« Rehnquist hospitalized | Main | But Wait, There's More... »

October 25, 2004

Comments

Tons, not pounds.

Gracias, Mad Monk.

Von, you are teh greatest.

Someone care to explain the "teh" thing?

You know, I was discussing this exaggeration issue just last week, for a couple of hours, with the entire UN Security Council, and they agree completely. Afterwards, the German ambassador treated me to some rather tasty Spaten Oktoberfest.

Slart, everybody here knows you only drink spirits.

Slart, everybody here knows you only drink spirits.

Actually, beer is my preferred beverage. The chewier, the better.

Tempest. Teapot. Per Joel Mowbray (whose story this is) on Fox this morning the significance of the story is that “I'll never lie to the American people” has been a campaign theme of the Kerry campaign. Yawn.

All together now. Politicians lie. Presidents lie. About small things. About big things. Republican presidents. Democratic presidents.

Someone care to explain the "teh" thing?

It's one of those odd little online geek things, like talking in l33t $p33k or "All your base are belong to us".

Red State readers know by now that the yawns have been fairly well discredited. The story is having its effect. ;-)

Be that as it may, I'll add my "Yawn" in with Von's. Then again, I sometimes think Von is my subconscious self that escapes at night to post my own political opinions, only more coherantly than I could do myself. Maybe this will get the base riled up and mobilized, but are you saying that its having an actual, observed impact on moderates and democrats?

Also, tacitus, are you trevino now? If so, when did that happen?

The story is having its effect

yes, it's making certain blogs positively reek with desperation.

Red State readers know by now that the yawns have been fairly well discredited. The story is having its effect. ;-)

Maybe. I mean, at this stage of the game, the goal is simply to use up the other side's oxygen. This story, while not exactly compelling, is using up some. So, I suppose that's something.*

*It's the Republican equivalent Kerry's flu vaccine charges.

Tacitus: Red State readers know by now that the yawns have been fairly well discredited. The story is having its effect. ;-)

I suppose if Bush takes Ohio by one vote, then you guys can pat yourselves on the back.

von: *It's the Republican equivalent Kerry's flu vaccine charges.

Except folks actually care about the flu vaccine shortage. I doubt they much care whether Kerry met with the ambassador from Colombia, Carroll from Ohio excepted. I'd say this is closer to the story about Bush allegedly being sentenced to community service but later claiming he was asked to help run the organization in question.

The yawns have not, in fact, been discredited. My yawn was all too real. Especially since it was around midnight or so when I heard the news.

Except folks actually care about the flu vaccine shortage.

Yes, but it's unfair to lay fault at the feet of the Bush Adminstration.

"Yes, but it's unfair to lay fault at the feet of the Bush Adminstration."

How is that? They had years of warning. Our overseas friends took heed of that warning and made sure there were sufficient alternate sources available.

Re: your update

if it's some kind of victory that they've managed to get people to talk about this, it's a rather slight one, since it gives the pro-Kerry side a chance to bring out lists of Bush's own whoppers.

like, you know: "Gosh, I don't think I ever said I wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden. It's one of those ex-a-gg-er-a-tions."

I'm with cleek. I'll see your Security Council exaggeration and raise you one demonstrable Osama lie.

This is desperate simian poo-flinging at its finest.

Rilkefan --

We'd have sufficient flu vaccines if vaccine production was not over-regulated, which (as Drum has pointed out), has been a bipartisan affair.

von, I believe this is wrong, the real problems being a) the impending new tech that will blow away the current methods and b) Bush admin incompetence.

Damn. Von pulled the Drum card. Good move.

Exactly right, Von--both original comments and update.

"Damn. Von pulled the Drum card. Good move."

Kleiman trumps in my view, esp in policy matters.

Wait, is this turning into blog poker?

Dibbs on the joker.

Who said it was supposed to be a silver bullet? Sure, you had lots of folks spending the weekend working themselves up -- Kerry is an al Qaeda sleeper! -- but it wasn't our doing.

Asserting that this isn't a bullet at all wholesale ignores what this story has accomplished. Au contraire -- we have demonstrably affected at least a few votes (which Gromit mocks -- an attitude I strongly urge all Dems to adopt, or at least 527 of them); and Technorati has reported for most of the day that this topic is getting more blog discussion than the preferred lefty subject du jour, looted explosives. We just won a news cycle, folks. And you helped.

