Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

It's not so much a lie as it is an extreme modification of the truth.

It's a truth-related program activity. The relation in question being, of course, non-identity.

Now that they can't reallyy campain on either the economy nor on foreign policy, I expect them to lie, spin, and slime more than ever. Paul Krugman's prediction has been that one should beware of cornered beats.

Professor DeLong: perhaps should you post some follow-ups on those paperless eletronic voting machines? It's not like we can rationally trust them on that either, as much as we would like to be able to...

Jean-Philippe

But I like beats :)

Ha Ha Ha. Caught 'em red-handed.

"But I like beats :)"

Just stay away from the cornered ones. The sphered ones are perfectly ok.

Every word. Including "and" and "the."

Sphered ones...

On a related subject, I left a diary in DailyKos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/9/12401/41188

with a link to a Boston Globe article that quotes an RNC official saying that they were able to exclude members of America Acting Together from attending a New Mexico rally by identifying them by their cell phone. "He said the caller identification indicated some numbers were from cellphones of members of America Coming Together."

Maybe it was a lucky ID by an RNC staffer, but it makes me wonder if they're getting a little help on identifying callers.

Look, I can't get particularly thrilled by the details of Bush's campaign stops vs. Kerry's. Reports seem to show Kerry allowing and responding to hecklers -- good for him.

But the Bushies hardly invented the technique. In 1992 I attended a Clinton rally at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. Under no circumstances was anyone with a message T-shirt or their own sign allowed in range of the TV cameras. The GOP hecklers were herded off to a corner of the quad.

C'est la guerre.

If they told the truth they would only do about 35% of the vote.

It's like a dream come true- a very bad dream. The nightmare that's haunted all of us since Griffith produced Birth of a Nation and Father (sic) Coughlin beamed his 'message' across the midwest.

How long can it be before an airbrushed Bush stands before a computer-generated audience and illustrates the awful fate that awaits all of us with a holographic laser show in the sky behind him?

And the Bushoid women will provide the gentler touch, with Ann Coulter assuming the Leni Reifenstahl role and Michelle Malkin cast as the demure German maid.

In short, not an entirely unexpected development....

trotsky

The GOP hecklers you describe were allowed to attend the Clinton event, they were just kept out of view of the cameras. Shrub's opponents, by contrast, get escorted out by security, assuming they even get that far (having been forced to sign loyalty oaths in order to get a ticket.)

I submit that our leaders' honesty is perhaps the single most important issue facing us. And I appraciate Brad having set out the standards we should use in making this determination:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000714.html

As intellectually scrupulous and fair as he is, I know Brad takes his positions based on a reasoned assessment, not partisanship. And I'm sure he feels morally bound to maintain a consistent position. Let the chips fall where they may, when it comes to questions about the candidates' bedrock honor, we need to know whether one has lied about his military service. Brad, thanks for remaining consistent ib both tone and attention paid.

"It's not so much a lie as it is an extreme modification of the truth."

Right. And when I mug you, it's not assault and robbery, but "Assertive negotiation and an interest-free forgiven loan appropriated via proxy by the lendee."

I dearly hope you're being sarcastic; I have precious little faith left in this country.

Jumbo, you are making my point. The reason behind this unpatriotic attack on Kerry's military service couldn't be more simple: that's all people like you are left campaining about. You know it's false, you know it's wrong but once one is stranded in the wild starving, what wouldn't one eat?

How long 'till our spineless and oh-so-liberal mass media remind the people that meanwhile Bush managed to stay home safely sniffing cocaine and then went AWOL (how surprisig! must be hard to focus on flying when you land hard every morning...) And how many times did Dick SuperHawk Cheney managed to avoid the draft? Surely this man knows the price of war, when he sends an American boy to die or loose a leg or an eye in Iraq...

Surely, it must hurt a Republican to see his chickehawk team be faced with a real decorated veteran? But why don't you consider decency an American value truely puzzles me. But then again, I probably haven't been in this country long enough to be completely numbed to this kind of Republican lowliness.

