Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign

On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
Well, I don't see him winning.

Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and
not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I
heard, he hasn't apologized, either.

He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures,
getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition
circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will
be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't
make the cut.

And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According
to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a
statistical tie in just one week.

The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat
again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe
they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election.

Grey Satterfield

Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33%
Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one
way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and
those will be hard to come by.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/


Yep.

I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

Grey Satterfield

Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
Well, I don't see him winning.

Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and
not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I
heard, he hasn't apologized, either.

He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures,
getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition
circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will
be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't
make the cut.

And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According
to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a
statistical tie in just one week.

The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat
again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe
they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election.

Grey Satterfield

Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33%
Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one
way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and
those will be hard to come by.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/


Yep.

I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

Grey Satterfield

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

The thing to remember is that Connecticut allows virtual last minute
substitutions so a least one multi-millionaire Republican who ran
against Dowd in 2004 is a possible drop-in. Similarly, if Rumsfeld
decides to retire and Bush names Lieberman to be SecDef, a scenario
which may have gotten Lieberman into his problems in the first place,
all bets are off. That 24% Republican is not good in a New England blue
state.

On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
Well, I don't see him winning.

Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and
not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I
heard, he hasn't apologized, either.

He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures,
getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition
circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will
be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't
make the cut.

And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According
to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a
statistical tie in just one week.

The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat
again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe
they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election.

Grey Satterfield

Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33%
Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one
way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and
those will be hard to come by.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/


Yep.

I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

Grey Satterfield

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

Grey Satterfield

Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
Well, I don't see him winning.

Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and
not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I
heard, he hasn't apologized, either.

He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures,
getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition
circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will
be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't
make the cut.

And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According
to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a
statistical tie in just one week.

The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat
again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe
they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election.

Grey Satterfield

Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33%
Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one
way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and
those will be hard to come by.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/


Yep.

I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

Grey Satterfield

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

Grey Satterfield

I can sense that you have never written a headline

Leadfoot wrote:
One, it's a little late and the timing is a little suspicious.

Two, Joe might need a new job and he would be a leading candidate to replace
Rumsfeld

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/...nate_lieberman

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the
White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the
Iraqis.

Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running
as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic
nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters' anger against the
war in Iraq.

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for
Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six
years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in
Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into
Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go
on and live happily ever after," he said.

Lieberman said the administration must "put severe pressure on the Iraqis to
contain sectarian violence."

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up
and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and
would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for
trying to "paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed 'stay the
course' policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the
need to change course."

"His new found 'criticism' of the war won't convince Connecticut voters
after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush's failed policies,"
the statement said.

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont's primary campaign. He calls for
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as "a bloody
civil war," and says he believes that those who got America into the
conflict should be held accountable.

Lieberman accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's
happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we
did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical
over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send
enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate
plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

"As bad as things are now - and they've gotten worse in the last six
months - it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're
getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a
position Ned Lamont has taken."

Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by
its criticism of Lieberman as being too close to President Bush.

Asked about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was quoted as saying that
Lieberman echoes Republicans, Lieberman said it was "just plain politics by
somebody who has ambitions of his own."

"I voted 90 percent of the time with a majority of Democrats in the U.S.
Senate," he said.

"I'm worried that my party may become what we've accused the Republicans of,
a kind of litmus-test party," he said. "If you don't agree with us 100
percent of the time, you don't agree with us. I'm devoted to the Democratic
Party."

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont is trailing Lieberman by 12
percentage points among likely voters. It said much of Lieberman's advantage
comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the
largest voting block in Connecticut.

One of the reasons why Joe Lieberman is having so much trouble
convincing Connecticut voters that he should remain their Senator is
his ability to seem more Republican that the Republicans at unfortunate
times. On a very conservative, for non-Fox TV, talk show he gives the
World War III, no civil war in Iraq and the war in Iraq is necessary to
fight terrorism at home. In 15 minutes. There aren't many Republicans
running for office this year that could come close to that litany.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/ny...gewanted=print
August 23, 2006
Lieberman Warns of Danger of the U.S. Pulling Out of Iraq
By JENNIFER MEDINA

HARTFORD, Aug 22 - Suggesting that he sees parallels between the war
in Iraq and the early struggle against fascism, Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman said on Tuesday that the United States would create a
dangerous world if it left Iraq too soon.

"Iraq has now become what everyone thinks it was before, another
battlefield in this war with Islamic terrorists, and we've got to end
it with a victory," Mr. Lieberman said during an interview with the
nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck on
Tuesday.

In the 15-minute interview, Mr. Lieberman warned against the United
States becoming isolationist, and he seemed to agree with Mr. Beck's
repeated statements suggesting that the war against Islamic terrorists
represented the brink of an international war.

When Mr. Beck compared the current situation to the eve of World War
II, saying that that world was in denial then as it is now, Mr.
Lieberman said there were "very, very severe echoes of all that."

"You know somebody said to me that Iraq, if you look back at it, is
going to be like the Spanish Civil War, which was the harbinger of what
was to come," Mr. Lieberman said. "Also, as the Nazis began to move
in Europe, we tried to convince ourselves we contained them - and we
obviously didn't, and then we paid the price."

