It takes me about 20 seconds of watching network news before i get into a bad mood. NBC News this morning: "With the Iraqi elections only two weeks away, the Bush administration appears to be engaged in a campaign to lower expectations." WTF? Whose expectations are they talking about? The mainstream media has been on their own campaign to lower expectations about Iraq for the last two years.

The NBC reporter also made a point of saying that Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Reagan's or Clinton's at similar points in their presidencies. Now, Bush is certainly not "the great communicator,"* but i have an idea how Bush can get his approval ratings to match the spike in Clinton's ratings after January 21, 1998. Bush should get a blow job!
_______________

* U. S. Grant or Andrew Johnson might have been less articulate than Bush . . . but only when they were drunk.

Posted by: annika at 09:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Peggy Noonan, whose grip on reality i thought was becoming a bit shaky based on some of her recent columns,* has rehabilitated my opinion of her with her latest piece, "MSM Requiem." i think it's the best post-Rathergate commentary i have read, or will ever hope to read.

Now anyone can take to the parapet and announce the news. This will make for a certain amount of confusion. But better that than one-party rule and one-party thought. Only 20 years ago, when you were enraged at what you felt was the unfairness of a story, or a bias on the part of the storyteller, you could do this about it: nothing. You could write a letter.

When I worked at CBS a generation ago I used to receive those letters. Sometimes we read them, and sometimes we answered them, but not always. Now if you see such a report and are enraged you can do something about it: You can argue in public on a blog or on TV, you can put forth information that counters the information in the report. You can have a voice. You can change the story. You can bring down a news division. Is this improvement? Oh yes it is.

Via Lopsided Poopdeck.

Update: Check out this Krauthammer piece too. Link via commenter Shelly.
_______________

* Like when she suggested that Steven Spielberg could singlehandedly solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Come on! If Jason Alexander and Richard Geer can't do it, what chance does Spielberg have?

Posted by: annika at 08:45 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Hallelujah!

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and HowardÂ’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated. [emphasis mine]

. . . once serious questions were raised, the defense of the segment became more rigid and emphatic, and . . . virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit

'Had this directive been followed promptly, the panel does not believe that 60 Minutes Wednesday would have publicly defended the segment for another 10 days,' the report said.

i wonder if the words "blog" or "Powerline" appear anywhere.

Posted by: annika at 07:23 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Matt Laueur is interviewing Amber Frey... again?! Dude, if she's worth a half dozen interviews, do ya think you could have mixed in at least one swiftboat veteran interview last year?

For cryin out loud, Laouer just teased yet another segment with Frey and Allred later on in the show. After Kiki interviews Michael More, of course.

This is why i never watch the Today Show.

Update: My God, he's huuuuuge! They're avoiding any long shots that expose the gigantic-ness of his body, but i think his seat is about to collapse.

Update 2: First he explains the Democratic loss by admitting that the Republicans got out the vote better. Then later he complains that Congressional debate about alleged Ohio vote irregularities will be stifled today. Inconsistency? If so, Kiki didn't notice.

Update 3: Tim Graham at The Corner watched it too.

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore was awarded seven and a half minutes of air time in the 7:30 half hour of ThursdayÂ’s 'Today' show to offer his political analysis of why the Democrats failed to oust Bush. Katie Couric felt that wasnÂ’t enough, so she invited him back an hour later for another eight minutes and forty seconds of air time, or 16 minutes, 10 seconds overall. While Couric tried to suggest that maybe Hollywood liberalism hurt the Democrats (and even noted the 'vitriol...you seem to embody'), she also inaccurately promoted MooreÂ’s latest book as 'new' and 'currently on many bestseller lists' when it came out in October and is ranked #1,547 on Amazon.com.

Posted by: annika at 07:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

i feel i must make an effort to comment about Amber Frey's interview by the very annoying Matt Laueur of NBC.

i'm somewhat impressed by Amber Frey. She was a brave girl. But i'm also amazed at how naive she was before that crucial telephone conversation with the Modesto PD, which opened her eyes.

The Dateline Special did a pretty good job of capsulizing the circumstantial case against Scott Pederson. i would have convicted him too. There were just too many lies and too many eerie coincidences. Justice was done.

