Hitler/Bush stuff got treated just like all the other non-finalists. What's so disingenuous about that?

                                                                                                Perhaps they should have removed those ads as "inappropriate for television" before the contest was over but I'm sure there were a lot of entries that for some reason or other could have been considered innappropriate. If I had been in charge I would have send remove anything that's NSFW and let the members vote on the rest. At worst, they made a judgement call and erred on the side of openness and the democratic process.

                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                  34.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                   by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 2:35pmscore of 1
                                                                                                    in reply to comment 32
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                  Yes, MoveOn states quite explictly that they will be "scrubbing for bad taste."
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                  There are some legal limits on what you can do (see below), and we're not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television, but other than that what you put in your ads is up to you (live action, animation, personal rant, whatever!).
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                  It's doubtful that any broadcast outlet would accept an ad that compares a sitting president to Hitler (of course, comparing Saddam to Hitler would be fine) so there's the justification for the head of MoveOn saying the Hitler/Bush stuff wouldn't have made the finals.
                                                                                                  You are probably correct that no nationwide outlet would accept an ad of this type. Which leads to the question of, if that is the case, and their notice in the guidelines constitutes "explicit" notice, why didn't they do the scrubbing before the voting ended? The head of MoveOn said that the ads would never be finalists, so why not remove them and prevent MoveOn's name to be connected to them?

                                                                                                  And I'm not about to claim that MoveOn is the only player in this little drama that is being disingenuous, by the way. I would say that Mr. Gillespie and the Republican National Committee deserve some sort of life achievement award in it for castigating MoveOn for running the ads and, at the same time, archiving them on their site so that people can view them for themselves.

                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                    38.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                     by cloudofdust  [ message privately ]2 astute 
                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 3:14pmscore of 2 astute
                                                                                                      in reply to comment 34
                                                                                                      
                                                                                                    Which leads to the question of, if that is the case, and their notice in the guidelines constitutes "explicit" notice, why didn't they do the scrubbing before the voting ended?

                                                                                                    I'll engage in a little wild speculation and say that the people in charge of pre-screening might have been given instuctions to reject anything that contained nudity or the seven dirty words but to post everything else. As I said before that may have been an error of judgement but it was an error on the side of democracy and letting all voices be heard.

                                                                                                    If MoveOn had pre-screened the entrants for editorial content, that would have been disingenuous. What's the point of letting people vote if you're only going to let them choose from the small group of entries you've already pre-selected as conveying the right message?

                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                      39.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                       by MrWucky  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 3:15pmscore of 1
                                                                                                        in reply to comment 34
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                      Does "inappropriate for television" mean that no television station would air the ad, or does it mean that an ad can't contain any indecency that is illegal to show on TV.

                                                                                                      I believe they meant that they wouldn't include anything indecent. The "Bush=Hitler" ad didn't contain anything that couldn't be shown on TV and had to be included despite it's bad taste.

                                                                                                      "You know you can influence people without badgering them always." - Apu Nahasapeemapetilon (Simpsons 3F03)
                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                      40.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                       by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 3:20pmscore of 0
                                                                                                        in reply to comment 26
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                      MAYORBOB, it's called free speech, and it's surprising you seem to find people using their right to free speech disingenuous.

                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                        41.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                         by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 3:21pmscore of 1
                                                                                                          in reply to comment 38
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                        "What's the point of letting people vote if you're only going to let them choose from the small group of entries you've already pre-selected as conveying the right message?"

                                                                                                        Perhaps because we are only talking about two ads out of the 1,500 that got submitted? I hardly consider the 1,498 they had left to be a "small group" to be considered.

                                                                                                        But, I'll concede that there probably were some ads that were submitted that probably did fall squarely and non-partisanly into the area of bad taste that did get scrubbed and rejected. Things being what they are, one wonders how long it will be before we are able to view some of those on some quadrant of the internet.

                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                          49.  Passive Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                           by rmurf62  [ message privately ]2 funny 
                                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 3:57pmscore of 2 funny
                                                                                                            in reply to comment 25
                                                                                                            
                                                                                                          Would you defend an ad which showed a George Bush lookalike having graphic anal sex with an actor who is identified as "Mr. Middle Class Taxpayer" on the basis that one person's bad taste is another's free speech?

                                                                                                          Not if the actors were attractive. But that's just me.

                                                                                                          YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                            51.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                             by cloudofdust  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 4:07pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 41
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            Perhaps because we are only talking about two ads out of the 1,500 that got submitted? I hardly consider the 1,498 they had left to be a "small group" to be considered.

                                                                                                            Well, once you start rejecting ads based on editorial content what's to say you stop at just Hitler? In order to prevent MoveOn's name from being connected with any ad whose message they didn't agree with they would have to reject a lot more than just the two Hitler ads.

                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                            75.  Re: Passive Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                             by Osomatic  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 6:11pmscore of 1
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 49
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            I don't think Timothy Bottoms (ha!) is going to be that desperate for work for at least a few years, though.

                                                                                                            If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up.
                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                            90.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                             by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 8:26pmscore of 1
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 38
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            What's the point of letting people vote if you're only going to let them choose from the small group of entries you've already pre-selected as conveying the right message?
                                                                                                            When's the NH primary again?

                                                                                                            ty for the learning experience
                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                            98.  For a chuckle
                                                                                                             by dolohov  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 9:10pmscore of 1
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 34
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            I'd love to see how Gillespie would respond to a DMCA request ordering him to remove the ad from his site — it is, after all, copyrighted material being disseminated without permission.

                                                                                                            They do have a valid point, though — anti-Bush rhetoric has gotten incredibly overblown and remarkably virulent. There's an argument to be made that by continuing to show the ad, they might achieve a calming of the rhetoric out of shame.

                                                                                                            Nah, I don't believe it either.

                                                                                                            "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)
                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                            157.  Re: Enjoy your comeuppance you fascist swine!
                                                                                                             by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 11:28amscore of 0
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 27
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            hear, hear.

                                                                                                            more than a few of us are tired of his centrist bullshit.

                                                                                                            i may disagree with the right, but they have a certain ideological purity. you can't just pick and choose which parts of an ethos are most convenient for you to agree with.

                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                              158.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                               by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 11:29amscore of 0
                                                                                                                in reply to comment 40
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                              not surprising at all, if you read his comments history.

                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                              170.  Re: Enjoy your comeuppance you fascist swine!
                                                                                                               by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 1:33pmscore of 0
                                                                                                                in reply to comment 157
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                              Yeah, you're absolutely right. The Mayor has got to go and take all his centrist bullshite with him. Because nothing says informed, intelligent dialogue than to have a bunch of kneejerk Lefties and Righties go at it, you know. I mean, how dare he insert himself into this thread with his line of moderate reasoning? Oh, that's right, he's the one who found the topic and took the time to write it up so that dickweeds like you and the AI before you and after can weigh in with your get out of town philosophy.

                                                                                                              I don't always agree with MAYORBOB. Indeed, sometimes his ubiquity makes me wonder if he has a life. But, you know that we do tend to discuss politics here. And politics isn't necessarily what happens at the margin; it's what those at the margin, after exhausting themselves trying to prove their point decide they'll gravitate to the middle on. MAYORBOB just happens to occupy the middle a lot of the time. Good for him. And, considering the time and effort he spends in giving us stuff to mull over, good for Plastic.

                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                              173.  Re: Enjoy your comeuppance you fascist swine!
                                                                                                               by Killjoy  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 2:29pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                in reply to comment 157
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                              "I may disagree with the right, but they have a certain ideological purity. you can't just pick and choose which parts of an ethos are most convenient for you to agree with."

                                                                                                              Are you saying that individuals lose all credibility when they form a unique system of beliefs rather than swallowing somebody else's Reality A or Reality B wholesale?

                                                                                                              You should consider that any two party system fails to address a full intellectual spectrum.

                                                                                                              Step 2. Smite enemies with burning pigs.
                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                              NEW: 195.  Re: Enjoy your comeuppance you fascist swine!
                                                                                                               by mad_clown  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 5:43pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                in reply to comment 157
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                              you can't just pick and choose which parts of an ethos are most convenient for you to agree with

                                                                                                              Err. Why not?

                                                                                                              Wouldn't that make one a "critical thinker" who doesn't just buy into a particular ideology but rather decides on a case-by-case basis what one actually feels are the right and wrong positions vis-a-vis the issues?

                                                                                                              Or is it better to be dogmatic and inflexible about your beliefs?

                                                                                                              Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                            19.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                             by nmiguy  [ message privately ]0 incoherent 
                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 1:09pmscore of 0 incoherent
                                                                                                              in reply to comment 1
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                            but MoveOn didn't make them.

                                                                                                            Move On has the responsibility of posting them on their website. That is significant. Teh statement is pretty clear. It is an endorsement of the message, and acceptance that this type of flame baiting is acceptable campaigning.

                                                                                                            I think the guys at Move On knew they'd be controversial, they could post the ads with Hitler, then remove them saying "we have nothing to do with it" and still get the publicity and the event of allowing a smear against Bush to get circulated. They see it as a win win any way. Which is kind of sick. If they get some heat for this, they deserve it.

                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                              37.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                               by deeluxx  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 3:09pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                in reply to comment 19
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                              Move On has the responsibility of posting them on their website. That is significant. The statement is pretty clear. It is an endorsement of the message, and acceptance that this type of flame baiting is acceptable campaigning.

                                                                                                              They're not endorsing anything, it's a contest.
                                                                                                              Read the rules. 30 seconds, 4mb's, no express advocacy, no copyright infringement. That's pretty much it. MoveOn received nearly 1500 entries. About 200 of them were red-flagged from the start for either breaking the rules or coming close enough to the line that MoveOn's lawyers deemed them inappropriate. They didn't want the contest to be destroyed by the RNC's attorneys on legal grounds — which you can bet your ass the RNC wanted to do.

                                                                                                              They could not disqualify entries for content that didn't break the rules of the contest. The two Hitler ads didn't break the rules. If they had disqualified them the resultant calls of 'fraud' and 'censorship' would have been more harmful to the organization, and you can bet your ass the Repub's lawyers would've jumped all over that.

                                                                                                              It was only two ads out of 1300 that were on the site. Neither one was a finalist. Why do you think it is that these two have become an issue?
                                                                                                              Because someone (*cough* RNC *cough*) had somebody mining the ads looking for something controversial so they could undermine the contest.

                                                                                                              Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                44.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                 by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 3:31pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 37
                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                Why do you think it is that these two have become an issue?
                                                                                                                Because someone (*cough* RNC *cough*) had somebody mining the ads looking for something controversial so they could undermine the contest.


                                                                                                                Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I heard about it on Drudge Report.

                                                                                                                Basically, the site is responsible for the ads on their site. If they can remove 200 or so for questionable material, then they should have removed these 2 as well. Not removing them is endorsing them as acceptable speech to be on their site. They can't dance around that. There is nobody they can really point the finger at except themselves.

                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                  50.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                   by deeluxx  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 4:05pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 44
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                  Care to provide any evidence to back that up? I heard about it on Drudge Report.

                                                                                                                  And where did Drudge hear about it? His 'breaking news' link to the video was on the RNC's website. In emails with one of the project cofounders weeks ago they expressed that the RNC was looking to undermine the contest from the get-go. Perhaps they were being paranoid, but, considering what's going on now, it looks like they were correct in their fears.

                                                                                                                  They didn't 'remove 200 for questionable material' — they disqualified 200 from the contest (meaning they were never viewable to the public) because they broke the rules of the contest. The two Hitler comparison ads did not break the rules. They could not legally disqualify them.

                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                    53.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                     by nmiguy  [ message privately ]0.5 obnoxious 
                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 4:13pmscore of 0.5 obnoxious
                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 50
                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                    They could not legally disqualify them.

                                                                                                                    You mean there are laws FORCING a company to post something on its website that it finds disagreeable with? I doubt it.

                                                                                                                    Oh and this is NOT a free speech issue. Not all speech is protected. And Move On has no obligation to publish anybody's speech.

                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                      125.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                       by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 12:34amscore of 1
                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 44
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                      Basically, the site is responsible for the ads on their site.
                                                                                                                      Only in part. Once they hold a contest with published rules, they have to abide by those rules or they can be sued. If the rules say they will post the submitted ads on their site excluding those not suitable for television, they have to post them. I saw the hitler ad, and while many people would find it distasteful, it is nevertheless acceptable for broadcast on television. The FCC would have nothing to say about it. TV stations might not want it, but they wouldn't believe they could not broadcast it.

                                                                                                                      End of line.
                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                      126.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                       by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1.5 succinct 
                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 12:38amscore of 1.5 succinct
                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 53
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                      You mean there are laws FORCING a company to post something on its website that it finds disagreeable with? I doubt it.
                                                                                                                      There godddamn well are when the company has agreed, in the published rules of a contest open to the public, that they will do so! If they don't do it, it could be called "breech of contract", potentially among other things... most states have specific laws about how contests must be run as well, usually including that the organization running the contest must abide by the published rules.