As an aside, the argument advanced here is not one of a comparative critique of Kerry versus Bush -- it is pure critique of Kerry. The existence of similar critiques of Bush do not offset nor negate this contention.

Finally, this is flat-out wrong:

So Kerry's essential comment -- I met with the relevant allies, and asked if they were serious about Iraq -- is true.

No. First of all, Singapore, Cameroon and France do not constitute "the relevant allies" where Iraq is concerned. He may have met with UK personnel -- the French say so -- but I am not inclined to believe it, based upon our own contacts with the UK mission. Unfortunately, there's a lot of off the record stuff here that we cannot go into: suffice it to say that when you see "Nothing on record," you're generally safe in assuming that to mean, "Denies any contact off the record." We would never have pushed this story if that weren't the case.

It is simply unreasonable to construe Kerry's "essential comment" as truthful. If I told you at least seven times over a period of several years that I met with all 15 members of group X in one big meeting, and you later found that I'd actually met with three or four members of group X in scattered encounters, you'd think me fundamentally dishonest, and rightly so. Kerry's not exaggerating -- he's lying.

At least there is mild entertainment value in seeing the cadres railing about the Bushian destruction of democracy via serial dishonesty abruptly losing their moral bearings over this. Edward's characterization of Kerry's lies as "misunderstandings" was a choice example.

No, no; if trumps are involved, this is probably blog bridge. :)

(Sadly, I have nothing on-topic to say that praktike and rilkefan haven't already said.)

That was the worst haiku ever.

tacitus: "you'd think me fundamentally dishonest, and rightly so"

Well, until actual evidence emerges one way or the other, I'll continue to think Kerry is at least as honest as you are.

Rilkefan, what's stopping you from calling the missions, eh? We did. And lo -- actual evidence.

That he's a liar.

Actually, von, my understanding of the flu vaccine story is that there are multiple causes. Overregulation, along with slim profit margins for vaccine makers, is one cause. However, it's a cause that was known, and might have been worked around (or altered). Another, more proximate cause seems to have been the FDA's not having responded aggressively to their discovery, in June 2003, of ""systemic quality-control issues" (that) led inspectors to conclude that Chiron wouldn't necessarily be able to discover problems, identify the root cause and take steps to prevent similar issues from arising again", or to Chiron's announcement, in August 2004, that it was having problems. As far as I can tell, the FDA relied on Chiron's assurances that it would ship the vaccine on schedule. Oops.

We just won a news cycle, folks.

That presumes that discussion on blogs is what determines "winning" a news cycle. That also presumes that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Both of those presumptions seem... less than persuasive.

Josh, if you have evidence that the publicity here was "bad" -- which is to say, beneficial to Kerry -- by all means, present it.

That seems less than persuasive.

Josh, if you have evidence that the publicity here was "bad" -- which is to say, beneficial to Kerry -- by all means, present it.

That seems less than persuasive.

Case in point... von's post, and this thread. It shows up on technorati as discussion of RedState's scoop, right?

Despite your parenthetical, "bad publicity" in this case doesn't have to be beneficial to Kerry; it could be neutral from his perspective, but bad from RedState's.

This is a net gain for Red State. The blogs against us are either second-tier or left-wing. The big guns on the right are favorable toward the story. Our traffic is through the roof, and our e-mails have been uniformly positive. That's persuasive.

"And lo -- actual evidence."

You've got a bit of evidence, but nothing like what you need to make your case.

I could make a more reasonable case that your assertions of this being significant as evidence that you're a liar (Tac is smart + Tac is informed + Tac is claiming something false on its face despite challenges = Tac is lying = Tac is a liar) - but "more reasonable" would still leave that case at the silly level.

More generally, I wish you would show more respect for the language. The case for Bush constantly lying (e.g., a random subject) is much better founded but still falters in my view on the question of whether Bush actually knows the truth of what he says. The supposed "lie" by Clinton about "that woman" falters in my view on the interpretation (common in my cohort) of "sex" - so call it a deception at the level of Cheney's Tuesdays on Capitol Hill construction. So however much pleasure it gives you to type "Kerry is a liar" in all directions, I suggest you wait until such a time as you can actually demonstrate it.