And as long as i'm feeling generous: i have to say that i can't not like Gloria Allred. Sure, she's a wacko feminist and a grandstander, but she was on the right side of the Clinton fiasco, and she represented Amber Frey amazingly well throughout the ordeal.

Now can we please close the book on this whole story? It'll soon be time to obsess about the next Trial of the Century: Jocko.

Posted by: annika at 11:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

We're out of wine. The Orange Bowl already looks like a blow-out. (Shelly's right, USC is a pro team.) And i'm too pissed to even come up with a coherent rant about the Columbia Journalism Review's huge insult of a lie.

Volokh and Wizbang have dissected the truth best on this one. Shit like this makes me so spittin' mad, i could just... uh... spit. Just know that the name Corey Pein is easy to remember and i will be watching his career. Any organization that hires him will immediately stain its own credibility. A fucking hack in training. They'll just adore him at big media.

Time to go smoke and watch some more of 24.

Pein résumé via LGF.

Posted by: annika at 07:09 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

From RatherBiased.com [quoting Broadcasting and Cable magazine]:

. . . CBS News president Andrew Heyward, along with Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, recently met with White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in part to repair chilly relations with the Bush administration.

CBS News's popularity at the White House—never high to begin with—plunged further in the wake of Dan Rather's discredited '60 Minutes [Wednesday]' story on George Bush's [Air] National Guard service.

An incentive for making nice is the impending report from the two-member panel investigating CBS's use of now-infamous documents for the '60 Minutes' piece.

Heyward was 'working overtime to convince Bartlett that neither CBS News nor Rather had a vendetta against the White House,' our source says, 'and from here on out would do everything it could to be fair and balanced.' CBS declined to comment.

More than likely, one of the most prominent topics at the alleged meeting was some CBS begging to let Dan Rather, who has been banned from the Bush White House, interview President Bush before the older Texan retires from the CBS News anchor desk.

Does anyone remember the Simpsons episode where the news anchor Kent Brockman mistakenly thinks giant ants from space are going to invade earth, so he begins his broadcast in front of a banner that says: "All hail our new ant overlords!"

In their hubris, CBS really thought they would have a president Kerry by now. Instead, much to their chagrin, they have to go kiss up to their ant overlords.

Grovel away you bastards!

Posted by: annika at 09:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Only do or not do.

We do.

Update: The Marines have arrived in Sri Lanka too.

Posted by: annika at 12:25 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Moyer is leaving PBS's stealth propaganda show Now. And i'd like to say to him, if i could: "Good riddance you fucking hack."

He's being replaced by the aptly named David Bronchitis, another fucking hack. Nothing changes on PBS.

Posted by: annika at 12:51 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

The wonderful, beautiful, picturesque City and County of San Francisco welcomes you with open arms. Enjoy!

Publicola has the text of the proposed law.

Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.

. . . Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein.

Also, the proposed law prohibits the sale or transfer of handguns at the same time as it outlaws their very possession. Oh, but you can turn them in to the SFPD within 90 days. And i'm sure the City won't just turn around and sell them, either.

And let's not forget the obvious. This law, if enacted, will increase criminal gun violence in the City. Guaranteed.

It's been about eight years since Frank Jordan lost his bid for re-election, and the City has been on a downhill slide ever since. It's really a shame, because i do love San Francisco.

Posted by: annika at 07:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Damn gurlfren, I'll have visions of sugarplums dancing in my head tonight. Yea, that and Santa as a woman in a thong.

Posted by: Casca at December 18, 2004 09:05 PM (cdv3B)

2 The reason it applies only to residents is to avoid conflict with state law. If it covered possession by non-San Franciscans then it'd be on weaker legal ground with respect to Cali's pre-emption law. But since Cali law is really attrocious on carrying a weapon for defense outside the home I don't think they saw it as a big deal. In effect the only places that will allow possession of a handgun for defense are motels where out of towners are staying or private homes that have out of town guests. & it bans all sales of all firearms & ammunition within the city - not just handguns. So if anyone who lives in Frisco has a mind to buy anything delaying might not be a good idea. Difi pushed something similar through in 82 & it was struck down by the courts. I'd like to say that will happen again but I'm thinking they're trying a slightly different angle that may let the courts give them a pass on it. So despite my hopes that some judge will have some common sense, I'd say there's a good chance this will stand up in court. & the correct link to the text of the law is http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/059776.php#059776 I must get around to fixing the url thing on my template. Ya know, there are some decent law schools in places that don't want you to be a victim.