                                                                                                                      End of line.
                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                      NEW: 202.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                       by Norman108  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 8:56pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 53
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                      "You mean there are laws FORCING a company to post something on its website that it finds disagreeable with? I doubt it."

                                                                                                                      No but there are ethical standards for an organization to uphold if they are going to continue to promote their core values. I'm sure you understand this.

                                                                                                                      I'm also sure you understand MoveOn.Org isn't a company but a non-profit action group.

                                                                                                                      In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                    NEW: 203.  Re: Participatory Democracy
                                                                                                                     by bck  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 9:08pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 1
                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                    And a rhetorical question: MoveOn got over 1500 usable entries for this contest. How many proBush ads do you think the RNC would get from the regular folks if they had such a contest? Of course, the answer is that they'd never need such a thing because the corporate media do such a fine job for Mr. Bush as it is.


                                                                                                                    I'm not sure how many they'd get, actually. It seems that at least a few republicans are irritated about Bush's spending habits and lack of fiscal responsibility. The GOP is good at getting the rank and file to hush up and get into line to present a united front, even if they don't love the candidate.

                                                                                                                    support your local calculus teacher
                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                  3.  Exclusive MSNBC Interview with Mr. Godwin!
                                                                                                                   by rmurf62  [ message privately ]2.5 astute 
                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 11:34amscore of 2.5 astute
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                  Well, between MSNBC and CNN (I don't watch Fox) I saw at least 4 news shows yammering about this damn Hitler ad. Fortunately, there seems to be some push-back from the left (Paul Begala brought up the fact that it was one ad out of 1500, it was never aired, etc. etc. etc). It was a terrible ad, out of many terrible ads; it didn't make the finals and it won't get aired. Remind me again why this is a crime against humanity?

                                                                                                                  The finalist ads are pretty good, which will hopefully ameliorate current RNC efforts to slime MoveOn.org.

                                                                                                                  The things I find most amusing about this "controversy": while the ad has been pulled off of MoveOn's site, it's posted on the RNC website, thus ensuring the "controversy" can stay fresh through at least two news cycles. Second, the sheer volume of attacks against Howard Dean from the RNC and the mainstream press makes this ad look like school-yard name-calling. Case in point: on the same day this kafuffle erupted over an attack ad that was never aired, the NY Post publishes an editorial comparing Dean and his "flannel-shirts" to Hitler , Lenin and George Orwell. Nice. (Weren't Republicans supposed to have a coordinated message or something?)

                                                                                                                  YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                    8.  Re: Exclusive MSNBC Interview with Mr. Godwin!
                                                                                                                     by zyxwvutsr  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 12:18pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 3
                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                    Remind me again why this is a crime against humanity?
                                                                                                                    It's not that it's a crime against humanity: It is just dumb, juvenile politics. Those sort of blatantly offensive, meretricious partisian political attacks are counter productive. Their existence gives the Republicans the opportunity to use the Politics of Perception to their advantage: "Just look," they can say, "at the sort of people who are against your president! God bless America."

                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                      55.  Re: Exclusive MSNBC Interview with Mr. Godwin!
                                                                                                                       by rmurf62  [ message privately ]1.5 informative 
                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 4:27pmscore of 1.5 informative
                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 8
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                      Those sort of blatantly offensive, meretricious partisian political attacks are counter productive.

                                                                                                                      You mean blatantly offensive, meretricious partisian political attacks like this?

                                                                                                                      Granted, moveon.org could have been much smarter about removing these ads the moment they started getting heat about them. However, this election cycle has already promised to be one of the nastiest on record. The Dems played nice in 2002 and got their asses handed to them on a platter. I think that groups like moveon.org need to keep up with the Great Republican Slime Machine in this election, because the stakes are too important. If the Dems just smile and attempt to ignore the unending gallons of raw Republican sewage tossed in their collective face, they'll lose big.

                                                                                                                      YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                        57.  Re: Negative campaigning seldom works
                                                                                                                         by zyxwvutsr  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 4:45pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 55
                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        I hadn't seen that one, but it's hilarious: Hitler had Brownshirts, Dean has Flannelshirts! Man, that's good.

                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                        159.  Re: Exclusive MSNBC Interview with Mr. Godwin!
                                                                                                                         by KOMPRESSOR  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 11:33amscore of 1
                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 55
                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        Thank you for that link... very funny!

                                                                                                                        I love how rightist pundits castigate Dean for sealing his gubernatorial records, after having given Bush a flyer on doing the same thing.

                                                                                                                        Not surprising, but funny.

                                                                                                                        KOMPRESSOR

                                                                                                                        apple: not just a different way, a better way
                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                      12.  GOP Beliting True Hate Speech — RNC running
                                                                                                                       by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]2 compelling 
                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 12:27pmscore of 2 compelling
                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 3
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                      The things I find most amusing about this "controversy": while the ad has been pulled off of MoveOn's site, it's posted on the RNC website, thus ensuring the "controversy" can stay fresh through at least two news cycles.

                                                                                                                      Other things about the "controversy": The Hitler ads in question may have been submitted by Bush supporters for all we know.

                                                                                                                      Even the GOP treatment of the issue serves to do what it claims the ad does — belittle the issue:
                                                                                                                      "This is the worst and most vile form of political hate speech. These candidates have a chance to repudiate this pollution of our political process by repudiating these ads at this afternoon's debate in Iowa," If this is true why does Mr. Gilespie keep running the ad on his website? Isnt this what he accused MoveOn of doing?

                                                                                                                      Common, does any one really believe that the ad in question is the worst and most vile form of political hate speach? Its not even close. Its odd that Gilespie keeps calling upon Democrats to repudiate the ads, when MoveOn already has. In fact the only way you can see these "vile" images is on the websites of GOP supporters like the RNC. In case you didnt know it was almost impossible to find the ad in the first place even if you tried since you could only see 20 of the over 1500 and those that had been rated better were more likly to be seen. I would be willing to bet that far more people have seen this vile hate speech on the RNC website and other GOP sites than ever saw them on MOVEON.

                                                                                                                      The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                        35.  Re: GOP Highlighting True Hate Speech
                                                                                                                         by rdww  [ message privately ]0.5 compelling 
                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 2:45pmscore of 0.5 compelling
                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 12
                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        "In fact the only way you can see these "vile" images is on the websites of GOP supporters like the RNC."

                                                                                                                        Thus, had these ads been safely swept into the memory hole, MoveOn's support of offensive hysteria would somehow have been lessened? Once again, it seems that "angry Democrats" will prove Dubya's best ally in 2004.

                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                        36.  Re: GOP Beliting True Hate Speech — RNC
                                                                                                                         by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 2:48pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 12
                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        The Hitler ads in question may have been submitted by Bush supporters for all we know.

                                                                                                                        Ohmigod! I posted almost those exact thoughts an hour ahead of you. But, as I said there, it would likely be easy to determine where the ads came from, as they were entered in a contest and all. And, I'm assuming that if the lead goes nowhere, then the logical assumption might just be dirty tricks. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that Republicans have practiced political dirty tricks.

                                                                                                                        Now, as for your assertion that the Republicans seem to be going a bit overboard on this, I'll trump that by saying that Gillespie is quite simply acting like ten pounds of fertilizer crammed into a five pound sack. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to decry a comparison of Bush to Hitler and then archive the damned thing on your website so that everyone can savor its evil nature.

                                                                                                                        But, let's not pile on the Republicans altogether because both parties deserve it in spades over this. After all the quote in the write up from democrats.com is oh so deliciously over the top itself.

                                                                                                                        I, for one, am glad that this political season looks like it's gearing up to be a truly high class affair with all parties debating the issues and leaving all that personal nastiness behind.

                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                          43.  Re: GOP Beliting True Hate Speech — RNC
                                                                                                                           by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1 disingenuous 
                                                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 3:26pmscore of 1 disingenuous
                                                                                                                            in reply to comment 36
                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                          Let me just get this straight, MAYORBOB. Move On posts a video clip that is a slur against the sitting president, no it posts two of them calling him Hitler, and because the GOP expresses outrage over this they deserve some derision "in spades"? The GOP hasn't done anything wrong here. I mean, okay about Gillespie's hypocrisy, but this just sounds weird. Let's attack Bush. Now let's attack the GOP for calling us out on our tasteless attack.

                                                                                                                          Finding fault with the GOP when the matter was instigated by Move On, and the likes of Michael Moore, Janeane Garafolo and others, it stinks at face value.

                                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                            45.  Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                             by MAYORBOB  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 3:34pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                              in reply to comment 43
                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                            If the ads are deplorable slurs, smacking of bad taste, then please don't get up on a soapbox decrying them while you're continuing to make them available for public viewing. At this point, everyone who needs to view them has already seen them. They have no more news value. The RNC has the same absolute right to control what gets put up on their website the exact same way that MoveOn does. So, until such time as the RNC removes the ads they are so anguished about, I'll shout "hypocrites" at the general direction of their house also.

                                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                              48.  Re: Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                               by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 3:52pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 45
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                              Thanks.

                                                                                                                              Oh and for the record, while they are a "deplorable slur" and a smear and all that, I actually liked the ads. I thought they were not juvenile, but displayed a true hatred for Bush. And of course the way in which they were done (I've seen numerous times people trying to call Bush a "Hitler") the ads were effective. For 30 seconds, you see Hitler, a menacing figure, yet mostly that is in hindsite. At the time Hitler was an icon of popularity much like Bush is across the US. Hitler was Time's Man of the Year. The not so subtle message about this cult of personality, and how he used his power for evil, is a warning that blind obedience in Bush could lead down the same path, or already has led down the same path. Of course that is obnoxiously wrong. Bush at most can lead for up to 8 years total. Hitler went on a world domination binge because he had no limits in what he could do.

                                                                                                                              Normally, I detest the gratuitous Bush bashing that goes on in liberal circles. None of it is fresh and new, it is mostly recycled garbage like "He lied" etc which gets tedious. The bold declaration that Bush is Hitler is really less offensive to me, because it really challenges me to look at history and the present under the same microscope.

                                                                                                                              So count me among the hypocrites here. While I can see this as a slur, I don't hate it as much as I imagine I should. The ads are fascinating propaganda, and not simplistic in overall effect, even if they were simplistic in intent.

                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                60.  Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                 by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1.5 nuanced 
                                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 4:54pmscore of 1.5 nuanced
                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 43
                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                Move On posts a video clip that is a slur against the sitting president, no it posts two of them calling him Hitler

                                                                                                                                Personally, I find the ads well done and appropriate, and do not see Bush being called Hitler, or slurred.

                                                                                                                                Rather, as I see it, the ad astutely informs the viewer that he should be mistrustful of those who claim murder as god's work. It does so powerfully, but in an entirely fair manner. If the Satinist fuck in chief says that God told him to murder Afghans and Iraqis, then comparing him to other evil fucks who have excused their slaughter as divine-will is relevant.

                                                                                                                                The only basis for objecting to the comparison is that American Nationalist Manifest Destiny is real while Germany's version of the exact same principle was false idolatry. Or Bush's God chamber is more real than Osama's.

                                                                                                                                It is a legitimate and necessary criticism to demand that your ruler does not delude himself that his fascism and murder is justified. The voices in his head could tell him almost anything next, and as importantly, if OBL and b43 both say they're jesus, as dire straights implied, one of them must be right: it turns the debate over the position of islam and the US in the world into a regressive unresolvable crusade of creeds.

                                                                                                                                Admittedly, b43 has done a good job of keeping religion out of the conflict as much as possible, except with his fundie support base. But fanning Christian fanatism through divine murder should seem dangerous even if done as privately as possible.

                                                                                                                                All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                  63.  Republican Nat'l Com. Chairman v. random web site
                                                                                                                                   by Philosawyer  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 5:04pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 36
                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                  But, let's not pile on the Republicans altogether because both parties deserve it in spades over this. After all the quote in the write up from democrats.com is oh so deliciously over the top itself.

                                                                                                                                  While doling out criticims, however, we should note that on the one hand we have the official comments of the Reubublican National Committe Chairman on the official RNC website vs. a unattributed short blurb to some random person with a website named democrats.com. Frankly I dont know who runs democrats.com which describes itseslf as "independent" but the treatment as both as representative of the comments of the respective parties is laughable. Just as saying that MoveOn supporterted or endorsed the ad is also laughable. Calling on the democratic candidates to repudiate the ad as the drama queen RNC Chairman does is just plain ridiculous.

                                                                                                                                  The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                  64.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                   by nmiguy  [ message privately ]0.5 irrelevant 
                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 5:15pmscore of 0.5 irrelevant
                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 60
                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                  It is a legitimate and necessary criticism to demand that your ruler does not delude himself that his fascism and murder is justified.

                                                                                                                                  Taking Al Qaeda out of power IS justified. They attacked the US and killed innocent civilians. Letting them off the hook is is NOT a viable option. If force is required (yep it is) then killing a few Al Qaeda member is definitely justified to protect the US from an enemy that already attacked the US.