Tacitus --

The fundamental point you need to address, but thus far haven't, is how this charge distinguishes Kerry from Bush. It is one thing to say, "lies and exaggerations don't matter"; and you correctly note that those who say such a thing are idiots (moral and otherwise). But that's not what I'm saying.

This is a two person race. Voting for Joey from the CT (aka, the Ninja) is no longer an option. If you resign yourself to this fact -- as, living in reality, you and I have -- one does not prefer Bush over Kerry merely because Kerry is bad on issue X. One must also show that Bush is better. On the issue of exaggerations, I simply fail to see how this story shows that Kerry is qaulitatively worse than Bush.

BTW, I love the "But this totally destroys Kerry's claim that he'll be honest with the country" -- which implicitly concedes that Bush can't make the same claim.

Who said it was supposed to be a silver bullet?

One very rarely hypes a story the Monday before a weekend unless one believes it has significant legs. Despite some good legwork to put it together, this one is a tempest in a blogoday. It's already petering out. (FYI: When your primary booster is Michelle Malkin, you're in serious trouble. And the fact that the Faegre lawyers -- aka "Powerline" -- aren't pushing it is telling in my book.)

No. First of all, Singapore, Cameroon and France do not constitute "the relevant allies" where Iraq is concerned. He may have met with UK personnel -- the French say so -- but I am not inclined to believe it, based upon our own contacts with the UK mission. Unfortunately, there's a lot of off the record stuff here that we cannot go into: suffice it to say that when you see "Nothing on record," you're generally safe in assuming that to mean, "Denies any contact off the record." We would never have pushed this story if that weren't the case.

I happen to trust that you wouldn't, Tacitus. But "trust us" does not make a political charge stick.

Look what you're conceding: Kerry did meet with France and likely the UK, as well as a couple other S.C. members. (He may also have met with Germany, who wasn't on the S.C.) France, the UK, and Germany are the key countries in the EU and NATO. They are the ones who, economically and otherwise, had the power to open or close the coalition. For all practical purposes, they are the S.C. (I realize that this denigrates Russia, China and Syria, among others; my interest, however, is not to tell diplomatic niceties. My interest is to deal in political realities.)

Again, the issue is not whether Kerry lied (granting for the moment it is properly termed a "lie"). The issue is the materiality of the "lie," and how it distinguishes Kerry from Bush. Is this a "bright line" between the candidates? Fairly considered, the answer here is "not really."

The blogs against us are either second-tier or left-wing. The big guns on the right are favorable toward the story.

Whoo-hoo! We made it to the second tier!

This is a net gain for Red State.

That's cool. I wasn't arguing, btw, that it was in fact bad publicity for you guys, just making the point that you hadn't substantiated that it was *good* just yet. (And I'm not sure what the fact that the blogs who are against you are "left-wing" has to do with anything; if more people, and more undecided people, get their info from them than from the blogs favorable to you, that still looks like a loss to me.) And, like I said, the notion that you guys getting a bounce out of this constitutes "winning a news cycle" still seems less than persuasive. If the major news outlets pick up on it, *that's* persuasive.

von, I'm afraid he considers this blog left-wing (and it does in fact need more Moe [and more von] and another conservative voice in my view).

Anyway, by the above standard the box-on-Bush's-back was a home run for the lefty blogs compared to this Jeteresque bunt.

Monday before a weekend

Aaargh. That should be "Friday before a weekend." Sorry.

Maybe I'm just not up on what the right wing thinks "victory" means these days, but it's not a word I'd use for when some guy announces that he's happy to waste a bunch of his time getting me to waste some of mine.

Then again, I guess it IS a victory when all those folks who have time and inclination to read and post at Red State have something to talk about. Something other than their standard bearer.

von, I'm afraid he considers this blog left-wing (and it does in fact need more Moe [and more von] and another conservative voice in my view).

Well, the real problem is that, though I despise Kerry, I've given up on Bush. (I hasten to add, though, that if he wins, I'm sure the Republic will survive.)

By the way, I find it extremely bizarre to suddenly be part of the right/center right. It wasn't so long ago that I was clearly a lefty.