Posted by: publicola at December 19, 2004 10:27 AM (5QO6F)

3 what about reimbursing for the cost of the gun. most handguns are fairly expensive (200-700), and competive shooter guns are probably worth a grand or more. Could it be struck down based on that whole?

Posted by: cube at December 20, 2004 07:55 AM (nyNr0)

4 Annie: Don't forget gay-bashers, too. SF shouldn't just be a place for homosexuals; it should also offer a safe home to violent psychopaths who hate them. cube: No. They have the option of moving their guns out of the City, or selling them. Thus they don't lose the economic value of the guns (for the most part, at least). I'm pretty certain this isn't a taking, as the Supreme Court understands the term.

Posted by: Matt at December 21, 2004 08:12 AM (SIlfx)

5 Something about that peninsula infects the mind, in good ways and bad.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 23, 2004 12:57 PM (FPdMX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thanks to the Instalanche, word is getting out about my great idea. Check out this exclusive photo, from last night's Kennedy Center Honors gala, where i imagine there was a lot of behind the scenes lobbying on behalf of Sir Elton.

It's only a matter of time before the mainstream media picks up on this, and when it happens, i plan to take full credit, of course.

Posted by: annika at 11:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

There's no question in my mind that Kofi Annan is on his way out as the U.N.'s generalissimo. But who should take his place? Perhaps you can guess who i would like to see as the next Secretary General.

i'm totally serious about this. Totally serious. Let's look at Elton John's qualifications, shall we?

• He couldn't be any worse than Kofi Annan.


• He's British, and Great Britain is in the United Nations.


• Even if he's not necessarily anti-American, he is sufficiently anti-Bush.


• He sometimes wears funky sunglasses.


• He's friends with Tim Rice.


• He can sing good.


• People seem to really like him.


• i think he's met the Queen.


• He knows how to play the piano.


• He could ask Dionne Warwick (who knows a bunch of psychics) to be one of his advisors because... well... that's what friends are for...


• He's got spunk.


• He probably looks good in a blue beret.


• It's the way that he move, the things that he do, wo-o-o.


• And i'm sure there's a bunch of other things that make him qualified for the job, which i can't think of right now.

Please join me in this crusade. Now that Dan Rather is quitting, i need a new crusade. You can help. Next time the subject of the United Nations comes up at work, mention to your co-workers that you think Elton John would make an excellent Secretary General. Word will undoubtedly spread to the right people. Also, if you like to call radio talk shows, why not mention it on the air? That'd get the word out even faster.

If you have a blog, feel free to copy and post my sidebar ad, which you'll find if you scroll down my main page. And i guess the best way to help would be to email the United Nations itself. Their address is inquiries@un.org.

The motto of my new grass-roots movement will be "Why the 'ell not you bloody sons-a-bitches!" Which is what i would imagine Sir Elton would say if he were on board with this whole thing. Or if he knew about it at all. Which he doesn't, since i have no idea how to contact him. But i'm sure he'd be okay with it, because the idea is sure to catch on like wildfire.

Posted by: annika at 12:48 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

Dan Rather has finally succumbed to the inevitable, and the expected. He is stepping down from the CBS Evening News. i feel good about that, because i was one of the many voices urging CBS to fire him after he presented those forged memos in a transparent attempt to influence the presidential election. But i'm not patting myself on the back too hard. Rather's retirement was anticipated long before the scandal, and though his reputation is forever tarnished, he was not fired like he should have been.

Bill at INDC Journal has more:

Unfortunately, it only smells like victory, because ...

1. Rather's still working for 60 Minutes.

2. The findings of the independent investigation are overdue.

3. No action has been taken against Producer Mary Mapes or CBS News President Andrew Heyward. In contrast, the CBS News producer that dared to interrupt the final minutes of 'CSI' was canned within a few days. That says a great deal about their priorities.