                                                                                                                                  IF Poland attacked Germany unprovoked and killed innocent Germans, Hitler would have been justified to attack Poland. But that is NOT what happened.

                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                    67.  Yeah we got that part.
                                                                                                                                     by marduk_kur  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 5:23pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 64
                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                    People are pissed about Iraq though.

                                                                                                                                    Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.
                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                      69.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                       by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 5:35pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 64
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                      Taking Al Qaeda out of power IS justified. They attacked the US and killed innocent civilians.

                                                                                                                                      That is widely agreed. You can make the case without bringing "voices in my head, (that pat robetson assures me is god), told me to do so" into it. Pretty soon, after Arabs and abortionists, God will be telling Christian fundies to kill democrats.

                                                                                                                                      If Poland attacked Germany unprovoked and killed innocent Germans, Hitler would have been justified to attack Poland. But that is NOT what happened.

                                                                                                                                      You're making this too easy, but I'm taking the bait anyway...

                                                                                                                                      IF Iraq attacked America unprovoked and killed innocent Americans, Bush would have been justified to attack Iraq. But that is NOT what happened.

                                                                                                                                      All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                        74.  Re: Yeah we got that part.
                                                                                                                                         by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 6:07pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 67
                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                        People are pissed about Iraq though.

                                                                                                                                        Okay. I guess you're right about that.

                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                        76.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                         by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 6:15pmscore of 0
                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 69
                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                        Pretty soon, after Arabs and abortionists, God will be telling Christian fundies to kill democrats.

                                                                                                                                        ...

                                                                                                                                        Nah, too easy...

                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                        77.  Well, asks the lawyer for Mr. Zebub,
                                                                                                                                         by Osomatic  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                          at Tue 6 Jan 6:43pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 69
                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                        IF Iraq attacked America unprovoked and killed innocent Americans, Bush would have been justified to attack Iraq. But that is NOT what happened.

                                                                                                                                        IF Germany had attacked America unprovoked and killed innocent Americans, Roosevelt would have been justified to attack Germany. But that is NOT... wait, that is what happened, only it was with Japan, not Germany. We attacked Germany completely unprovoked. Heck, we didn't even go after Japan for a few years, and they were the ones who dropped bombs on US soil.

                                                                                                                                        Okay. Don't freak out. I'm not really comparing the war in Iraq to World War II — the situations are completely different. But neither is it so simplistic as that we'd better wait until they do something to us before we do anything to them.

                                                                                                                                        Imagine what kind of yelling and screaming there would have been if the US had invaded Afghanistan in 2000. "Unprovoked! Maniacal! Acting unilaterally! Etcetera!" Everybody would have agreed that yeah, the Taliban sucks, but it's better than a war — it's not like Afghanistan is going to bomb us or anything. Heck, back then the UN still believed Saddam had WMDs and even then, nobody was worried about a DIRECT threat from Afghanistan.

                                                                                                                                        In retrospect, though, making Osama's life real hard or even ended back then might have been worth it, no?

                                                                                                                                        If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up.
                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                          79.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                           by superbat  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 6:52pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                            in reply to comment 64
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                          IF Poland attacked Germany unprovoked and killed innocent Germans, Hitler would have been justified to attack Poland. But that is NOT what happened.

                                                                                                                                          But he was perfectly justified — albeit a poorly contrived justification.

                                                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                          94.  Re: Well, asks the lawyer for Mr. Zebub,
                                                                                                                                           by severian  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 8:44pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                            in reply to comment 77
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                          Umm, that's exactly what Bill Clinton tried to do. If you'll recall, in 1998, we sent a boatload of tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan to try and take out bin Laden's training camps (with him in them, preferably :-).

                                                                                                                                          And guess what, the Republicans screamed bloody murder, wag the dog, etc. etc.

                                                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                          109.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                           by theblackflag  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                            at Tue 6 Jan 9:51pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                            in reply to comment 64
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                          Taking Al Qaeda out of power IS justified. They attacked the US and killed innocent civilians. Letting them off the hook is is NOT a viable option. If force is required (yep it is) then killing a few Al Qaeda member is definitely justified to protect the US from an enemy that already attacked the US

                                                                                                                                          You think that anyone is defending Al Qaeda? The "fascism and murder" doesn't refer to that, my friend. It refers, instead, to the so-called war against Al Qaeda being used as an excuse to enact suprresive policies at home and continue the expansion of our power over other nations abroad.

                                                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                            117.  Re: Well, asks the lawyer for Mr. Zebub,
                                                                                                                                             by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1.5 compelling 
                                                                                                                                              at Tue 6 Jan 10:56pmscore of 1.5 compelling
                                                                                                                                              in reply to comment 77
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                            In retrospect, though, making Osama's life real hard or even ended back then might have been worth it, no?

                                                                                                                                            Only because its too easy to do so in retrospect. More could have been done by both administrations prior to Sept'01, but an invasion of Afghanistan would not have been supported or justifiable. Attacking someone who is merely a theoretical threat if undeterred because Hitler or OBL could have been stopped if acted earlier is the same logic that would annihilate whatever nation is perceived as the greatest threat in a global opinion poll.

                                                                                                                                            But neither is it so simplistic as that we'd better wait until they do something to us before we do anything to them.

                                                                                                                                            No but posing an undeterreable and genuine threat should always be a criteria. In the case of Afghanistan, where a right of self defense could be invoked, I would prefer clear reasonable ultimatums with strong threats to what I feel became a forced innevitable war. I believe we'd have OBL in custody if the Taliban had been engaged reasonably.

                                                                                                                                            The 2nd most distressing aspect of 9/11's unanswered questions (after lollygagging Norad interceptor Jets) is that a planned-october -invasion of Afghanistan was published in July '01. Such a plan would be consistent with an Operation Northwoods 9/11, and disturbingly, the absense of political grandstanding on a "get tough" approach with Afghanistan or OBL prior to 9/11 makes it most likely (to me) a staged casus belli.

                                                                                                                                            Getting back to the point of the ad, what if God or the microspeaker Pat Robertson implanted in his skull told b43 to mobilize US public opinion for his murderous deeds by whatever means necessary?

                                                                                                                                            All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                            124.  Re: Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                                             by RadioUnderground  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 12:22amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                              in reply to comment 48
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                            How about using one of them Bush twins for the ad, eh, nmiguy?

                                                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                              127.  Re: GOP Beliting True Hate Speech — RNC
                                                                                                                                               by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 12:41amscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 43
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                              The GOP hasn't done anything wrong here.
                                                                                                                                              ...other than violating the copyright on the ad.

                                                                                                                                              End of line.
                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                128.  Re: Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                                                 by TheMCP  [ message privately ]2.5 intriguing 
                                                                                                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 12:53amscore of 2.5 intriguing
                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 48
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                Oh and for the record, while they are a "deplorable slur" and a smear and all that, I actually liked the ads. I thought they were not juvenile, but displayed a true hatred for Bush.
                                                                                                                                                Funny. I didn't like them, because I felt that while they were pretty clear about their "Bush = Hitler" message, they failed relatively badly to draw some direct analogies between Bush's and Hitler's behavior. If anything, they made me consider the potential analogy, and I realized that with the exceptions of referring to the country as the "homeland" (which still completely creeps me out every time I hear about "homeland security") and fighting a war on too many fronts, I can't think offhand of too many parallels.

                                                                                                                                                I think Stalin would be a better comparison, but I fear that if they used Stalin's face in an ad, most people in the US wouldn't have any idea who he is.

                                                                                                                                                End of line.
                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                  136.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                                   by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 1:54amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 109
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  You think that anyone is defending Al Qaeda?
                                                                                                                                                  They have rights too; or at least they should, this whole creation of a legal category between criminal and military borders is highly suspect. For the civilian population this means that you could possibly step outside the law completely just through who you consort with or possessing material that could be considered a weapon of terror (a very broad range of household products would fit the description when you consider chemicals and explosives); chances are they won't apply these laws unjustly to the vast majority of us, but it still serves in keeping the population down, disallowing the access of modern (or even homemade) weaponry to those who need it most, the Average Joe. Now I know I may seem to be rambling a bit here, but in the interest of public safety our ability to defend ourselves from tyranny is being taken away from us. The peasantry of medieval times were disallowed to carry swords (the most advanced weapon of the time), and so it continues: we are now bowing before the might of the King's armies with nothing but the pitchforks of our time.
                                                                                                                                                        Coming full circle, I feel we must vigorously defend our rights as well as those of Al-Quaeda (as misguided as they are) because every loss of freedom to them could potentially bite us in the ass when we find out that a Saddam Hussein type has taken over the country we live in. As it is, the population is already outgunned by the government and now thanks to Al-Quaeda we are losing even more tools to guarantee liberty if ever they are needed. While I doubt I can find someone here who will support Al-Quaeda (who's war against the US is a good thing in my eyes, although I don't approve of the tactics), at the very least I hope people can see that changing the rules to deal with them is not the answer.
                                                                                                                                                  It refers, instead, to the so-called war against Al Qaeda being used as an excuse to enact suprresive policies at home and continue the expansion of our power over other nations abroad
                                                                                                                                                  The heart of the matter lies in how the problem is addressed, and while all rhetoric against Al-Quaeda and terrorism is military in nature ("War on Terror", "Enemy Combatants"), all laws enacted to fight the enemy has been treating them as criminals by stripping the population as a whole of our power. You are right to worry about the policies of your government, but what's slipping by is that the same thing is happening the world round, everyone is in on it. Slowly the people of the world are losing what little teeth we still have as the wolves pick out the sheep that will give them problems in the future. We're fucked.

                                                                                                                                                  ty for the learning experience
                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                    146.  Re: GOP Following Copyright Law
                                                                                                                                                     by zyxwvutsr  [ message privately ]1.5 informative 
                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 10:25amscore of 1.5 informative
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 127
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Actually, the rules of the contest state that all entries must be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial license.

                                                                                                                                                    In other words, there is absolutely nothing that MoveOn can do about it.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    147.  Re: Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                                                     by nmiguy  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 10:29amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 124
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Yeah, only if she's nekkid. I been wanting to see Barbara's Bush...

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    178.  Re: GOP Beliting True Hate Speech — RNC
                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  -0.5 obnoxious 
                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 2:58pmscore of -0.5 obnoxious
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 36
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Why is it so hypocritical to have the advertisement on your website and at the same time object to it? I just don't understand why you think this is so wrong. There are posts on this thread which contain links to articles which the posters clearly object to. Is this wrong? It seems like a natural and logical thing to offer a real example of the kind of expression which you object to. You must think that the advertisement is offensive in itself, independently of the intent of the person who is showing it to us and hence should not be shown anywhere, under any circumstances. This is a rather grand claim. Or maybe you object to the fact that their website continues to offer the ad, and refer to it, and in short, makes as much of the ad as possible. I can understand this thinking, but 1) This is a regular feature of political rhetoric, 2) again, I do not see how this is hypocritical. Bad taste maybe, but not hypocritical.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    186.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                                     by arromdee  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 3:52pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 69
                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                    IF Iraq attacked America unprovoked and killed innocent Americans, Bush would have been justified to attack Iraq. But that is NOT what happened.


                                                                                                                                                    The statement "If X, then Y" doesn't imply "If not X, then not Y". So your conclusion, while it does follow, would not then let you conclude "If Iraq doesn't attack America, then Bush isn't justified in attacking Iraq"

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                      NEW: 197.  Re: Yes, nmiguy, you may get that one straight.
                                                                                                                                                       by logbass  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 6:58pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 128
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      You are right about Stalin not having anywhere near the Q factor of Hitler. of course, there have been hundreds of movies about the horror of Hitler and very few about the horror of Stalin. Apparently Hollywood is not as interested in homicidal madmen when they originate from the left.

                                                                                                                                                      Curious.

                                                                                                                                                      Who's got the kibble? - Bad Lieutenant: POCNO
                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                      NEW: 212.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                                       by paul_holloway  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Thu 8 Jan 7:22amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 186
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      Since you enjoy logic, this is probably what was meant:

                                                                                                                                                      IF America's attack on Iraq was legal, THEN Iraq must have been an immediate and pressing threat to the US.

                                                                                                                                                      As it is now apparent that Iraq was obviously not any sort of threat to the US, then...

                                                                                                                                                      "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who
                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                      NEW: 213.  Re: Identify the Slur
                                                                                                                                                       by theblackflag  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Thu 8 Jan 1:50pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 136
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      You're right that the "everyone is in on it". Thanks to Al Qaeda, any extreme dissenter or rebel in any country is now labeled as a "terrorist" the world over. Any person that raises arms against a state is now acceptably crushed under the guise of protecting the people.

                                                                                                                                                      Attempting to be as objective as possible about the United States vs Al Qaeda conflict, it seems that neither party is on the so-called right side. The United States has implemented policies that are detrimental to the well-being of countries in the Middle East, Central/South America and Asia for a very long time. This came back and bit the U.S. on the ass, in a sense reaping what was sown.