At one point in the interview, Mr. Beck asked pointedly, "Why is it
there aren't more politicians saying, 'Guys, this is World War III.
We are in deep trouble?' "

Mr. Lieberman responded by saying that he thought that both Republicans
and Democrats treat "politics as if it was a sport in which you are
on one team," and that "the aim is for that team to win."

"And when you do that, you forget that there are larger interests,
which is the interests of the United States of America," he said.
"The other thing going on here is that you know people don't like
to face the reality of danger, and maybe some politicians don't like
to be the ones to talk about it. But everything you've just said is
right."

Ned Lamont, who defeated Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary in
part by stoking antiwar sentiment, said that Mr. Lieberman's comments
put him "way outside the mainstream, not just of Democrats, but of
the public at large."

Mr. Lamont has said he would back a plan for a firm timeline of troop
withdrawal from Iraq, a position supported by several other Democrats
in the Senate.

"Nobody is talking about isolationism," Mr. Lamont said, responding
in a telephone interview to Mr. Lieberman's remarks. "The problem
is that the Bush administration and Senator Lieberman think that you
can fight this like a conventional war, and that's where they are
wrong. We have to deal with homeland security, port security, to really
protect ourselves."

Mr. Lieberman also reiterated his belief that the war against
terrorists could drag on for several years, and that pulling troops out
of Iraq would allow the Iranian government to move in and would
increase the price of oil.

"If we walk away, then the Iranians will - as sure as I am talking
to you - surge into Iraq, certainly take over the south and the oil
that's there," he said. "We'll be paying six or seven bucks a
gallon. And that'll just be the tip of it. I mean, there'll be
instability and war throughout the Middle East. We've got to wake up
to this. It is the test, unfortunately, of not just this generation of
American leaders, but of the next generation as well, because this
enemy ain't going away."

Mr. Lamont said that Mr. Lieberman was using overcharged rhetoric and
said that he "fundamentally disagreed" with the senator.

"The invasion of Iraq has had one big winner and that's Iran,"
Mr. Lamont said. "It's an enemy that is not going away, but that
has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been a
distraction and made us weaker."

Later, in appearance with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Mr. Lieberman said that
the war in Iraq had not undermined the credibility of efforts to deal
with terror threats. Mr. Lieberman also said that he did not believe
Iraq was already in a civil war, a term Mr. Lamont uses regularly.

On 8/23/06 11:21 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

I can sense that you have never written a headline

Their may be something to the excuse Jack posits for the pollster's
headline, so let's try this. Suppose I should concede that the pollster
wrote the headline in good faith and that it was reasonably fair. Would
Jack then concede that ABC News's headline, "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New
Cheney," was also written in good faith and was also reasonably fair? I'll
bet I already know the answer.

Grey Satterfield

On 8/23/06 3:12 PM, in article , "Grey
Satterfield" wrote:

On 8/23/06 11:21 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even
so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

I can sense that you have never written a headline

Their may be something to the excuse Jack posits for the pollster's
headline, so let's try this. Suppose I should concede that the pollster
wrote the headline in good faith and that it was reasonably fair. Would
Jack then concede that ABC News's headline, "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New
Cheney," was also written in good faith and was also reasonably fair? I'll
bet I already know the answer.

Grey Satterfield

"Their" should have been "there." I thought I should do that before Hines
plays GOTTCHA! with me -- again.

Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 11:21 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:
I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.

Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

I can sense that you have never written a headline

Their may be something to the excuse Jack posits for the pollster's
headline, so let's try this. Suppose I should concede that the pollster
wrote the headline in good faith and that it was reasonably fair. Would
Jack then concede that ABC News's headline, "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New
Cheney," was also written in good faith and was also reasonably fair? I'll
bet I already know the answer.

Grey Satterfield

I said the last time that " I can sense that you have never written a
headline" There are a set of concepts that go into a headline that are
supposed to included the elements of the story below and not give it a
slant either way. Almost the only way you can tell a modern newspaper's
political slant, other than local stories, editorials and the "big"
papers, is by their headlines. Modern headlines are not "written in
good faith and reasonable fairness" they are written to fit the space
provided and reflect the character of the owner of the medium.

Several times I have pointed out how the same news wire story in one
paper appears to be a very conservative one while the same story in
another paper appears liberal. This is the headline talking. If you
can't recognize that you may not recognize the next item:


Now that amazing story of a guy driving all over the country in a fake
FEMA trailor just to meet the President and say he wishes he could
serve another four years. Usual Republican bull****. The guy is a
failed Republican politician -- a highly successful businessman in the
fast-food industry -- a Republican pol, having run unsuccessfully
under the GOP banner for a seat on the St. Bernard Parish commission
back in 1999. What a country!

http://www.attytood.com/archives/003647.html

"Rockey I": If it sounds too good to be true...

The good news is that CNN seems to have finally stop obsessing over
John Mark Karr. Instead, they've found a new soap opera to go ga-ga
over, Katrina survivor Rockey Vaccarella, who drove his FEMA trailer
from his home in ravaged St. Bernard Parish to Washington with "the
hope" of convincing President Bush to meet with him.