Oh well, just felt like speaking the truth. Feels good sometimes. Good night!

Add to that the harebrained claim that Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, while somehow ignoring that Cheney was in fact one of the wingiest wingnuts in the House during his time there.

>while somehow ignoring that Cheney was in fact one of the wingiest wingnuts in the House during his time there.<

IIRC Cheney was one of only TWO members of the House to vote for a bill that would have allowed gun manufacturers to produce plastic composite hand guns (that would evade metal detector screening) and ammunition manufacturers to produce for the general public teflon coated armor piercing bullets.

Raising the moral tone ...

Anyone note Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)'s comments about the cowardice of "Dodgeball Dick" Cheney in managing to land 5 student and marital deferments to avoid service in Viet Nam? What I really liked was Cheney's rationale - that he had "other priorities at the time." Yeah - like not getting his butt shot off....

According to Poole-Rosenthal's DW-Nominate first (ie liberal-conservative) dimension, Richard Cheney (R-WY) entered the House as the 33rd most conservative legislator in 1979 and moved to 7th most conservative by the time he resigned to become GHWB's secretary of defense in 1989. John Kerry (D-MA) moved from 11th most liberal in his first Senate session (1985-86) to 17th most liberal for the last full session. On average this puts Cheney roughly in the top 10th percentile, Kerry in the 30th percentile, measured from the radical poles.

http://voteview.uh.edu/default_nomdata.htm

from the above website, by the by (trickle down is it?):

about dr. poole

Keith T. Poole
Kenneth L. Lay Professor of Political Science
Department of Political Science
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-3011
(713)743-3893

Thumb, how about Cheney's bizarre last stand with apartheid?

Haha. Never noticed. I wonder what Dr. Poole has to say about this now...

Keith T. Poole

Recipient
Kenneth L. Lay
Endowed Professorship

“I consider the Kenneth L. Lay Professorship to be a great honor. It is very gratifying to be recognized by my colleagues in political science for my research on American politics. The Lay Professorship gives me the freedom to pursue my interests wherever they may lead.”

Donor: ENRON

http://tinyurl.com/4ybeq

In his defense, KP doesn't do research in Accounting.

BCT: "Maybe it was a lucky ID by an RNC staffer, but it makes me wonder if they're getting a little help on identifying callers."

You mean, as in the FBI and the police taking precautionary measures to track down "troublemakers"?

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/08/ashcrofts-war-on-protesters.html
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001817.shtml

P.S. has the mass media even pretended to notice the latest bushies' flip-flop-flip-flop. they stonewall the 9-11 commission, the swear they will fully cooperate, then only show up as a team if they're not under oath and no notes are taken etc, then pretend to embrace the findings, then say they disagree with the very same. talk about a clownshow... there is some dot-connecting to be done here, people...

So the (few) carpenters sat quietly in their seats? Did the GOP faithful bring their hammers to look the part? This is pretty amazing to me in that if there is one sector in this economy that is not struggling, it's residential construction. (Not all of it unionized but generally these guys have been busy.) Even here Bush cannot trust the native population and needs to stuff the hall with his choir. A candidate in trouble, no?

Only difference from before is that perhaps a few more members of the media are writing about Bush's way of campaigning. Didn't Hitler's people set up his rallies in a similar fashion? Or were Hitler's more carefully choreographed? The idea was the same I imagine--with one difference, my mother who heard some of Hitler's speeches at rallies on the radio, said they seemed to make some sense when you heard them but afterwards made little sense. The difference being that Bush often makes no sense the first time you hear what he's saying, even less if you read a text afterwards.

jean-phiilipe stijns said:"umbo, you are making my point. The reason behind this unpatriotic attack on Kerry's military service couldn't be more simple: that's all people like you are left campaining about. You know it's false, you know it's wrong but once one is stranded in the wild starving, what wouldn't one eat?"

Um, okay. And where was it in those paragraphs of truth-telling-to-power that you addressed intellectual honesty and moral consistancy? Bueller? Bueller?