                                                                                                                                                      On the other hand, Al Qaeda's violent actions have been directed against the citizens of the United States. While, through representative Democracy, the citizens are somewhat responsible for bloodshed abroad through the years, in no circumstance should actions of resistence be taken against the citizens under the control of a state. This is not to mention the apparent opressive goals of Al Qaeda and other religious extremists. There is more than enough religious fanatacism in the United States as it is.

                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                    24.  Re: Exclusive MSNBC Interview with Mr. Godwin!
                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  -0.5 incoherent 
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 1:32pmscore of -0.5 incoherent
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 3
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Saying that the ad never ran is didingenous. Those of us of an age remeber an anti-Goldwater aid that never ran. Anyone remeber the little girl and mushroom cloud.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                  5.  Why wasn't I told
                                                                                                                                                   by chatsubo  [ message privately ]2 novel 
                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 11:49amscore of 2 novel
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  I had the perfect 30 second ad — just Bush sitting there looking moronic in that kids school when he first found out about 9/11
                                                                                                                                                  Needs a good tag line though?

                                                                                                                                                  Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do
                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                    31.  Re: Why wasn't I told
                                                                                                                                                     by keta  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 2:22pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 5
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Needs a good tag line though?

                                                                                                                                                    Mellifluous female voiceover; "For some, reading, writing, and comprehension skills are learned at school. And for a few others, these very same comprehension skills are never mastered. (beat) So remember to vote for George W. Bush for re-election...because the President should be someone who makes you feel proud about your own level of comprehension."

                                                                                                                                                    own your words...
                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    47.  Re: Why wasn't I told
                                                                                                                                                     by spencerdog  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 3:38pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 5
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    How about "Not fiddling. Reading. R-E-A-D-I-N-G."

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    190.  Re: Why wasn't I told
                                                                                                                                                     by eatindrinkin  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 5:20pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 5
                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                    I had the perfect 30 second ad — just Bush sitting there looking moronic in that kids school when he first found out about 9/11


                                                                                                                                                    hey , i dislike Bush as much as anyone can, but im pretty sure i had that expression on my face for not only all of 9-11 but for a few days later. Can you imagine being the seated president under those circumstances?

                                                                                                                                                    I believe thata the way to attack Bush is not with personal attacks like you have suggested, because those who dislike him dislike him so much already: Aditionaly, it seems one of Bush's strengths amongst his supporters is his down-home-i-ness; Attacking him will only gather support amongst his followers and give ammo to the fox folks. The way to attck him is through his record of subsidizing the rich and taking from the poor..
                                                                                                                                                    He needs to be re-contectualized as an elitist and a pawn of big business, that should do the trick.

                                                                                                                                                    i eat my peas with honey, i've done it all my life, it does taste rather funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                  6.  Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                   by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]2.5 novel 
                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 12:07pmscore of 2.5 novel
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  The third reich offered a vision of everlasting peace once the "jewish problem" was addressed. Just as Pax Americana offers peace through the forced surrender by every other perspective.

                                                                                                                                                  The German invasion of Poland was justified on rhethorical lies that the great german nation could not tolerate rebel polish insurgencies against border german communities (which may have been pure fabrications to begin with). The invasion of Iraq was also a self-entitled enrichment of the US rulership, and deceitful fulfilment of rulership's strategic aims.

                                                                                                                                                  Now the ad in question doesn't make the above 2 comparisons, but instead very astutely points out the alarm bells the American voter should be deafened by: People who claim God told them to murder others, just maybe are making up the last refuge of justificative lies for their evil.

                                                                                                                                                  A closing thought about religion... Satinists/Evildoers are more likely to be deeply involved in Christian religious orders, than they are to be open members of the Church of Satan, because the Christian church can sanitize and legitimize the actions of its powerful patrons and sponsors through custom interpretations of vague and contradictory scriptures. Similarly, the anti-Christ if he were to come among us, would unlikely proclaim himself directly as such. Faking devotion to God is both easy and clearly advantageous because it bestows upon the follower an aura of holyness and goodness. Letigimacy is magic/wizardry. The Church of Satan offers no mana as source of pursuasive power. Faking that God is your personal OnStar system is easy too, since it's not disprovable. Both (2nd) Christ and the Anti-Christ would claim to have a direct link to god. The claim is meaningless as evidence of either.

                                                                                                                                                  So the Bush=Hitler ad makes a strong and valid point, that should be a central part of the 2004 campaign. I'm glad the RNC is helping it. Its mistake is that it's just too tame, and does not make a Bush=Satan link :).

                                                                                                                                                  All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                    7.  One wishes, at this point, for some mod points.
                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot   
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 12:14pmscore of -1 modappeal
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 6
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    I do so need to administer a few -obnoxious points to your stupid ass.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    9.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                     by zyxwvutsr  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 12:21pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 6
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Maybe the Democrats should make an TV spot about the Palm Beach Putsch.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                    23.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  -0.5 modappeal 
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 1:26pmscore of -0.5 modappeal
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 6
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Too bad there isn't a -1 stupid mod, because you could use about a hundred of them.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                      86.  Too bad
                                                                                                                                                       by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 7:54pmscore of 0
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 23
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      there isn't a digital red hot poker we could shove up your ignorant ass until it reaches your throat and burns out your ignorant, pointless, and vile tongue.

                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                    81.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                     by Osomatic  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 7:06pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 6
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    Satinists/Evildoers

                                                                                                                                                    I have to assume you mean "Satanists." I'm pretty sure that people who like slippery sheets and shiny shirts aren't evil, although people who use alliteration like that very well might be.

                                                                                                                                                    Faking devotion to God is both easy and clearly advantageous because it bestows upon the follower an aura of holyness and goodness.

                                                                                                                                                    So... anyone who says they're faithful is probably the anti-christ in disguise?

                                                                                                                                                    The claim is meaningless as evidence of either.

                                                                                                                                                    It's meaningless anyway. Most people stop having an invisible friend when they're about 8 or 9, you know. But if you wanna worship Thor or whatever, go for it.

                                                                                                                                                    If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up.
                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                      93.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                       by scott_d  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 8:32pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 81
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      I'm pretty sure that people who like slippery sheets and shiny shirts aren't evil, although people who use alliteration like that very well might be.

                                                                                                                                                      I'm pretty sure alliteration the 7th Seal.

                                                                                                                                                      'Don't you know this game is crooked?' 'Yes, but it's the only game in town.'

                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                      118.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                       by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 11:16pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 81
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      Faking devotion to God is both easy and clearly advantageous

                                                                                                                                                      So... anyone who says they're faithful is probably the anti-christ in disguise?


                                                                                                                                                      Come on, I didn't say that. A claim of faith could be made because its honest or because its profitable.

                                                                                                                                                      All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                    91.  Re: Comparisons to Hitler justified
                                                                                                                                                     by scott_d  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 8:27pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 6
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    So the Bush=Hitler ad makes a strong and valid point, that should be a central part of the 2004 campaign.

                                                                                                                                                    Karl Rove thinks so too. The only thing that would make the RNC happier is if Bush=Yeti were a central part of the 2004 campaign instead.

                                                                                                                                                    'Don't you know this game is crooked?' 'Yes, but it's the only game in town.'

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                  15.  That's Outrageous!
                                                                                                                                                   by BatGuano  [ message privately ]1 incoherent 
                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 12:54pmscore of 1 incoherent
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  A Left-Leaning Web site takes "ads" from "people" who mock Our President, chooses the "best" one, and has other people (probably deluded trust-fund hippies stoned out of their brains) donate money to get the ads on TV!?! How far will these Flannel-Shirts go with their Web Putsch???

                                                                                                                                                  On the other hand, I like the new ad sponsored by Americans for Good Freedoms showing Dean's close relationship with bin Laden, Saddam and Billary Clinton. But I'm not sure about how not voting for him will give me good, clean-burning coal power for my kid's treehouse.

                                                                                                                                                  your radio friend, Bat Guano
                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                  16.  History
                                                                                                                                                   by Linux Ate My Dog!  [ message privately ]3 nuanced 
                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 1:03pmscore of 3 nuanced
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  From a technologists POV, I can't help but think we are seeing a significant milestone in the Dtesktop Video Revolution. We have been talking about the empowerment of individuals to join in and shape the media for years, with faster machines and digital video and the web for distribution, and here it is. What are the results?

                                                                                                                                                  Most ads actually follow the standards for 'serious messaging' we have been exposed to for years: ominous music, audio punctutation of subtitles, and people trying to balance their anger with the current right-wing horror of being called a leftie or some other code-word for forgetable. (My personal favorite keyword that makes me sit up when it is used is 'shrill'. 'O Reilly calling someone 'shrill'. Think about it.)

                                                                                                                                                  And then some of these ads simply don't care.

                                                                                                                                                  I personally think the 'What Are We Teaching Our Children Ad' is awesome, if not derivative of monster.com's previous ad campaigns, but still awesome, because it raises the 'Patriotims' point. It's the best of the three ads that center around children exactly because it doesn't, like the other two, explicitly goe for the Charles Dickens heartstrings.

                                                                                                                                                  I love 'Army Of One', even if it is subtitle/scary music, for simply taking no prisoners.

                                                                                                                                                  'Hood Robbin' starts kinda lighthearted devolving into creepily serious. And that is cool. It doesn't worry about being 'shrill', there's a guy in tights ferchristsakes.

                                                                                                                                                  'Bush's Repair Shop' is almost there with its banging and clanging, but is just not shocking enough in the current landscape considering that there's this awesome driver safety campaign ad that is launching cars from school rooftops.

                                                                                                                                                  As for 'In My Country', it tries, but its gimmick — omaigawd, it's the USA! — is so blatantly obvious from second 1, and the topic of imprisonment doesn't resonate, there are so many other civil rights and privacy issues that do not center on three secret arrests of what the public thinks of as 'bad people'.

                                                                                                                                                  "He's old school." -- byrne
                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                    106.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                     by profwhat  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 9:38pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 16
                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                    OK, I've looked at the ads now. While I'm not politically disposed to agree with any of them, I think I can still say, subjectively, that none of them are going to really change anyone's mind.

                                                                                                                                                    "Wake Up, America:" A guy, day after day, hits the snooze bar when his clock radio, apparently tuned to a Pacifica station, tells him of the latest Bush atrocity. The ad puts the political message into the tiny sentence fragments that emerge from the radio. This format deprives the ad of any way to provide backup, present coherent ideas, or otherwise use any generally recognized means of persuasion.

                                                                                                                                                    "Desktop:" We see a Macintosh desktop (apparently OS 9) with the presidential seal as wallpaper, and the arrow drags folders with labels like "Environment" and "Civil Rights" to the Trash icon. That's it. Slightly more coherent ideas than "Wake Up," but, again, not exactly the type of argument that's going to make a dent in a 60% approval rating. If I didn't have context to guide me, I could have mistaken this for 1) a screen capture from my biannual computer desktop cleanup session, or 2) a retro Apple ad showing how much easier file management is with their software than with Microsoft's.

                                                                                                                                                    "Bring 'Em On:" Clips of Bush play in monochrome (and blurry), while "Taps" is superimposed over the audio and we see a rapid succession of official photos of service members (presumably ones who died in Iraq). Chryoned headlines: "He lied. They died." This is so ridiculously heavy-handed and over the top that it may trigger a backlash and increase Bush's ratings. The majority of Americans approved of the war in Iraq, and this ad will not change that. What's more, most Americans believe Bush supports the troops. A good attack ad should present viewers with "new" "facts" about a candidate, not challenge what they already think they know. Similar ads with similar problems: "Polygraph" "Human Cost of War"

                                                                                                                                                    "Child's Pay:" Guitar music plays while we watch a bunch of really young kids doing industrial jobs, like working on assembly lines and sorting mail. At the end, a chyron: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" The obvious answer, "those who purchase treasury notes," is not given. This one makes one point, and makes it well, but unless Bush faces a candidate who actually has a credible deficit-hawk position (Dean is not such a candidate), this won't work. Similar ads with similar problems: "Gone in 30 Seconds" "Leave No Billioniare Behind"

                                                                                                                                                    "Bush's Repair Shop:" Video of a guy smashing a car while the announcer lists allegedly broken promises. This ad isn't so bad.

                                                                                                                                                    "Imagine:" Various speakers morph into each other whilst declaring that corporations control American government and media and start wars to increase their own profits. This ad will definitely cause Noam Chomsky's fans to oppose Bush. Everyone else... I don't think so.

                                                                                                                                                    "What are we teaching our children?" Kids at some sort of student council debate declare that they will be mendacious and Machiavellian. Cute and funny, but definitely not going to persuade.

                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                      116.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                       by cloudofdust  [ message privately ]2 compelling 
                                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 10:34pmscore of 2 compelling
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      OK, I've looked at the ads now. While I'm not politically disposed to agree with any of them, I think I can still say, subjectively, that none of them are going to really change anyone's mind.

                                                                                                                                                      I've seen this "x is okay/not bad/terrific but is not going to change anyone's mind" assessment on a few political discussions here at Plastic and my first reaction is always to wonder, is that what ads are supposed to do?

