On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:12:10 -0600, R. Myles Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On September 10, 2004 22:26, Net Llama! wrote: > > On 09/10/2004 08:36 AM, Collins Richey wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:57:00 +0100, Terence McCarthy > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:26:06 -0500 (EST) > > >> > > >>Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>Lol. Are you sure this isn't the logic behind the Kerry Campaign > > >>>> or the Bush Campaign? > > >>> > > >>>That would be giving either of them too much credit. > > >> > > >>No, just about enough. > > > > > > Sorry, recent events have overtaken us. The Kerry operatives have > > > just hit an all-time logic deficit (not that the Bush campaign > > > won't catch up, politics being what it is): all who believe that a > > > document using current word processing techniques was typed in the > > > 1970's by a military officer who didn't know how to type (per his > > > wife) please go to the end of the line and try again. > > > > Where'd we'd find the bush campaign huxters with their 'official' > > documents of his military record that uses a font that didn't exist > > at the time. > > http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/10/bush_memo040910.html >
More to the point, I don't think we'll find any Bush campaign huxters with equivalent forged documents. I just didn't want to appear to be giving them a free ride, since there are certainly plenty of huxters in both camps. One interesting aspect of this campaign is the role played by by the new internet sources of news as opposed to the traditional print and television news media. The flash hadn't disappeared from the screen on this blatant attempt to present as news what was in fact a not so carefully crafted hoax before the political blogsters who follow the campaign had begun to analyze the documents and to raise a red flag! In years gone by Dan Rather's attempt to distort the news might have gone unnoticed long enough to have the intended effect. The saddest aspect of the current campaign for me as an independant voter is the lack of choice we are presented. On the one hand I find a Republican incumbent with an ambitious slate of activities that he intends to pursue. I may not agree with 100% of the slate or 100% of his actions in the past four years, but I can at least find material for serious discussion. On the other hand I find a Democrat whose slate appears to be "I'm not George Bush," I'm going to give the French and the Germans more of a say in our [inter]national interests, I'm going to raise your taxes and spend this money as rapidly as possible in new programs (this is supposed to cure the deficit), and I'm going to solve the Iraq war and catch Osama (how? just trust me, I'll think of something later, maybe voting against military and intelligence spending programs will help), and the icing on the cake is the fact that I served honorably in Vietnam for a few months 30 years ago (please ignore everything I've done in the meantime). Oh yes, and somewhere along the way I'll convert the US medical system to a worker's paradise beaurocracy a la Canada or Great Britain. Why do I think the Democratic party has a death wish? Why are prominent Democrats like Zell Miller and the author (yes, he is a Democrat) of the Swift Boat Veterans' document bailing out? Why do the leaders of the Democratic party believe that "I hate George Bush" rhetoric and dirty tricks like the 60 Minutes report is going to secure my vote? Why is the Hate-America-First, Hug-Everybody-And-The-World's-Problems-Will-Go-Away fringe of the party so firmly in control? I doubt that Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy would be welcome in today's Democratic party. Ah, well, the frenzy will be over soon, but not the really serious problems we are facing. -- Collins _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