As before, you can contact CBS News by clicking here.

Posted by: annika at 03:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

i received another lovely comment from an anonymous troll the other day. Again, using the expletive-laden prose so typical of the frustrated left, i was urged to kill myself. That's the second time this month. This particular commenter was pissed that i hadn't yet posted about the so-called "marine shooting" incident.

The reason i haven't written about the incident until now was because i was still working out my own mixed emotions about what i saw on that video. Well, my emotions were mixed until this afternoon, that is. Now i just feel manipulated and angry. Here's why.

When i first saw the shooting video, i had not yet heard the story, so i watched it without having heard any spin from the right or left. i have to admit, when i heard the shot and the marine saying "he's dead now," i was appalled. My first gut reaction was that something was not right about the way things went down.

Since the time of my initial reaction, i've been able to put the event into its proper context. i understand how the marine was justified in shooting the terrorist under the rules of engagement. i understand that these enemy were not prisoners, and had not surrendered. i understand that marines are not cops. i understand that the act of feigning death is inherently threatening, and any marine who perceives such a threat must protect himself by killing it. But the words "he's dead now" continued to bother me. They sounded like something a sadistic Quentin Tarantino villain might say.

i had assumed that the marine who shot the terrorist was the same marine who said "he's dead now," but i was wrong. Since the day the story broke i've seen the video dissected many, many times on various TV networks, including "fair and balanced" Fox News, and not once have i heard anyone mention that the marine who shot the terrorist was not the same marine who said "he's dead now."

To me, that fact is critical to understanding what happened, and its omission from the news "coverage" of the shooting completely skewed my own perception of what happened. Strange that i learned this crucial piece of the story only by reading the embedded reporter's own website this afternoon. In his pathetic non-apology/explanation to the Marine Corps, Kevin Sites retells what he saw:

While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

'He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead.'

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

'Well he's dead now,' says another Marine in the background. [emphasis added]

My outrage doesnÂ’t end there. This punk, Kevin Sites, apparently wants the marines to not hate him for endangering their lives by providing the enemy with propaganda, which they will use to prolong their futile resistance. Make no mistake, Kevin Sites and his superiors have the blood of U.S. marines and soldiers on their hands. HereÂ’s how he tries to explain himself to the marines of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment with whom he had been embedded:

As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist.

It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between.

The Marine then abruptly turns away [After killing the insurgent] and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent ‘danger’ as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.

No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider [sic] or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.

We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region.

I knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were complications. We were part of a video 'pool' in Falluja, and that obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea how our other 'pool' partners might use the footage. . . .

When NBC aired the story 48-hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions.

We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world. [emphasis added]

Sites concludes his non-apology letter like this:

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

All you did was weaken a country today . . . That's all you did. You put people in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

More: Read Chris Roach's post about why this shooting was not a "war crime."

Still more context: Via Dean Esmay, this slideshow about "what really happened in Fallujah" should be required web viewing for everyone. John of Argghhh! has more commentary, here and especially here.

Posted by: annika at 09:56 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 1477 words, total size 10 kb.

What the fuck?

They just don't get it.

Posted by: annika at 08:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

A few weeks ago, CBFTW of My War posted an email from his Battalion Commander in Iraq. You can read the whole thing here, but i wanted to excerpt the following passage because i think it's appropriate on this day, as we remember the sacrifice of our nation's veterans.

The will to be free comes at a heavy price. For some it is more than they can bear. Divorce, estrangement, financial burdens, health problems, depression, and even suicide are very real costs. Sacrifice is rarely recognized for what it truly is because the price of recognition is guilt. Parades, giving medals, issuing promotions,and rousing speeches are simply the thin veneer that masks the desperate need of those who are kept free by our endeavors for absolution from this guilt. Adam Duritz wrote in the song Mrs. Potter's Lullaby that 'the price of a memory is the memory of the sorrow it brings.'