                                                                                                                                                      Does Pepsi really think Britney Spears singing and dancing around is going to make Coke drinkers see the error of their ways?

                                                                                                                                                      Ads serve a number of purposes but I don't see conversion as one of them. Ads say, "you made the right choice" (reinforce brand loyalty) and "hey, look me over" (if you haven't picked a brand don't forget to consider us).

                                                                                                                                                      So the best these ads can hope for is to galvanize the choir. I think it's accepted wisdom that higher voter turnouts favor Democrats so getting people who already agree with the message to act is important.

                                                                                                                                                      Beyond that people are going to vote based on all the same emotional criteria they use to make every other decision. My girlfriend who's a raving Bush-hater doesn't like Dean because she thinks he has helter-skelter eyes. She also doesn't like him for some very rational policy reasons but ultimately she, like everyone else on the planet, is motivated by a feeling more than a thought. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II, all tapped into that basic fact of human psychology to their advantage.

                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                      121.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                       by TRACKYOURPOSITION  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                        at Tue 6 Jan 11:52pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                      The obvious answer, "those who purchase treasury notes," is not given.

                                                                                                                                                      No, that's the correct answer. The obvious answer is that all of us have to pay those treasury notes (purchased by Asian friends) back. But you're right, the REAL answer is, as you say, those who buy notes because when our fucking country collapses they'll all have worthless pieces of paper. Suckers!

                                                                                                                                                      I also note that Dean is absolutely a credible deficit-hawk candidate, if only in comparison to Bush. He actually wants to raise middle class taxes back to pre-Bush levels. That's pretty damn hawkish for the average voter.

                                                                                                                                                      The only ad I saw that I liked was the Army of One--I know a lot of supporters of Bush and the Iraq war who are also fed up with how badly army personnel and veterans are being treated benefits-wise, and though the ad starts and ends with references to Bush lies, it fits well into a theme of Bush disrespect for people who serve by emphasizing changes in soldier's pay, health benefits, etc. Overturning the lie that neoconservative implies pro-military might be difficult, but an ad like that, broadcasted early and often enough would be exactly what is required.

                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        129.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                         by rEvolution inAction  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 1:01amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        You leave out the best one of all "In My Country", which makes the comparison between the US and a third-world dictatorship (or at least that's the impression they were aiming for).

                                                                                                                                                        ty for the learning experience
                                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        132.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                         by sulli  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 1:21amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        I agree, the ads pretty much suck. Way too shrill and KPFA-ish to appeal to any swing voters.

                                                                                                                                                        Exceptions: "Desktop," if it could somehow be narrowcast to the 5% or so of us who are/were Mac OS 9 users; "Gone in 30 Seconds," which if tweaked a bit could get the message across; "In My Country," which might hit home in areas where people still care about the Constitution; and "Army of One," which hits the veterans' benefits issue hard and might actually appeal to undecideds.

                                                                                                                                                        And don't even think of running any of the ads with kids, particularly the one that had the kid saying "let's take our country back." Or the horrid "Imagine." Because what voters really like is to be condescended to ("THINK").

                                                                                                                                                        Tout abus sera puni

                                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        134.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                         by Tessera  [ message privately ]1.5 helpful 
                                                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 1:27amscore of 1.5 helpful
                                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        I have to say that my favorite of the ads was "Child's Pay". It has a few things in its favor, in my opinion:

                                                                                                                                                        - It doesn't focus on "Bush is a liar we hate him we hate him."
                                                                                                                                                        - It focuses on one clearly defined issue. If that issue resonates with you, then this ad will be a lot more effective that "here are a lot of reasons that Bush may not be the coolest guy ever".
                                                                                                                                                        - It doesn't tell you up front what it's an ad for. It plays like a real ad, not some political campaign message. It's also cryptic — if you don't see it in context, you don't know what it's about until the end. That's the kind of thing that gets people to say "Hey, you've got to see this commercial", as my mother did.
                                                                                                                                                        - Along with the above, it seems much more professional. This is what sets it above Bush's Repair Shop, my next favorite of the ads — if this is going to get big airplay, I'd much rather it didn't look like a used-car dealership commercial. There aren't any spoken parts, only the narration, which strikes me as a good thing; many of the other ads seemed to employ amateur actors (as I'm sure they did), which decreased their effectiveness.
                                                                                                                                                        - I also really like the music. Not in terms of the ad, I just like the music better than most of the other stuff.

                                                                                                                                                        Anyway, you raise a valid point — Dean does not have a great position on the deficit. But I don't think that really matters. Ads like this aren't expected to give a complete reckoning of the issue. It's not saying "Bush is bad and Dean is worse and if you look at the statistics here and here with references here you can see for yourself that Dean is clearly the better choice". It says "Bush is bad", and that's all it needs to say. It's an ad; style over substance works in this format.

                                                                                                                                                        Anyway, there are a few of the finalists that I wouldn't mind seeing win, but as I said, my personal choice would go to "Child's Pay". Not just because I like it, but because I think it can do the most good.

                                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        135.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                         by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 1:28amscore of 0
                                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        Umm, the Treasury notes are the debt. That is how the money is raised — the gov't issues bonds — someone buys them and gets paid back the face amount and then some at the bond's maturity.

                                                                                                                                                          So the question becomes who will pay off the orignal debt incurred plus interest?

                                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        142.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                         by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                          at Wed 7 Jan 9:34amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                          in reply to comment 106
                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        While I'm not politically disposed to agree with any of them, I think I can still say, subjectively, that none of them are going to really change anyone's mind.

                                                                                                                                                        Neither of us can be a good judge of that. Most of America doesn't pay attention to the news or politics. Its my belief that anyone who doesn't oppose Bush is misinformed or blinded by loyalty. You may not be bothered by lies intentionally designed to necessarily cause other americans than you to die, but for honest people, if adequately informed that their President has been actively trying to murder them, should be compelling reason to oppose him.

                                                                                                                                                        I thought the finalist ads on other issues were well done too. They made their point well. But my premise is still anyone who doesn't oppose Republicans is misinformed. These ads can be effective if they motivate the honest to go vote.

                                                                                                                                                        All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                                         [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                          143.  Re: Dean and deficits.
                                                                                                                                                           by profwhat  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                            at Wed 7 Jan 9:44amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                            in reply to comment 121
                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                          I also note that Dean is absolutely a credible deficit-hawk candidate, if only in comparison to Bush.

                                                                                                                                                          In the last debate Dean said he would be able to balance the budget "in the sixth or seventh year of my administration," at which point the otherwise friendly audience laughed at him, prompting him to ask "What?" defensively. They were laughing perhaps because of Dean's confidence that he would get not just one but two terms, but also, I think, because that's a ridiculously long horizon. From the last debate:

                                                                                                                                                          DEAN: We — ultimately, we will have a program for tax fairness. But right now, I agree with John Edwards. You cannot balance the budget and tell people you're going to keep all these tax cuts. I am going to balance the budget, and I'm going to do it in the sixth or seventh year of my administration. We're also going to have health care...

                                                                                                                                                          (LAUGHTER)

                                                                                                                                                          What?

                                                                                                                                                          ANGER: Do you have anything else?

                                                                                                                                                          (LAUGHTER)

                                                                                                                                                          We are going to move on...

                                                                                                                                                          (LAUGHTER)
                                                                                                                                                          If I were MoveOn, I would not make budget balancing the issue in this campaign. (Unless the dems nominate Lieberman or something).

                                                                                                                                                          As for treasury notes, you're right of course. I was trying to be funny.

                                                                                                                                                           [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                            144.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                             by profwhat  [ message privately ]1 astute 
                                                                                                                                                              at Wed 7 Jan 9:57amscore of 1 astute
                                                                                                                                                              in reply to comment 142
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                            Its my belief that anyone who doesn't oppose Bush is misinformed or blinded by loyalty.

                                                                                                                                                            I see this sort of viewpoint on Plastic with depressing frequency. If you believe that the only way anyone can disagree with you is because they believe in bad facts or bad reasoning, then you have necessarily eliminated the possibility that there can be a legitimate debate on the issue. That's a fairly arrogant conclusion: You think you're so smart, you've been able to arrive at the one and only acceptable opinion, and anyone who disagrees with you suffers from poor reasoning ability. In addition to being arrogant, this is a strikingly bad position to take if you hope to persuade someone or change minds. Before you can change a mind, you have to treat your conservational partner as an equal, not as an intellectual inferior.

                                                                                                                                                            I like Bush, but I'm not so sure of myself that I can confidently say that anyone who disagrees with me is either misinformed or illogical or stupid. Political problems are tough, and unlike math or science they cannot be "solved" by reasoning from generally accepted facts to an unimpeachable conclusion. In the end there are no clear right and wrong answers--just strong opinions.

                                                                                                                                                             [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                              150.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                               by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1.5 modappeal 
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 10:39amscore of 1.5 modappeal
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 142
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              Most of America doesn't pay attention to the news or politics. Its my belief that anyone who doesn't oppose Bush is misinformed or blinded by loyalty.
                                                                                                                                                              Or ignorance. I was horrified to learn that my aunt was planning to vote for Bush. I managed to restrain myself and take the opportunity to learn about why before trying to change her mind... basically, she thought he was likeable personally and didn't have any further reasons. She hadn't thought about it. She was actually a little surprised when I asked more and more questions and she couldn't articulate anything abou this policies.

                                                                                                                                                              She had a avague impression that he's fiscally conservative, (all republicans are fiscally conservative, aren't they?) and was surprised to hear he has created the biggest deficit in the history of mankind. She was appalled by what he has done to civil rights, and hadn't even paid any attention to the issues surrounding how he got his iraq war. It took me about 5 minutes to change her from "voting for Bush" to "undecided", which (given my aunt's general mistrust of my politics) is pretty good.

                                                                                                                                                              Most voters don't vote on issues, they vote on who does a better job of smiling, kissing babies, and being seen at the bar drinking beer with the guys... and at a secondary level, who has the more likeable wife, by a fairly victorian standard which requires that she act like she's secondary to her husband, nonconfrontational, motherly, and have a good recipe for chocolate chip cookies. (This is a fear I have about Dean. While what I've heard about his wife sounds highly respectable to me, I don't think she would go over well in the south.)
                                                                                                                                                              But my premise is still anyone who doesn't oppose Republicans is misinformed.
                                                                                                                                                              Are you single?

                                                                                                                                                              End of line.
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              151.  Re: Dean and deficits.
                                                                                                                                                               by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 10:45amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 143
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              In the last debate Dean said he would be able to balance the budget "in the sixth or seventh year of my administration," at which point the otherwise friendly audience laughed at him, prompting him to ask "What?" defensively. They were laughing perhaps because of Dean's confidence that he would get not just one but two terms, but also, I think, because that's a ridiculously long horizon.
                                                                                                                                                              Unfortunately, this is what speech writers are for. What he says is perfectly reasonable, but he said it in a way that made the audience laugh at him, where he could have said it in a way that made it a stab at Bush by saying something more like "I will take steps to balance the budget, but Bush has done so much damage to the economy and the budget that it will take 6 or 7 years to balance it." I'm concerned that this kind of thing could get Bush re-elected: his opponent saying the right thing the wrong way.

                                                                                                                                                              End of line.
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              152.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                               by TheMCP  [ message privately ]0.5 obnoxious 
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 10:50amscore of 0.5 obnoxious
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 144
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              If you believe that the only way anyone can disagree with you is because they believe in bad facts or bad reasoning, then you have necessarily eliminated the possibility that there can be a legitimate debate on the issue.
                                                                                                                                                              Yup, that about sums up my thoughts.
                                                                                                                                                              That's a fairly arrogant conclusion:
                                                                                                                                                              The best usually are...
                                                                                                                                                              You think you're so smart, you've been able to arrive at the one and only acceptable opinion, and anyone who disagrees with you suffers from poor reasoning ability.
                                                                                                                                                              ...or insufficient information.
                                                                                                                                                              In addition to being arrogant, this is a strikingly bad position to take if you hope to persuade someone or change minds. Before you can change a mind, you have to treat your conservational partner as an equal, not as an intellectual inferior.
                                                                                                                                                              Sadly true. Acting lessons are called for.

                                                                                                                                                              End of line.
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              154.  Re: Dean and deficits.
                                                                                                                                                               by TRACKYOURPOSITION  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 11:13amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 143
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              Wait, is ANGER the name of a person, or is it DEAN's alterego whenever he loses his temper? I was trying to be amusing with my "fucking country collapses" but whatever.

                                                                                                                                                              Seriously, although it is a rather silly and overly honest thing to say, it's still sooner than I'd expect if Bush wins four more. In fact, it's exactly when the CBO currently projects there to be a balanced budget, for what it's worth. It's not really so important for the deficit to be zero--so long as it's not the currently insanely large number we might still expect debt as a proportion of GDP to decrease. Either Dean or Lieberman would be a better choice than a man determined to gather as much debt as he can to ensure a booming economy on Election Day 2004, the only day that matters to the rest of Dubya's life. (yet possibly not even succeeding at that.) I'm not sure why you'd think Lieberman would be better than Dean, since Lierberman keeps attacking Dean for not promising to cut middle class taxes.

                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              161.  Re: Dean and deficits.
                                                                                                                                                               by callmejay  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 12:00pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 143
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              I didn't think they were laughing at him, I thought laughing with him. He was in on the joke. He was being funny/cocky. It's called bravado, and he was aware he was doing it. His "what?" was playful, not hurt.

                                                                                                                                                              The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              165.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                               by GodSpiral  [ message privately ]1 disingenuous 
                                                                                                                                                                at Wed 7 Jan 12:47pmscore of 1 disingenuous
                                                                                                                                                                in reply to comment 144
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              You are not open to being convinced.

                                                                                                                                                              Before you can change a mind, you have to treat your conservational partner as an equal, not as an intellectual inferior.

                                                                                                                                                              Depends on the mind. Many people actually need leadership. Voluntarily worship celebrities. I'm convinced that too many people vote republican because it is cool to hate volvos and lattes. That the central republican strategy for 2004 so far is to cower the sheep and independents that if you vote democrat you're just as guilty as the flag burners, and to monopolize the airwaves to tell the public what Dean's platform is.

                                                                                                                                                              It angers me when the last word in tv debates is a republican slur referring to socialists, high taxation, or pro-terror.

                                                                                                                                                              Condescention can be compelling. The same way dittoheads can be ordered to hate the college educated because of their volvos, the same retarded zombies can be told that Republicans are supporters of evil murderers, and that republican loyalty is not to their zombie servants. That only Satanists and thier retarded zombies vote republican... which one are you?
                                                                                                                                                              One approach that should be pursued in this election is to shame independents and sheep away from supporting republicans. I think it's necessary to counterfight the republican slander, with strongly distasteful associations of the other side. As a strategy, just as the GOP organizes it, people unafilliated with the candidates should be enlightening the republican agenda and character. Clarifying a progressive platform is important too, but I feel when you don't address slander in debates, the listener is likely to accept the allegation.

                                                                                                                                                              Political problems are tough

                                                                                                                                                              I arrogantly disagree. There is a continuum of 2 valid purposes for government. Either do as little as possible other than protecting individual freedoms and property, or promote socially consentual goals. A pinata that serves those with access to governement is not desirable. Republicans are worse than Democrats at offering the pinata to anti-social interests. Defending using the pinata as a servant of evil will always be wrong.

                                                                                                                                                              All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                168.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                                 by profwhat  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 1:04pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 165
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                Thanks for your thought-provoking reply. It is odd that you'd say I am not open to being convinced. I used to be far to the left. I shifted to the right slowly but surely.

                                                                                                                                                                When I was on the left, I mostly shared your view of weak-minded voters needing leadership and being easily fooled and deceived. My shift to the right roughly corresponded with my gaining faith in peoples' ability to think for themselves and make decisions that were in their own (and others') best interests.

                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                  188.  OT, but I'm curious...
                                                                                                                                                                   by Kurtz  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 4:12pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 168
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  What caused you to gain this faith? Cause I'm not seeing it.

                                                                                                                                                                  --What Would Azathoth Do?
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  191.  I've always noticed...
                                                                                                                                                                   by Goldmund  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 5:25pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 168
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  That while "big government" liberals usually think that "weak-minded" voters need leadership and a guiding hand; it's the conservatives spouting off about "faith in the ability of individuals" who are the ones so keen on regulating everything (save the ability of themselves and their cronies to make money) to within an inch of it's life.

                                                                                                                                                                  There are plenty of us here on the left that believe in the ability and decision making skills of the individual just as there are plenty on the right who are constantly thwarting the oppurtunity of people to exercise said abilities.

                                                                                                                                                                  The fact is, both authoritarian leftists and authoritarian rightists utilize that rhetoric to consistently lord over people, denying them freedom in one facet of life or another. Neither side has a monopoly on it nor does either side have any credence in saying they are above it. Which is essentially why I hate the terms 'left' and 'right', because they hardly encapsulate more than a few dozen people I've met in my life. Most of us are a bit messier than that.

                                                                                                                                                                  Considering the tactics that Karl Rove and company consistently use, it's pretty obvious that they see the American Public as a bunch of weak-minded simpletons who'll believe in anything as long as there are terrorists out there bombing things.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  192.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                                   by The Real Dr Evil  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 5:29pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 168
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Perhaps you can articulate what you like about Bush? I'm sure I'm not alone in being mystified by a seemingly literate person uttering such a statement.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  NEW: 215.  Re: Persuasion and being right
                                                                                                                                                                   by Wei Ming Kai  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Thu 8 Jan 5:51pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 165
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Awesome Post — I'm sorry I have no mod points for you.

                                                                                                                                                                  My favorite paraphrased quotables:

                                                                                                                                                                  "Only Satanists and thier retarded Zombies vote Republican... which one are you?" = brilliant, bumpersticker worthy stuff!

                                                                                                                                                                  IMO the whole RNC bellowing like some gored Monster over the depraved depths of tastelessness that crazed liberals are willing to resort to when expressing thier baseless and rabid hatred of George W. Bush is merely an attempt to snuff out dissent with an ablative media explosion of thier own. As has been seen from links posted in this thread there are examples of foam-flecked hyperbole directed against Dean 'Howard the Coward' from the always reliable NY Post contains my favorite new
                                                                                                                                                                  characterization of Dean supporters as 'Deanie-Weenies' and agents of the 'Internet Gestapo'. The author is certain that Herr Howie-'Goebbles'-Dean will dispatch his goose stepping latte-sipping-volvo-driving-flannel-shirts to his house in order to deny him his first amendment rights to ... rant insanely in the NY Post? This guy doesn't stop at Nazi comparisons — he dumps a truckload of Orwell and Communist comparisons as well thereby demonstrating the rhetorical merit of subtlety and veiled insinuation.

                                                                                                                                                                  With regrads to articulating a progressive agenda — my friend sent me a link to an interesting article which points out a few flaws in the recent progressive approach to doing this. Basically, putting out the 'facts' and expecting people to draw the 'correct' (progressive) conclusions from them is not a winning strategy on the whole. When combined with a failure to sieze initiative in framing the language of debate on issues a 'I trust everyone to draw the same conclusions as me' attitude will frequently wind up at a disadvantage in convincing anyone. It is a little late in the game to begin re-stating major policy issues to the voting public (via bombarding the infoscape with these ideas) so that they are framed in moral language which effectively communicates thier 'moral rightness' yet this may be necessary groundwork before the emotionally charged progressive buzzword conceptual abbreviations are widely known enough to be employed in 30 second TV spots effectively.

                                                                                                                                                                  Your metaphor of Government as a Pinata of Tax Dollars could be worked into an effective visual.

                                                                                                                                                                  U.S. Gov. Pinata is dangled over a group of deserving happy children (the people/society as a whole) or over a pack of anti-social interests (wolves/pigs/bloated top hat & monocle wearing Cats)
                                                                                                                                                                  -*frame centers on a faceless suit wearing a big 'prez' button holding the boom from which the pinata dangles*
                                                                                                                                                                  -voiceover: 'Your vote has a lot to do with who gets the prize, choose wisely'

                                                                                                                                                                  the intelligent, like the unintelligent, are responsive to propaganda -H.L.Mencken
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                131.  Re: History
                                                                                                                                                                 by TheMCP  [ message privately ]1.5  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 1:16amscore of 1.5
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 16
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                From a technologists POV, I can't help but think we are seeing a significant milestone in the Dtesktop Video Revolution.
                                                                                                                                                                True. I wanted to get involved with doing stuff like this years ago, but couldn't because the editing technology of the time was too expensive for ordinary mortals.
                                                                                                                                                                I love 'Army Of One', even if it is subtitle/scary music, for simply taking no prisoners.
                                                                                                                                                                I also like that it plays against a republican weakness... they try to dodge criticism of the war by saying that critics are unpatriotic and insisting that critics are failing to support the troops. Showing that they're not supporting the troops makes Bush look really bad to people who might otherwise support him.
                                                                                                                                                                As for 'In My Country', it tries, but its gimmick — omaigawd, it's the USA! — is so blatantly obvious from second 1,
                                                                                                                                                                You're underestimating the stupidity of the masses.

                                                                                                                                                                I liked "bankrupt" because it both sticks a lot of important points into a short ad at a pace they can still be swallowed by the viewer, and spoofs the mastercard ads. It's also nicely visual.

                                                                                                                                                                And "desktop" was good because it has goofy perky music that's harder to ignore than most political ad music, and a fun modern method of expressing its concepts. Eight years ago, who would have tried to do a political ad expressed entirely with a computer screen?

                                                                                                                                                                On the other end of the scale, while "imagine" is wonderfully visual and I love its concept, it morphs too often, resulting in too much blurring of faces and voices. "Bring 'Em On" has that awful box flipping pictures of faces, the concept is good but the execution looks somehow cheap and unprofessional.

                                                                                                                                                                End of line.
                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                              21.  Consultants reconsidered
                                                                                                                                                               by profwhat  [ message privately ]1.5 compelling 
                                                                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 1:14pmscore of 1.5 compelling
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              This is an interesting project. It seems to be driven by MoveOn's assumption that "a few dozen Washington consultants" make ads that are too similar to each other. That's quite possibly true. But while these ads may well be more original, and funnier, I wonder if they will really be more effective.

                                                                                                                                                              I don't have Quicktime, so I can't see the ads; just the stills. From what I can judge, most fall squarely in the preaching-to-the-choir camp. I can't imagine what the audio is to the "Wake up America!" ad, but it's hard to see how an ad whose very premise sounds condescending ("Attention! You have been asleep for too long! Standby for 30 seconds of truth!") is going to sway voter opinion. And, um, Robin Hood stealing from the poor? I'm old enough to remember Mondale using that against Reagan. The ads that focus on the deficit spending seem promising. (Though it's unlikely that Bush will be facing serious opposition from a deficit hawk; Dean says he plans to balance the budget in the "sixth or seventh year of my administration." chuckle.)

                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                84.  Re: Consultants reconsidered
                                                                                                                                                                 by Ajax  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 7:39pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 21
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                ...it's hard to see how an ad whose very premise sounds condescending ("Attention! You have been asleep for too long! Standby for 30 seconds of truth!") is going to sway voter opinion.

                                                                                                                                                                Smacks of those highly annoying "thetruth.com" commercials wherein sneeringly self-righteous young skate punks (in all of Benneton's united colors) dare to be different by telling us that Smoking Is Bad, Yo...don't it?

                                                                                                                                                                My favorite example of these was the one where the aforementioned young hipsters are urging you to fight tobacco company disinformation, by ripping out the cigarette advertisements from newspapers and magazines — but only the ones that already belong to you.

                                                                                                                                                                (Word up! Good thing I tore that ad out of my copy of Maxim before...uh, I had a chance to read it! Fight The Power!)

                                                                                                                                                                "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.
                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                102.  Re: Consultants reconsidered
                                                                                                                                                                 by gregb1007  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 9:31pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 21
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                Well, considering how bad of a deficit we have now, it'll probably take that many years to balance it, even if you start being more fiscally responsible. If we continue to have Bush as president, the budget will probably be balanced in 20 years or so.

                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                              33.  well then...
                                                                                                                                                               by chopper  [ message privately ]4.5 clever 
                                                                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 2:29pmscore of 4.5 clever
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              i would hope that all the Republicans oh-so pissed about the Hitler-Bush ad entry should be out boycotting the likes of right-wing mouthpiece Ann Coulter, who often compares Democrats/liberals to Nazis as well.

                                                                                                                                                              oh, wait, that would mean they'd have to be consistent. sorry, my bad.

                                                                                                                                                              remember(6), every(6), stupid(6), stripping(5), american(5)

                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                164.  Re: well then...
                                                                                                                                                                 by Djerrid  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Wed 7 Jan 12:35pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 33
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                Just for the fun of it, I tried to find a quote or two from the horse's mouth to back your statement up.

                                                                                                                                                                Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.

                                                                                                                                                                This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

                                                                                                                                                                'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams
                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                              58.  Enough Pussyfooting
                                                                                                                                                               by ellem  [ message privately ]0 obnoxious 
                                                                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 4:46pmscore of 0 obnoxious
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              1 — MoveOn.org dislikes BushCo to the point of hatred they never intended any pro-Bush ads to even be seen muchless voted on. So what? It's their site and their money.

                                                                                                                                                              2 — The Hitler ads ARE NOT in poor taste they are vicious attacks on the President of the US. I know no one respects authority anymore because it is so 1950 so this is not unexpected.

                                                                                                                                                              3 — MoveOn.org left them up there to piss people off grossly underestimating how pissed off the Jewish people would get. Then they removed them yelping, "We're not anit-semites!".

                                                                                                                                                              4 — OF COURSE Republican Pundits are screaming at the top of their lungs. What would the Democratic Pundits do if FreeRepublic.com did something similar and some made an ad morphing Sharpton into Amos (and or Andy) or called Hilliary Hitlerary?

