Friday, August 27, 2004
Little Lizzy Bumiller gets an interview with Bush!
Who is not obviously drugged, and relentlessly on message as usual. Guess all that work down on the kneepads was a smart career move. And to be fair to Lizzy, she doesn't push Bush was hard as she might, but at least she seems to be standing on her own two feet.
One sentence caught my eye:
This is false, and ingeniously false, on so many levels.
1. What about truth? The point is not whether there are attacks. The point is whether the attacks are true. The attackes on Kerry by Bush's SBVF[cough]T were demonstrably not true.
2. What's wrong with attack? Bush is running, in part, on his character; his "resoluteness," and so forth. So if a candidate runs on his character, as Bush has, what's wrong with attacking his character? Nothing, in itself. However, Bush's attacks on Kerry's war record are, again, have been proven to be false by an examination of the evidence. The attacks that Democrats have made on Bush's, um, service record could be proven false by examination of the evidence—but there are many unanswered questions, and Bush himself has refused to release the evidence. Leaving aside the point that Bush has already been shown to be guilty of payroll fraud (back>).
3. And lastly, a typical Republican behavior that, frankly, drives me nuts. It isn't the lying I mind; God knows we're all used to that.
But the Republicans hijacking the very emotions of their opponents, and distort them.
"Bush hatred," for example, is pure disinformation, since it implies that the emotions of those who opposed Bush are not motivated by real grievances; as we have said, outrage (back) is the proper word.
And Bush does the same thing here. "I understand how Senator Kerry feels," forsooth. Bush equates being attacked on TV with being wounded by shrapnel in a war. Is that narcissistic, or what? He totally distorts the emotion. Typical behavior from a POTL.
One sentence caught my eye:
[BUSH] Well, I understand how Senator Kerry feels — I have been attacked by 527s, too.
(via NY Times)
This is false, and ingeniously false, on so many levels.
1. What about truth? The point is not whether there are attacks. The point is whether the attacks are true. The attackes on Kerry by Bush's SBVF[cough]T were demonstrably not true.
2. What's wrong with attack? Bush is running, in part, on his character; his "resoluteness," and so forth. So if a candidate runs on his character, as Bush has, what's wrong with attacking his character? Nothing, in itself. However, Bush's attacks on Kerry's war record are, again, have been proven to be false by an examination of the evidence. The attacks that Democrats have made on Bush's, um, service record could be proven false by examination of the evidence—but there are many unanswered questions, and Bush himself has refused to release the evidence. Leaving aside the point that Bush has already been shown to be guilty of payroll fraud (back>).
3. And lastly, a typical Republican behavior that, frankly, drives me nuts. It isn't the lying I mind; God knows we're all used to that.
But the Republicans hijacking the very emotions of their opponents, and distort them.
"Bush hatred," for example, is pure disinformation, since it implies that the emotions of those who opposed Bush are not motivated by real grievances; as we have said, outrage (back) is the proper word.
And Bush does the same thing here. "I understand how Senator Kerry feels," forsooth. Bush equates being attacked on TV with being wounded by shrapnel in a war. Is that narcissistic, or what? He totally distorts the emotion. Typical behavior from a POTL.
