have you heard of RatherGate? Or would you rather not hear about it? haha!
the truth is, it's so hard to keep up with the campaign news that has happened right after the Republican National Convention.
first there were the Democrats tripping over themselves to denounce Zell Miller as a liar. now, Zell Miller's speech and presence in the Republican convention must have really hurt them, because a friend of mine, g, whom i chat with from time to time, but who hasn't given a pipsqueak of anything on my blogs for the past 2 years suddenly left me a comment, and not just a comment, but a comment with 0 props. (things like this make me wonder how james carville of cnn, and informal adviser to the kerry campaign, and mary matalin, adviser to the bush-cheney campaign, stay married). i had wanted to blog in defense of sen. miller but didn't have the time. anyway, sen. miller has already written a reply to his critics, which is much better than what li'l ole me can come up with.
then, for me, there was kerry's midnight speech right after the RNC. i stayed up for it because i wanted to know what he had to say. i expected something strong and rousing which will effectively counter pres. bush's convention speech. what he said, instead was:"i will not have my patriotism questioned...", etc.... "i defended this country as a young man..." and something about his fitness to be commander-in-chief. it was disappointing and sounded as tired as he looked. i liked those words when i first heard them during the democratic national convention, but it has been 4 weeks since then and after 4 weeks of listening to the news, his speech just sounded hollow. what was interesting though was that it was in response to dick cheney. and it is interesting because: 1) cheney is running for vice-president and not president, therefore, edwards would have been the more logical person to go after him (but edwards, of course, can't do that because he didn't go to vietnam, too); and 2) cheney did not question kerry's patriotism nor his being unfit. as an AP release has explained it, kerry saw a washington post headline on thursday morning saying that cheney called kerry unfit the night before. kerry latched on to this and spoke against it in his thursday night speech. now, if this is true, then it just goes to show that you just cannot simply gobble up what you read in these major newspapers.
which brings me to the third news: the associated press (AP) booing story. early last week, AP released a story on a campaign rally held by pres. bush which said:
President George W. Bush, campaigning in Wisconsin, wished Clinton "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.
they retracted it a few minutes after and released a sanitized version (and without the reporter's byline) when people who were there complained that there was no booing. but, the damage has been done. there were people who saw the first release, knight ridder distributed the lie even more by carrying the first release, cbs had it in their online news version even 2 days after AP recanted, and an ohio paper still carried it over the weekend. some foxnews pundits say that it was just lazy reporting; the reporter who wrote it was in new york and he didn't check his facts before releasing the news. but i believe what somebody else pointed out: that it was a piece of prejudice against the republicans and Bush. why else say that 'Bush did nothing to stop them'? aah, yes, that's to be expected of those mean-spirited republicans. (i hope you didn't miss the sarcasm there.)
and, finally, for the most titillating media news last week: pres. bush's lied about his service in the national guard and cbs has scooped the goods on it! this turns out to be the most exciting, so far, not because their goods really damages bush as they must have expected, but because it turned out to be a couple of rotten eggs which has broken splat square on their face. ben barnes, as a witness against bush? his daughter says he is lying. (i wonder if somebody will try to verify and go on the news about ben barnes's not being the lt. gov. of texas in 1968, as he claims. kind of the now-debunked christmas-in-cambodia story, i guess, which has been seared -- seared -- in kerry's memory). and the memos which will prove their claim? with every day that passes, more and more people conclude that they are forgeries. soo many interesting stories about this in the internet (i even learned about kerning and military document formats because of this) and dan rather? i think he'd rather not dwell on it.
pro-kerry talking heads go on tv saying: but this doesn't change the story that pres. bush did not complete his service. i agree with the first part of the premise: it doesn't change the story, BUT, i don't agree with the second part. the story is not about bush and his service; bush has received an honorable discharge and has then gone on to become a company executive, a two-term governor, president of the united states and commander-in-chief. if he has to be judged, judge him for his accomplishments in those terms, not for something 35 years ago.
the story is about big-time media bias, about journalists who have the power to sway the opinion of the people and who spin the news -- and even make some up, it seems -- to damage bush. i didn't believe about the anti-bush media bias when i first heard about it but these two items nail it for me. after all, doesn't it make you examine your views in a new light?
i mean, hey, is the economy really bad? is it really bush's fault or are those just what the headlines say? is the unemployment rate really that bad even though it is at the same level as clinton's when he ran for re-election or is it because that's how the news paints it? is cheney really the greedy and evil one because his halliburton ties was the reason for the war or.. is it because media doesn't print much of the details explaining the military procurement process? did bush really lie or did the media just give more time to michael moore's and joseph wilson's spin on the events and not much on the findings of the butler commission and the 9/11 commission?
somebody in a forum said that she was not planning to vote for bush but after realizing that he had to contend with all the lies and the demonizing done against him, she decided that he had the strength of character needed for the job of president of the united states and is worthy to be re-elected.
i feel the same way. months ago, i had told g that if i could vote, i would vote for bush. he said that it's a poor choice. kerry is better. so i listened and read about them. what i have learned in the past months has only confirmed for me that bush is the better choice, an opinion that involved considering the things that the democrats and big media would rather not let you see.
note: if you had read this far, i applaud your perseverance and thank you for your patience. i will try to post the links to the items i mentioned if i get the time (typing this already took me two hours!). if i don't, these can be easily checked using google. ciao! it's time to rest my tired fingers...
Recent Comments