                                                                                                                                                              As I noted on my /. blog I, for one, think the ads (the final 15) suck. They're just not as good as I think they could be.

                                                                                                                                                              OSX: Because making UNIX user friendly was easier than fixing Windows...A is A
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                              62.  Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                               by rmurf62  [ message privately ]1.5 helpful 
                                                                                                                                                                at Tue 6 Jan 5:01pmscore of 1.5 helpful
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              What pisses me off about this whole thing is this: Moveon.org started this contest as a genuine grass-roots effort to get people to express their unvarnished opinions about Bush & Company. Democracy at its finest. (Especially considering the overwhelming disinterest of the mainstream media to criticize the current occupant of the White House.) Many of the ads were, well, crap, many of them were very clever. (Don't know if they got any pro-Bush ads, but given the nature of the site it seems unlikely that they would.) Many of the final ads are smart and funny. Unfortunately, the entire enterprise has been drowned out by the media shitstorm that the RNC successfully generated over two of the ads.

                                                                                                                                                              This doesn't seem like censorship as much as a successful effort by moneyed interests at the RNC to drown out opposition opinion through sheer overwhelming volume, amplified through the compliant lens of the corporate media. Like the Iraq war, like the tax cuts, just more proof that you can convince the American public of anything if you have enough money to buy a bully pulpit to scream from.

                                                                                                                                                              YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
                                                                                                                                                               [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                70.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                 by ellem  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 5:45pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 62
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                This doesn't seem like censorship as much as a successful effort by moneyed interests at the RNC to drown out opposition opinion through sheer overwhelming volume, amplified through the compliant lens of the corporate media. Like the Iraq war, like the tax cuts, just more proof that you can convince the American public of anything if you have enough money to buy a bully pulpit to scream from.

                                                                                                                                                                Soros?

                                                                                                                                                                OSX: Because making UNIX user friendly was easier than fixing Windows...A is A
                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                87.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                 by trilobiphicarificus  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                  at Tue 6 Jan 8:14pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                  in reply to comment 62
                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                I didn't need the "moneyed interests" from Washington to raise a hue and cry about the ads to know it was wrong. MoveOn is responsible for whatever is on their website. So they are guilty of poor taste, the RNC is dead on correct.

                                                                                                                                                                Comparing Bush to Hitler is not responsible and teeters on the edge of being revolting. No matter how much you absolutely loathe Bush he still hasn't engaged in religious genocide. He hasn't called for expanding the "fatherland" to the East and West (or North and West, since we have some oceans in the way). He hasn't ordered his own people killed on fears of being infiltrated or because they were gay. He didn't bomb Baghdad with the intention of killing civilians and making them lose the will to fight. He isn't trying to take over countries, either, as is fairly obvious what with all the Constitutions embracing Islam being written these days.

                                                                                                                                                                He made a bunch of Arabs who already despised us hate us more and he made some Europeans who already resented us resent us more. He locked up some angry, armed fighters in Cuba without affording them any legal rights (most of them never had any rights, anyway. 3/4 of their countries don't want them back, either.). Ashcroft enstated the Patriot Act which so far hasn't led to the Constitution being burned or the Bill of Rights being lost. He avoided the Vietnam war (like Dean, Clinton, and everyone else who was able to). He talks like a hick.
                                                                                                                                                                How does this make him Hitler?

                                                                                                                                                                If I was a Jew US citizen and I had lost a grandfather in the concentration camps in Germany or Poland I would be pissed off, damn right. My lobby group would be on TV crying foul not out of a desire to drown out MoveOn, but because it's foul to make such unfounded comparisons. It is in effect belittling the suffering of the Jews and others at Hitler's hand.

                                                                                                                                                                The election is 10 months away, I look forward to a slow decline in the maturity of political discourse in this country.

                                                                                                                                                                disingenuous obnoxious overrated annoying
                                                                                                                                                                 [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                  148.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                   by rmurf62  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 10:30amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    in reply to comment 87
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  I didn't need the "moneyed interests" from Washington to raise a hue and cry about the ads to know it was wrong. MoveOn is responsible for whatever is on their website. So they are guilty of poor taste, the RNC is dead on correct.

                                                                                                                                                                  Well, you very likely wouldn't have known about the ads if the Republican Mighty Wurlitzer hadn't brought them to your attention. And the only internet site currently showing the ad is www.rnc.org, so now who's guilty of poor taste?

                                                                                                                                                                  Update: the Wiesenthal center has released a statement that they accept the regrets expressed by MoveOn.org.

                                                                                                                                                                  YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    156.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                     by KOMPRESSOR  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 11:19amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 87
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    The election is 10 months away, I look forward to a slow decline in the maturity of political discourse in this country.

                                                                                                                                                                    This has to be the most straight-faced humor I've ever seen on plastic. Or are you actually incapable of tracing the decline of "mature political discourse" to the Republican party, who have been over-eager to engage in smear politics for the past decade?

                                                                                                                                                                    KOMPRESSOR

                                                                                                                                                                    apple: not just a different way, a better way
                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                      171.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                       by trilobiphicarificus  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 2:19pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 148
                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                      >>>Well, you very likely wouldn't have known about the ads if the Republican Mighty Wurlitzer hadn't brought them to your attention.

                                                                                                                                                                      First of all, I heard about it without the help of the RNC and I dont watch TV news.

                                                                                                                                                                      Thanks for the vote of confidence, asshole.

                                                                                                                                                                      >>>And the only internet site currently showing the ad is www.rnc.org, so now who's guilty of poor taste?

                                                                                                                                                                      And it would hardly make sense for them to complain about it without letting people see what they are talking about.

                                                                                                                                                                      Nor did I say the RNC isn't capable of having bad taste.

                                                                                                                                                                      disingenuous obnoxious overrated annoying
                                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                      172.  Re: Fighting A War of Volume
                                                                                                                                                                       by trilobiphicarificus  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                        at Wed 7 Jan 2:24pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                        in reply to comment 156
                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                      >>>>Or are you actually incapable of tracing the decline of "mature political discourse" to the Republican party, who have been over-eager to engage in smear politics for the past decade?

                                                                                                                                                                      Yeah, the democrats are angels. Right now they are busy trying to self-destruct before the primaries begin.

                                                                                                                                                                      All evil can be traced back to the....drumroll please.....NEOCONS!

                                                                                                                                                                      No, seriously. When a republican is in the house, the democrats fling mud. When a democrat is in the house, the republicans fling mud. It's politics. I don't understand how my comment on the maturity of political discourse brought about your rude retort.

                                                                                                                                                                      disingenuous obnoxious overrated annoying
                                                                                                                                                                       [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                  68.  at least hitler never drove a volvo
                                                                                                                                                                   by debutante  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 5:28pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Meanwhile, the Club for Growth PAC has come out with its own commercial. One important difference is that this one will be aired on television.

                                                                                                                                                                  In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."


                                                                                                                                                                  While certainly not Godwinesque in the truest sense of the word, I find it just a wee bit inflammatory. And I wouldn't drink a latte with a ten-foot straw.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    100.  Re: at least hitler never drove a volvo
                                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 9:18pmscore of 0
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 68
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    take off the final slash

                                                                                                                                                                    a washingtontimes.com link 1355r.htm

                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                    145.  Re: at least hitler never drove a volvo
                                                                                                                                                                     by srose  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 10:16amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 68
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    Funny thing (but off-topic), my mother is a big Bush supporter, and she always drove a Volvo.

                                                                                                                                                                    I always giggle when I hear liberals described as "volvo driving hippies" since I know she cringes at that.

                                                                                                                                                                    As for the ad: It's really just 30 seconds of name calling. It sets a new low (if that's possible) in negative campaigning. But since it is an outside ad (not directly funded by the RNC, just like MoveOn is not funded by the DNC) it is just another example of the new politics of having small "interested parties" make your attacks by proxy.

                                                                                                                                                                    If anyone wants me, I'll be in the angrydome!
                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                  78.  All this hollerin', and for what?
                                                                                                                                                                   by Brian Jones  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 6:49pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  The winning ad will be aired on national TV during the week of President Bush's State of the Union address this month.

                                                                                                                                                                  Unanswered by MoveOn, far as I could find out, are two questions that will decide the ad's impact far more than how self-congratulatorily clever the ad is.

                                                                                                                                                                  When? and How often?

                                                                                                                                                                  So what we've got here is a big to-do, limited mainly to political junkies, about a not-yet-chosen 30-second ad that's going to run for one week, 10 months before the election, in slots when people they presumably would want to reach might very well not be watching. Prime-time ads aren't cheap, and even with MoveOn's fundraising skills I don't see them getting the repetition and placement they'll need to actually get the message across.

                                                                                                                                                                  Any extra buzz they're getting from this controversy will dissipate quickly...most of the post-SOtU discussion will focus on its content, and not some ad. And shortly thereafter, the voting public will have more important things to consider.

                                                                                                                                                                  I thought MoveOn was supposed to be savvier than the Buy-Nothing-Day airheads.

                                                                                                                                                                  Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    167.  They need to get back to their roots...
                                                                                                                                                                     by gerrymander  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 12:48pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 78
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    I'm thinking here of the dotcom/roaring 90s time period, more than anything else. From what I know of MoveOn's political position and strategy for this media campaign, they would hardly be served worse than to spend that phat Soros cash on a slot during the Superbowl. A dancing chimp wearing a T-shirt reading "Dubya" and a voice-over that says, "well, we just wasted a million dollars," while derivative, would still be better than what they have now.

                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                  80.  Commie pinkos still searching for a clue
                                                                                                                                                                   by sven_haagendaas  [ message privately ]1.5 compelling 
                                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 6:57pmscore of 1.5 compelling
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Jeez, when will these dumb lefty loonies learn the art of the smear?

                                                                                                                                                                  You see, rather than a bunch of teenaged pot-smoking malcontents fidding around with their digital thingamajigs and whatnot, you find a "respected" "mainstream" "moderate" to cloak unsupported, vile and incendiary accusations in light, colorful prose.

                                                                                                                                                                  That way, you can plant the idea in the Paper of Record that Bush Administration critics are a bunch of unhinged anti-semites (even if those critics are Jewish themselves) without fear of the race-baiting charge being vollied back in the mainstream press. Hell, you can even throw in a gratuitous reference about the other side "microwaving ideas into fillings" if you like.

                                                                                                                                                                  So you can have your "Interweb,"make nowhere plans for nobody on yer "blogs" and read Howard "Idi Amin" Dean's electronic ramblings. We who know better find the good stuff in the "liberal press." Heh heh.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    96.  Re: Commie pinkos still searching for a clue
                                                                                                                                                                     by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                                                      at Tue 6 Jan 8:55pmscore of 0
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 80
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    That was an elegant smear. Props to the new Troll King David Brooks. The story always lasts longer when you can claim anti-Semitism.

                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                  95.  Same thing, Different day
                                                                                                                                                                   by scott_d  [ message privately ]1 obnoxious 
                                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 8:45pmscore of 1 obnoxious
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  MoveOn has every right to escalate political rhetoric to whatever ridiculous heights they desire, and of of course Bush's supporters are going to be outraged. That's the proper reaction when someone compares a person you respect to Hitler. Poor and shrill as it may be, this is political dialog, and does not constitute a mortal sin on the part of any of the participants.

                                                                                                                                                                  'Don't you know this game is crooked?' 'Yes, but it's the only game in town.'
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    NEW: 205.  Yes It Does
                                                                                                                                                                     by uncarved block  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 9:26pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 95
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    It's a "mortal sin" for the likes of Savage, Limbaugh, and a 'stealth conservative' like Scarborough to imagine that the other side of the debate might start co-opting their techniques. The proper response, when someone complains that you equated their leader with Hitler or Stalin is to call them whiners and complainers, and smugly assert your right to play hardball politics as a result. Bonus points if you can slip in a dig about the decline of civility in public discourse . . .

                                                                                                                                                                    Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                  99.  Finally
                                                                                                                                                                   by pjcforpres2020  [ message privately ]1.5 funny 
                                                                                                                                                                    at Tue 6 Jan 9:13pmscore of 1.5 funny
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Bush's policies will finally be shown in the light they deserve to be. Not the flashy, glitz and glamor light of being President. His policies will be shown for what they are, and on television, so the majority of Americans will take the commercials opinion as straight fact. It is a sad situation really. People have to find out that the President lied to them about reasons for war a year after he did through a commercial. Were is Kenneth Starr when he is needed?

                                                                                                                                                                  PJC for President 2020

                                                                                                                                                                  Vote in 2020!
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  133.  MoveOn is my enemy.
                                                                                                                                                                   by sideshow  [ message privately ] 
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 1:22amscore of -1 incoherent
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  I can remember the time before the 2002 elections when MoveOn made a big deal of having people vote. They screamed about going out and getting the government we wanted.

                                                                                                                                                                  So we did and it happened to be Republican.