The blogs against us are either second-tier or left-wing. The big guns on the right are favorable toward the story. Our traffic is through the roof, and our e-mails have been uniformly positive. That's persuasive.

Considering that both the Blogs you have been involved with are either third or fourth tier on a good week... a really good week!!!

von, I long for the day when I can imagine voting Republican again. I used to do it fairly often. In my universe, Bush&Co are not Republicans. I await the return to power (or at least a return to having a say) of the states' rights, fiscally conservative, less government, non-Christian-Coalition moderates.

As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another reason to vote for Kerry -- the chance that there might be some changes in the Republican party if Bush is defeated.

I'm hoping beyond hope that starting next January, I can start picking on the Kerry administration. I'd be happy to be an equal opportunity critic if Bush&Co were gone.

Wait a minute. Is Tacitus saying his story was a winner because a bunch of RW blogs paid attention to it?

Oh, man. That's so sad.

It's nice to see that Tacitus has dived face first into right-wing hackery. Good show.

By the way, thanks for banning me. I was spending too much time on your site anyway.

The blogs against us are either second-tier . . .

Oh, I can't believe that I missed the US World News annual blog rankings!

Chuchundra, when was that?

From the Moonie Times so not anything like "actual evidence" the admin is suffering "utter lunacy": psych screening for all Americans.

France, the UK, and Germany are the key countries in the EU and NATO. They are the ones who, economically and otherwise, had the power to open or close the coalition. For all practical purposes, they are the S.C. (I realize that this denigrates Russia, China and Syria, among others; my interest, however, is not to tell diplomatic niceties. My interest is to deal in political realities

I'm sorry. But this is almost funny. In what way does Germany have more importance, power, or influence than China and Russia--on the Security Council or otherwise.

Even within NATO, Germany was only important to the extent that the assets were stationed there.

I'll grant thhat Germany has more influence in the EU since China and Russia are members, but the EU doesn't see particularly relevant to this discussion.

Was there are record of Kerry meeting with Germany's UN mission? I don't remember that being mentioned (probably because they weren't part of the SC)

Oops:
...since China and Russia are NOT members...

Chuchundra: By the way, thanks for banning me. I was spending too much time on your site anyway.

Life only gets better after being banned from Tacitus. ;-)

Rilkefan,

Well, apparently Tac doesn't like the implication that he's not completely honest and so he's encouraged me to pursue my writing elsewhere.

Hey, maybe you guys should start a 'banned from Tacitus' blog? The way the temp is increasing over there, Harley might be joining y'all...

When we pulled into Tacitus, in need of R & R,
The Left set out investigating every joint and bar,
We had high expectations of their hospitality,
Too bad they weren't geared to handle lib'ral-types like we...

And we're banned from Tacitus, every one,
Banned from Tacitus just for having a little fun,
We spent a jolly shore leave there of just three days, no more,
But Tacitus doesn't want us anymore!

Redstate would actually scan better, but I'm not banned from Redstate.

but I'm not banned from Redstate.

Slacker.

Whatever y'all do on your own blogs is your own business; I won't, however, accept a five-or-six-ad-hom-one. Address the arguments, not the man. (And, yes, my response would be the same if there were six or seven righties ganging up on, say, Jes.)

heh, heh,

I'm banned from RedState, but not Tacitus...wanna trade Jes?

Edward, I think Von just told us all to quiet down. I will quit filking. (It's a nasty habit, anyway.)

Edward, I think Von just told us all to quiet down.

my bad...

that's what I get for skimming a comment thread.

Von's right.

Still, I think we should have a free-for-all purge of all this civility here one day...an open thread of nasty habits and bad manners...kinda like Mardi Gras for the blogging soul. Then calmly return to our better selves...

just an idea.

Still, I think we should have a free-for-all purge of all this civility here one day...an open thread of nasty habits and bad manners

I think that's a very, very bad idea.

Really, seriously, I do.

I guess I imagined it being more good natured and humorous than you do Jes, but given the seriousness of your response, I suppose there's more animosity lurking out there than I realize.

Yes, Edward, I do. To the extent that if such an open thread were started, I wouldn't participate. It might start out friendly and amusing, but I think you could bet on it it would all end in tears.

My mom always said that it's all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out...

...yeah, then it's just fun.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad