cognitive dissident

I received this commentary on Kerry supporters (30 October 2004, 3:08 PM):

I was just going over the list of John Kerry supporters - Kwazy Mfume [sic], the French, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Germans, Eminem, Kofi Anan [sic], Michael Moore, teachers unions, trial lawyers, people who support partial birth abortions, Ted Kennedy, and now Osam Bin Laden [sic].

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

My response follows:

This type of baseless "Osama supports Kerry" smear has been circulating for months, in complete opposition to the fact that at least one group linked to Al Qaeda has already endorsed Bush. In a March letter, they said that it wasn't possible to find a leader "more foolish than you [Bush], who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps... [...] "Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

It takes a great deal of effort to spin Osama's latest statement to America that "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda" into support for Kerry. That hasn't, however, stopped the GOP media machine. As Maureen Dowd noted this morning:

"The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. [...] You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its 'brilliance' - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants."

As far as the rest of the "list" goes, I'm not surprised at the breadth of support for Kerry's candidacy, especially when the alternative is so much less appealing. I don't much care about the political opinions of Kweisi Mfume or Kofi Annan...but I'll take teachers and Democrats (in particular) and most Americans (in general) every day of the week, and twice on Tuesday. The fact that most of the rest of the world agrees is irrelevant.

With facts like that, who needs spin?

Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Inspired by Peter Kuper's "mission accomplished" cartoon, I created a pair of parody campaign signs in preparation for the election: "Fear/Failure 2004" & "Dumb/Dishonest 2004." (I'm fully aware that "dumb" is a cliché with regards to Dubya, but I couldn't resist the alliteration.) I changed the signs' website address to www.misleader.org just for laughs.

Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received this email about a Kerry campaign commercial (18 October 2004, 6:48 PM):

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity.

My response follows:

I haven’t seen the ad, but I have read the Snopes article about this email.

If you’re interested in the details, factcheck.org has a good article titled “Bush falsely claims Kerry voted repeatedly to raise premiums. Kerry's spot blaming Bush alone for the latest increase isn't much better” that debunks both candidates’ ads.

Both parties are counting on voters’ ignorance.

Don’t be duped by Bush’s mendacity, either.

Posted by cognitivedissident at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received this email about alleged voter registration fraud (17 Oct 2004, 8:19 AM):

Democrats Try Anything

A recent publicized excerpt from the DNC's handbook suggests that democrats 'manufacture' allegations of voter intimidation even when there is no factual evidence to support the allegations. It seems that Terry McCaulife's crew is willing to go to any lengths to assure a Kerry/Edwards victory in November, regardless of the will of the people.

In our own Berks county, there is a large drive underway to register new voters. The two largest organizations involved in this drive are ACORN, which supports John Kerry, and Voting is Power, which is funded by the Muslim American Society Freedom Organization, which is, in their own words, working to defeat President Bush because he has dared to wage war in a muslim country.

So far the Country Voter's Registration Office has thrown out over halfof the 13,000 new voter registrations submitted by these groups. Apparently attempts are being made to register people several times, using different addresses, different birthdates, and different party affiliations. Many of the forms submitted have the birthdates and addresses written with different handwriting or different colored ink than the signatures. In the words of the Reading Eagle editorial staff "What kind of example is the United States setting for the rest of the world if we cannot condusct our own elections without attempts to stuff the ballot bax and subvert the will of the people?" Berk's County's only Republican Commissioner has called for an investigation, but the two democratic commissioners want any investigation delayed until after the election.

My response follows:

When I see this many errors - it’s the “Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation” (not “Organization”), Terry McAuliffe (not McCaulife), and the alleged Reading Eagle quote has two misspellings – my first impulse is to discard it as partisan junk email. (Republicans try anything?)

I always try to source these things, especially when I see phrases like “no factual evidence to support the allegations.”

Would these be:

- an alleged “recently publicized excerpt from the DNC's handbook” (Really? Where is it?)
- an alleged “willing[ness] to go to any lengths” that is completely dependent on the “excerpt”
- an alleged “in their own words” statement that doesn’t include a verifiable quotation

I expect to see some attempts at election fraud, and I will be as outraged as anyone else if any is proven (not simply alleged) to exist. It’s good to hear that the Registration Office is (allegedly) doing its job with the necessary accuracy and thoroughness. I await the investigation results, but (with HAVA) we may be examining provisional ballots for quite some time after Election Day.

UPDATE: I did some research today on the allegations, and found this article about the “Colorado Election Day Manual: A Detailed Guide to Voting in Colorado.”

The section misrepresented by Matt Drudge (and others) is titled “How to Organize to Prevent and Combat Voter Intimidation,” and it DOES NOT “suggest that Democrats 'manufacture' allegations.” It does, however, suggest that “pre-emptive strikes” be undertaken in states with a history of voter intimidation. It specifically recommends that Democrats:

“issue press releases denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting,”

“discuss the issue in the media,”

“express concern about the threat of intimidation tactics,” and

“warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.”

It takes a great deal of effort to spin that into something illegal or unethical.

Posted by cognitivedissident at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Answer is TEN:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either "For changing the light bulb or for darkness"
5. One to give a billion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a stepladder under the banner "Light Bulb Change Accomplished"
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark"
8. One to viciously smear #7
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along
10. And finally: One to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country

Posted by cognitivedissident at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)