                                                                                                                                                                  Ever since all I've heard from these guys is "No sillys! When we said elect who you want we meant elect who you want , as long as there are democrats!"

                                                                                                                                                                  Fuck em.

                                                                                                                                                                  Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  137.  Great, An Invitation for Idiots to get Creative
                                                                                                                                                                   by Anonymous Idiot  0  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Wed 7 Jan 1:57amscore of 0
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Leave it to a group of Democrats trying to get creative input to trivialize the Holocaust and the evil of Nazism by comparing Bush to Hitler. Come on now. When it comes right down to it, it hurts the effort to make sure that something evil like the Holocaust never happens again. In the broader scheme of things, the entire ad campaign is a dumb idea run by knuckle-headed liberals who will undoubtedly try to make it seem that Republicans are entirely unreasonable. It's time for people like Michael Moore to venture into the real world and see that things are good and what he proposes would make it vastly worse.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                    139.  keep snorting your pills
                                                                                                                                                                     by jbou  [ message privately ]1.5 compelling 
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 2:29amscore of 1.5 compelling
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 137
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    You must be quite high if you think the country is moving in the right direction. I don't provide facts or links to prove my point to people who post AI, get an account and we'll discuss your delusions.

                                                                                                                                                                    Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.
                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                    174.  Re: Great, An Invitation for Idiots to get
                                                                                                                                                                     by tyger  [ message privately ]1.5 astute 
                                                                                                                                                                      at Wed 7 Jan 2:30pmscore of 1.5 astute
                                                                                                                                                                      in reply to comment 137
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    Leave it to a group of Democrats trying to get creative input to trivialize the Holocaust and the evil of Nazism by comparing Bush to Hitler.

                                                                                                                                                                    But I suppose it's A-OK when Grover Norquist trivializes the evil of Nazism by comparing the Estate Tax to the Holocaust. Right?

                                                                                                                                                                     [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... ]
                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                  NEW: 216.  Can't Have it Both Ways
                                                                                                                                                                   by armaxmore  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Thu 8 Jan 11:30pmscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  If people are gonna critize the Bush-Hitler ad that was submitted to Moevon.org, Then the RNC should also be critized for having members of their party for running ads that turned disabled veteran Sen. Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden, or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle into Saddam Hussein. RNC chair Ed Gillespie hasn't yet demanded an apology from columnist Ralph Peters for his Monday New York Post Op-Ed comparing Howard Dean to Hitler.

                                                                                                                                                                  But what do you expect from the party that brought the infamous Willie Horton ad during the 1988 election!

                                                                                                                                                                  Salon has joined in this
                                                                                                                                                                  (To read it, either click on the free day pass or pay for it!)

                                                                                                                                                                  Here's an something from it:



                                                                                                                                                                  Ad blusters
                                                                                                                                                                  Two online entries out of hundreds in MoveOn's TV-spot contest compared Bush to Hitler, and Republicans cry "hate speech." But they're the ones who are twisting the truth.

                                                                                                                                                                  - — - — - — - — - — - -
                                                                                                                                                                  By Joan Walsh

                                                                                                                                                                  Jan. 7, 2004 | The Iowa caucuses are still 12 days away, not a single Democratic voter has cast a presidential primary ballot, but already the outlines of the 2004 campaign are clear: The Democratic nominee, whoever he is, will be depicted as soft on Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden by GOP hatchetfolk, while the Bush campaign and its media echo chamber insist it's Democrats who represent the party of hate. Got it?

                                                                                                                                                                  That's why the MoveOn.org flap this week is a good warm-up for the ugly battle to come. Everybody who follows national politics knows the story line by now: MoveOn stands accused, by the Republican National Committee, Matt Drudge and the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page, of sponsoring television ads comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Following the Republican "revelation" of MoveOn's political perfidy, some Jewish leaders denounced the ads for belittling the Holocaust by comparing our president to the man who murdered 6 million Jews. The moral of the story: Bush's opponents are crazy, vicious haters who'll do anything to disparage him, even disrespect the memory of the victims of Nazi horror.

                                                                                                                                                                  Another day, another big Republican lie.

                                                                                                                                                                  In fact, as those who've followed the story know, MoveOn didn't sponsor or create, let alone televise, ads comparing Bush to Hitler. MoveOn's issue-advertising arm, the MoveOn Voter Fund, ran an innovative contest, "Bush in 30 Seconds," challenging its members to make their own political ads illustrating the shortcomings of the Bush administration in a humorous, creative way. (The contest winner will have his or her ad nationally televised by the Voter Fund.) The online advocacy group got more than 1,000 ad submissions, and posted the vast majority on its Web site. Its network of more than 2 million activists was eligible to vote to narrow the field to 15 finalists, and selected them this week; a celebrity panel will pick a winner, to be announced Jan. 12. Both Hitler ad submissions scored poorly with MoveOn supporters, and would have been consigned to history without the publicity boost from the RNC. (Now, ironically, the only place you can find them is on the RNC's Web site.)

                                                                                                                                                                  Today's Daypass sponsored by Focus Features.
                                                                                                                                                                  Focus Features presents two critically acclaimed films — Lost In Translation and 21 Grams

                                                                                                                                                                  As I watched the controversy unfold, I winced for MoveOn. The grass-roots cyber-upstart, founded to protest Clinton-impeachment madness, has become a crucial channel for smart liberal opposition to Bush policies on the war and the economy, a welcome alternative to the craziness of International ANSWER and the willful marginality of Green Party dreamers. MoveOn is decidedly not part of the Bush-is-Hitler loony left. But it has become a target of the vast right-wing lie machine precisely because of its sanity and effectiveness, which in turn drew the attention and funding of liberal donors like George Soros and Peter Lewis, which in turn drew MoveOn even more right-wing vitriol. Bill O'Reilly and Tom DeLay regularly inveigh against it, and I've been watching with a little trepidation to see how MoveOn — still led by Berkeley, Calif.-based founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades and a small team of colleagues — would handle the big time.

                                                                                                                                                                  Judged on the basis of the Hitler ad flap, I'd say they're handling it imperfectly, but admirably, and they'll be just fine. MoveOn political director Eli Pariser quickly denied the RNC slur that the group had sponsored the ads, pointing out the facts: that they were posted to the site as part of a contest, and never received MoveOn's imprimatur. But he also said that the group "regrets the appearance" of the Hitler ads on its Web site, and promised that in the future, MoveOn would have a better process for vetting member-generated political content. For MoveOn enemies, Pariser's statement was too little, too late, but I thought it was just right.

                                                                                                                                                                  Reached at their Berkeley home Tuesday, Wes Boyd and Joan Blades acknowledged they should have taken more trouble to screen their supporter-created ads for content that could be exploited by their enemies. I was surprised by their candor about their RNC-sponsored learning experience. "We had a small committee running the contest," Boyd admitted, which included Pariser and rock star Moby. "We screened mostly for legal issues" — there are limits to what the MoveOn Voter Fund's 527 status lets the group advocate politically — "and we referred some questionable things to our lawyers. We decided to let our members decide [on content], and actually the process mostly worked really well. The good stuff rose to the top." The Hitler ads sank.

                                                                                                                                                                  But with hindsight, given the group's new political prominence, Boyd says, "We should probably have had a content filter in the process. It's really tough when you're dealing with political speech, but we should have had one. But that's how it works. You learn, your sensitivity grows. We expressed regret, and that is real." Boyd said he'd spent the day talking to Jewish leaders who'd been offended by the ads, explaining the group's process and personally extending his apologies. "I think they've accepted our expressions of regret."

                                                                                                                                                                  Blades acknowledged that she worried the flap could overshadow the creativity of the group's contest winners. "But I think the contest is just so cool — the ads that were chosen are just so powerful — that it will do what it was meant to do. Look, this 'gotcha politics' that's practiced now causes a lot of people to be afraid of getting involved. Our end goal is bringing new people into democracy, and we're achieving that. We're flexible enough to learn along the way. So we're going, 'OK, we have to be prepared to put in place ways of making sure that stuff that shouldn't get through doesn't get through, whenever we do things like this.' "

                                                                                                                                                                  And so MoveOn moves on. Its enemies won't, of course. That's why it's important that the group admitted it stumbled, a little, by ducking the admittedly tough task of vetting the ads for content before posting them to the site, and that it says it learned from the mistake. Of course, the RNC didn't apologize when Republicans ran ads that turned disabled veteran Sen. Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden, or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle into Saddam Hussein. RNC chair Ed Gillespie hasn't yet demanded an apology from columnist Ralph Peters for his Monday New York Post Op-Ed comparing Howard Dean to Hitler. And he never will. Republicans smear without apology. And sadly, they mostly get away with it.

                                                                                                                                                                  Meanwhile, on the more genteel Op-Ed page of the New York Times, GOP apologist David Brooks got away with a genteel kind of smear Tuesday, suggesting that critics of the powerful neoconservative movement are A) crazy, because there really isn't a powerful neoconservative movement, and B) anti-Semitic, because to the extent that there is a neoconservative movement (which isn't powerful at all, by the way), it's made up of Jews. Brooks didn't say "crazy," and he didn't say "anti-Semitic," but both slurs kind of hovered in the piece, and in his smooth way Brooks practiced a version of the dishonest political thuggery Ed Gillespie used against MoveOn: calmly inject a political falsehood into the debate — in Brooks' case, that there's no neoconservative elite peddling a foreign policy vision that led to the Iraq war, and that those who say there is one are paranoid and anti-Semitic — and then keep repeating it, with confidence that the mainstream media will either be hypnotized or intimidated into repeating the slur as truth.

                                                                                                                                                                  That's Campaign 2004, and MoveOn will do well if it learns from this week's experience not to give its enemies ammunition. But other liberals should learn from MoveOn: The group admitted its mistake and expressed regret. Its leaders publicly shared what they learned from their experiment, and what they thought it meant about American democracy. And then they riled up their base to fight the Republican lies, sending out e-mail alerts exhorting supporters to take issue with the way the media has repeated the RNC slur as fact. MoveOn could come out of this mess stronger than before.


                                                                                                                                                                  Talk is Cheap! Free Speech Isn't!
                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                  NEW: 217.  Fear not
                                                                                                                                                                   by Victor Lazlo  [ message privately ]1  
                                                                                                                                                                    at Fri 9 Jan 12:01amscore of 1
                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  Very few people who voted for Bush will willing accept the fact that they actually voted for Hitler instead. Most times when you call someone an idiot, is their immediate response, "By God, you are right, I am an idiot"? Ads designed to make Bush bashers feel superior will not win over Bush supporters. This election will only be won by persuading and convincing a sufficient number of Bush voters that they made an error and should vote for the democratic candidate (Dean or Clark). If you did something stupid, how would be the best way to get you to change? Certainly not by calling you stupid. Most Bush supporters excepting the billionaires and abortion doctor killers are afraid. They are afraid of what they can't control, afraid of change, afraid of the unknown, afraid of losing what little they have, afraid someone else undeserving will get more than they have, afraid they will lose their chance at the lottery of life. A candidate who cannot recognize and assuage that fear will not win. Bush offers a vision and a plan. He will kill all those you fear. His opponent needs to offer a vision and a plan. What we need is a Robert Kennedy, but we have to do with the best we have. I can easily support Dean because his rough edges support the idea that he is not really just after the job (soft pedal the religious stuff though). Clarke if I gotta, but I think we are really in deep doo-doo if we need the man on the white horse. Don't question his morality and honesty as do his "comrades in arms" but he is wound a little too tight for my comfort zone. I see him as a SecDef like Forrestal hopefully without the defenestration.

                                                                                                                                                                   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]
                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                  Plastic: 0tim0
                                                                                                                                                                  Help Plastic decide what from the submission queue gets published, 0tim0.

                                                                                                                                                                  None of your Plastic pals are currently logged in. Perhaps you should make more?



                                                                                                                                                                  Nelson Mandela Serious Condition
                                                                                                                                                                  (Thu 27 Jan 1:35pm) ----o=-----     
                                                                                                                                                                  The old South-African leader has been taken into hospital with serious lung problems. - mycena

                                                                                                                                                                  Health Care Insanity
                                                                                                                                                                  (Wed 26 Jan 4:40pm) -----=o----     
                                                                                                                                                                  Protection against healt care insurers pulling shit like this is probably not on the agenda as Boehner will give keynote to Insurers' Lobby Day. What a fucking joke. - keta

                                                                                                                                                                  Bipartisanship
                                                                                                                                                                  (Wed 26 Jan 1:17pm) -o---=-----     
                                                                                                                                                                  Both Democrats and Republicans are attacking Cal. Democrat Rep. Loretta Sanchez for demanding wounded Congresswoman Giffords be removed from the Armed Services Committee until her wounds heal. - Petronius

                                                                                                                                                                  Politics: Add A Quick Link
                                                                                                                                                                  hed:

                                                                                                                                                                  text:



                                                                                                                                                                  top stories  |   etcetera  |   filmtv  |   media  |   music  |   politics  |   scitech  |   work

                                                                                                                                                                  privacy policy  |    |  terms of use