Folks, it's all crumbling. This is Kerry's issue. It is the sine qua non of his campaign, hell, his whole political career. "Well Bush is a bigger one!" etc., may make you feel better, but will not do as a mature response. Your man must, for what might be the first time in his adult life, give a clear, definitve statement, and hold the nunace and the usual running room for fact altering as circunstances warrant. And the problem is, he can't. Because he has told so many versions over the years, and his campaign and hagiographer have given several versions in just the last week.

Yep, but like Brad said, the candidate owes it to the American people to relase the records. And then the 4th estate (or is it 5th column? those are SO confusing)has a DUTY to findthetruthwhereveritleads. But there is a distinction, isn't there: that was then, and this is now.

jean-phiilipe stijns said:"Jumbo, you are making my point. The reason behind this unpatriotic attack on Kerry's military service couldn't be more simple: that's all people like you are left campaining about. You know it's false, you know it's wrong but once one is stranded in the wild starving, what wouldn't one eat?"

Um, okay. And where was it in the following paragraphs of valorous truth-telling-to-power that you addressed intellectual honesty and moral consistancy? Bueller? Bueller?

Folks, it's all crumbling. This is Kerry's issue. It is the sine qua non of his campaign, hell, his whole political career. "Wel,l Bush is a bigger one!" etc., may make you feel better, but will not do as a mature response. Your man must, for what might be the first time in his adult life, give a clear, definitve statement, and hold the nunace and the usual running room for fact altering as circumstances warrant. The problem is, he can't. Because he has told so many versions over the years, and his campaign and hagiographer have given several versions in just the last week.

Yep, but like Brad said, the candidate owes it to the American people to relase the records. And then the 4th estate has a DUTY to findthetruthwhereveritleads. But there is a distinction, isn't there: that was then, and this is now.

Jumbo, surely, having Daddy manage to destroy all relevant documents destroyed qualifies for truth, right? Remember one thing, this isn't a court. And all that matters isn't -thank God!- power in Washington, media and money (I confess a bit a wishful thinking here.)

This is people's sincere judgement on who they trust to be the next President of the United States of America, and again, compare what is to be compared. A man risking his life in 'Nam for what he believed sincerely was the good of his country vs. a man who went awol etc. End of story.

Same type of comparison between your people's zeal to impeach Clinton for a lie (yes!) about a bjob vs. W's lies about, among many other crutial lies, alleged Iraqi nu-ku-lah weapons. Just in case, we're not as dumb as to follow the ridiculous rules of your dishonest game. Maybe your weakness is to consider us (the people) so dumb you can fool us almost the same way again and again and again...

> It turns out that just because he spoke at a union hall doesn't mean he was speaking to union members.

In other news, Bush will be speaking to a packed hall of both Knicks and Rangers fans in two weeks' time.

Meanwhile, today's NYT reports that the Bush campaign is shocked (shocked!) at Kerry's hypocrisy in criticizing the new MoveOn ad that highlight's the Shrub's wartime activities.

In contrast to the firm, clear, and morally coherent response that President Bush showed when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" attacked Kerry, (Larry King: "Do you repudiate the ad, as Senator McCain has called for?"; Shrub: "Larry, I agree, 527s should be banned"), Kerry's typically nuanced, vacillating and flip-flopping position (Kerry: ""I agree with Senator McCain that the ad is inappropriate. This should be a campaign of issues, not insults") shows once again why character and leadership are so critical to our future.

[/sarcasm]

Yep, every word, including "and" and "the"!

Bush campaigns in a cage

Bush can't campaign outside a cage, because he lacks the courage to face protesters. So his campaign events invite ticketed attendees who must sign a loyalty declaration to attend. This fits Bush's leadership style perfectly: only the chosen people call the shots in America.

Kerry is drawing huge crowds on the campaign trail because he doesn't have to hide in a cage. Kerry has the courage to face hecklers and dissenters. He doesn't need to arrest anyone who protests in front of him.

If you want to live in a cage, vote for Bush and make America a bleak and divided place, perpetually at war for the benefit of the rich and powerful.

If you want to return America to its proper role as a free and peaceful nation, vote for John Kerry.