I submit that it is our love of freedom, the embrace of our wives or sweethearts, the love of our children or family, and the earned respect ofour brothers in arms that cast the walls that make the will to endure a fortress that can never be taken. I will be proud to stand the watch until my time is at an end, but soon you will mount the ramparts and stand the watch alone. In closing, I leave you with the words of Marcus Aurelius 'Think of yourself as dead. You have lived your life. Now, take what's left and live it properly. What doesn't transmit light creates its own darkness.'

Posted by: annika at 01:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

After hanging on, Rasputin-like, for fucking ever, chief Palestinian scumbag Yasser Arafat finally kicked the bucket, according to Fox News. It's not on Drudge yet, but there's a banner on the Fox site.

Update: Reuters now confirms the good news.

Posted by: annika at 07:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

You know i think the liberal mass hysteria about the "evangelical vote" is totally overblown. But then i'm a churchgoing Catholic, so that makes my opinion suspect to secularist ears.

But celebrity blogger Michele Catalano, an atheist, is not convinced either.

I do believe the Democrats have just switched one brand of Kool-Aid for another. Their new drink is Jesusland flavored and they are swallowing it by the gallon.

If you read them correctly - and I'm not just talking about the fringe elements here, but your everyday journalists, talking heads, bloggers and Democrat on the street - the Christians are coming and they are going to burn crosses on your door and kidnap your heathen babies.

Oh, sure, I've said that I don't want to see this administration move towards the religious right. The difference between the Kool-Aid drinkers and myself is that they truly believe this is going to happen while I don't.

. . .

The Democrats seem to think that two things lost them the election: Christians and idiots.

. . .

Funny how those of us who voted for Nader or Gore last time around are now considered too stupid to breathe. What a difference four years makes. And I wonder if the Dems aren't being willfully ignorant in glossing over the other mitigating factors in their loss, the most blatant being that John Kerry was just not electable material. No one is talking about swing voters, the war on terror voters, security moms, first time voters. All we are hearing is how the moral majority sunk their claws into the too stupid to think for themselves hicks and brainwashed them into voting for a religious mandate that would sweep the nation and force us all to kneel down on Sunday and praise Jesus.
[links omitted]

Update: Celebrity blogger Moxie is another atheist who is not buying the "Jesusland" myth.

Posted by: annika at 11:06 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday, i got a favorable mention from across the Pacific at BigHominid's Hairy Chasms. His election wrap-up post contains some reasoned analysis, most of which i agree with, along with this very funny analogy on a non political subject:

Fuck fucking Blogger. I haven't had much trouble with Blogger, but every now and again it'll seize up at the wrong moment and ruin my day. It's a bit like humping a sheep and having your dick ripped off by a sudden, violent, ovine pelvic spasm. It's always a nuisance to have to stop what you're doing, dig around the sheep's ass, retrieve your dick, sew it back on, and then keep on humping. If anything, you're too pissed off to hump but you feel, bizarrely, that you owe your spectators their money's worth. So you reestablish your rhythm and pray the sheep doesn't rip your dick off a second time.

I'd written a long post earlier today, only to have it sucked into the cosmos's asshole by an 'internal server error,' followed by a personal message from Bill Gates that read, 'Yeah, baby! Whatcha' gonna do about it, huh? Huh? Huh?' What follows is a severely truncated version of what I wrote earlier, pieced together from anguished memory.

Anyways, that wasn't the favorable mention i was talking about. Here it is:

It's simplistic to say merely that 'America is conservative,' as if that were the end of the story. What counts as 'conservative' is always in flux. Well over a century ago, everyone in white America knew it was scandalous for women to expose their ankles. Today, a midriff-exposing, thigh-baring little hottie like Annika represents the righties. Old mores crumble and tumble; change is part of life.

i took Kevin's quote out of context though, which is unfair to his larger point, which i also agree with:

There's a huge debate going on right now about the extent to which this election was a referendum on 'morality.' I contend that it wasn't: it was, fundamentally, about the war.

. . .

I still maintain that Andrew Sullivan is on to something re: where the country is trending in terms of gay marriage. Conservatives have a point when they say that the present hysteria about impending theocracy is way over the top. But the right shouldn't be too dismissive of the gay lobby: it needs to get ready for what's coming in a few years. . . .