Compare and contrast: Bush and Kerry rallies

Both presidential contenders found themselves crossing paths in Portland, Oregon late last week.

How did the two visits compare?

The pictures tell the story
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/16/19217/9455

Of course it helps to have a candidate who isn't afraid of the American people, and doesn't demand they sign loyalty oaths.

Potemkin Politics. But who's being fooled?

Even more WHAT LIBERALS THINK...

"Regardless of what Abraham Lincoln or any other president did to dissenters, this is immaterial. All of the presidents you mentioned including Lincoln defiled the constitution by their acts.

The constitution does not give the power to disgrace or jail dissenters EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR. The threats you mentioned re: communism, nazism and Japanese imperial militarism are flawed in that only one was truly a threat. Hitler.

The so-called cold war data was hugely manipulated to scare the American public into arming to the teeth (and making the warmongers rich in the process). Now the new cash cow is the arabs and the "war on terror." Just switch the bad guy.. Welcome to Oceania.

As for "bedeviling" the world with nuclear threats, the U.S. is the only power to use nuclear weapons on another country, and is still threatening the world with its WMD. War is the antithesis of civilization. War is what degrades our great country; adventures in foreign lands we have no business sticking our nose into. Dissent is what makes this country great. If you don't like it, go live in China.

posted by smirkadocious"

SHEEEZ! THESE LIBERALS THINK HITLER WAS BAD BUT THE MURDERING RAPISTS OF IMPERIAL JAPAN AND THE VARIOUS COMMUNIST PRISON-NATIONS WERE OK.

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? LEFTY SIMPLETONS THINK ANY ATROCITY IN THE NAME OF THEIR PRECIOUS KARL MARX IS OK. THEY ARE SO IGNORANT OF HISTORY THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT NATIONAL SOCIALISM WAS A DIRECT OUTGROWTH OF MARX'S TEACHINGS AND WAS REALLY ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUNISM - A MARXIST HERESY IF YOU WILL.

DO ANY LEFTIES NO ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORY? I MEAN ALL HISTORY, NOT JUST THE

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/even_more_what_.html

Don't know about Hitler but it certainly sounds very Communist China: party cadres waving flags and carefully screened audience.

Never knew W is a closet communist wannabe

Adrian dear, how appropriate that you discuss the National SOCIALISTS. Quite in the tradition of that party's name, we discuss here holding a rally in a union hall with a non union audience and claiming that the rally was a union rally.

In this age of Republican radical newspeak invoking the National SOCIALIST party is quite.

Doubleplusgood.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/2984/New%20speak

Basic principles of Newspeak
The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thoughtcrimes). A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language. (See: duckspeak In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck. Applied to an opponent, it indicates their argument is making no sense. Applied to oneself or friends, it means that they can talk nonsense for the good of all. Like so many Newspeak terms, it has two radically different meanings based on the rule that The Party is always right.

In addition, words with opposite meanings were removed as redundant, so "bad" became "ungood" and "great" became "doubleplusgood"; and as many words as possible were removed. The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.

The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought, either. One question raised by this is whether we are defined by our language, or whether we actively define it; can we communicate the need for freedom, can we organize an uprising, if we don't have the words for either? This is related to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (SWH) states that there are certain thoughts of an individual in one language that cannot be understood by those who use another language. SWH states that the way people think is strongly affected by their native languages. It is a controversial hypothesis championed by linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf.

I poop too much, and it makes me tired.

Please excuse my poop-demented posts.

I heard Bush on the radio the other day expressing mystification at the idea that he has been divise and lots of Americans are angry at him. (Perhaps this was from the Larry King interview.) He said something like, "I have been out in the country a lot, and I just don't see a lot of anger."

Of course you don't, jackass. You only see Republicans at your potemkin campaign rallies and don't see anyone who ever disagrees with you and is angry about what you are doing to the country.

I'm surprised Bush doesn't just bring a few busloads of pre-fab "supporters" to every stop.

That way, they wouldn't even have to bother with the screening.