. . . But what the righties need to remember is that Sullivan is correct to see a huge demographic shift going on. . . .

[G]ay marriage will never become mainstream (which also means that gay marriage is no threat to hetero marriage). But tolerance and affirmation of a gay person's right to marry-- and to receive the legal benefits of marriage-- will become mainstream, probably sooner than many think. If the Dems were unable to see certain realities this time around, I submit that the GOP needs to reconcile itself to the inevitable as well, or risk future marginalization... though not for a few years yet, obviously.

The truth is, though traditional "values" motivated a lot of Bush voters, the argument that "values" won the election ignores young conservatives like me. i recognize that gay marriage prohibition will likely die a natural death within my lifetime, and i'm more focused on the fact that there's a bunch of people out there who want to kill me. That, more than anything else, was why Bush got my vote.

Posted by: annika at 10:03 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Two things are inevitable after a Democratic loss. One, the liberals will call the American people stupid. Two, they will call their own candidate inept. Newsweek hits hard on the latter point in this fascinating story, which manages to slam their candidate while simultaneously reinforcing the "evil Republican" stereotype with subtle editorializations.

Many voters, i'm sure, were swayed by the Swift Vet ads, but just as many thought that Vietnam was irrelevant. Kerry could not escape his own words, though. In my opinion, while the Swift Vets had their effect, nothing was more devastating to Kerry's chances than his infamous "87 billion" quote. The Newsweek piece reveals the key moment of the 2004 campaign, and its true heroes (or villains, depending on your point of view).

[W]hen Kerry addressed a veterans group in West Virginia, a heckler kept demanding to know why he had voted against more funding for the troops. In his considered but long-winded fashion, Kerry tried to explain that he had wanted to vote for the funding, but only if the Senate passed an amendment that would whittle down President Bush's earlier tax cut for the rich. Kerry voted for the amendment, but when it failed, he voted against the funding. The heckler pressed, and Kerry, losing patience, fell into senatorial procedural shorthand. 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,' he said.

At Bush-Cheney headquarters, Joe Kildae, a 25-year-old campaign intern who monitored the war room (and never seemed to sleep), was watching. In his cubicle he kept three televisions and a battery of TiVos and VCRs. As soon as he saw Kerry make his remark on Fox News, he stood up in his cubicle and caught the eye of his boss, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt had seen the clip, too. The two men nodded at each other. Kildae thought to himself: 'We're going to be seeing this a lot.' He immediately hit pause on his digital recorder, wound the clip back and copied it to tape. Using a program called TVEyes, he pulled up an instant rough transcript. He e-mailed the transcript of Kerry's 'flip-flopping' to an 'alert list' of top aides, who could then click on a link to see the video.

'You gotta see this,' Kildae told campaign communications adviser Terry Holt. 'Oh, my God,' Holt replied. 'You have to send that to me on my BlackBerry.' The video of Kerry's shooting himself in the foot flew around Bush-Cheney headquarters and, very soon, into the hungry ether beyond.

McKinnon and his ad team wasted no time. 'The second we saw it, we knew we had a new ad,' McKinnon later recalled. 'The greatest gifts in politics are the gifts the other side gives you.' It was so simple. All they had to do was drop the footage of Kerry saying 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it' into the ad that was already running, chastising Kerry for cutting funding. McKinnon called the new ad 'Troops-Fog.' Much of its airing was free: news shows picked up the clip of the 'flip-flop' and plastered it on screens like wallpaper.

It took a while for the Kerry campaign to even realize that its candidate had been badly wounded. Kerry himself realized he had made a mistake, but at his headquarters, most of the chatter was about the 'weird heckler' who had asked him the question. The Kerry campaign would later insist that the Bush campaign had spent millions that spring to smear its candidate without much effect, but in fact Kerry's 'negatives' climbed in some key swing states. Just as important, perhaps, he had missed an opportunity to define himself in a positive or memorable way. The Bush 'Troops-Fog' act blew enough fog to unsettle voters, to make them wonder about Kerry's consistency and the depth of his conviction.

Kerry once remarked to an aide "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." Well, who's the idiot now, Senator?

Posted by: annika at 10:22 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.