You can see why TV loves this story (the guy's named 'Rockey,' for
cryin' out loud!), because to those who pay casual attention, i.e., the
vast majority of viewers, the parallels to another news story are
striking.

It was exactly one year ago that the headlines were all about Bush, on
another lengthy vacation in Crawford, refusing to meet with an average
American who was devastated by a tragedy -- Cindy Sheehan, whose son
was killed in Iraq. It was a publicity bloodbath, and it rolled right
into the horrors of Katrina and a seemingly indifferent White House,
beginning the long slide in Bush's approval rating.

Now comes Rockey, a plain-talking character who lost it all in Katrina,
who nearly died in the hurricane, forced to hang onto a rope for four
hours (some of that was captured on film), and now wants to government
to do more for Katrina victims. And what a difference a year makes --
not only did Bush, not in Crawford but hard at work in the White House,
meet with this "average American," but check out the glowing praise our
president received in return.

First, here's the way that the media spun the meeting: A triumph for
the little guy:

CNN's RICK SANCHEZ: I don't know if you were watching a couple days
ago, but you might remember that we talked to a man named Rockey
Vaccarella. I got a lot of phone calls on this interview. He's a
Katrina victim who was driving to the White House with a FEMA trailer.
And he seemed to strike a nerve with people. He's there now. He's
actually been invited inside. He wanted to go and met with the
president. Well, guess what, the president has decided to meet with
him. Last night he met with Donald Powell (ph), the government's point
man for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Told him just what he and his family
went through during Katrina.

A minute later:

SANCHEZ: And amazing his persistence because he was originally told
that the president was just busy. Look, he's not going to be able to
meet with you.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: He's like, that's all right. I'm still going.
SANCHEZ: I'm going to hang out there.
O'BRIEN: I've driven all this way.
SANCHEZ: He was confident when he told us that the president would come
out and find a way to talk to him.

Here's so here's what Rockey told the nation just now on TV:

You know, it's really amazing when a small man like me from St. Bernard
Parish can meet the President of the United States. The President is a
people person. I knew that from the beginning. I was confident that I
could meet President Bush.

And my mission was very simple. I wanted to thank President Bush for
the millions of FEMA trailers that were brought down there. They gave
roofs over people's head. People had the chance to have baths, air
condition. We have TV, we have toiletry, we have things that are
necessities that we can live upon.

But now, I wanted to remind the President that the job's not done, and
he knows that. And I just don't want the government and President Bush
to forget about us. And I just wish the President could have another
term in Washington.

This guy is a symbol of the misery that so many people in Louisiana and
Mississippi? If we didn't know any better, this couldn't have been more
of home run for Bush if the whole thing had been set up by Karl Rove.

Hmmmmm...

In fact, we had a hunch -- that maybe, just maybe, Rockey Vaccarella
had a background himself in GOP politics.

And, whaddya know? Turns out that the earthy Vaccarella -- a highly
successful businessman in the fast-food industry -- is indeed a
Republican pol, having run unsuccessfully under the GOP banner for a
seat on the St. Bernard Parish commission back in 1999. We don't have a
good link, but here (via Nexis) is part of his bio that ran in the New
Orleans Times-Picayune on Oct. 15, 1999:

ROCKEY VACCARELLA
PERSONAL
Republican
35. Born in New Orleans. Grew up in Arabi and Chalmette. Lived 11 years
in
Meraux.
Married, two children.
Graduated from Chalmette High, 1982. Attended St. Bernard Community
College.
Director of operations, Lundy Enterprises, as manager of 31 Pizza Hut
restaurants and 450 employees. Former general restaurant manager of
Popeye's Chicken & Biscuits on East Judge Perez Drive in Chalmette.

And in fact, Vaccarella seemed very confident that he would be meeting
with Bush when he left home, to the point where he had a date scheduled
and everything:

Dinner with the President is planned for the evening of August 22nd.

As it turned out, dinner last night was with the White House aide
running Katrina relief, and he met Bush at the White House today. Close
enough. Before he left Louisiana earlier this month, Vaccarella made it
clear that he's no Cindy Sheehan:

"We want to thank President Bush and the American people for everything
they have done so far for south Louisiana and the Gulf Coast region
but, to remind everyone that the job is not complete and to please do
whatever is possible to help clean-up and re-build so our people can
return home."

Shouldn't the media be a tad more skeptical about events like these?
And isn't the fact that Vaccarella was once a Republican candidate for
office a relevant fact that should be mentioned, to help viewers place
his effusive, nationally televised praise in context. With Vaccarella
the "Katrina soundbite" of the day, TV is not reporting this:

The job of clearing debris left by the storm remains unfinished, and
has been plagued by accusations of fraud and price gouging. Tens of
thousands of families still live in trailers or mobile homes, with no
indication of when or how they will be able to obtain permanent
housing. Important decisions about rebuilding and improving flood
defenses have been delayed. And little if anything has been done to
ensure the welfare of the poor in a rebuilt New Orleans.

This is a White House that has pledged, as you recall, "create our own
reality," and they're doing it again. How many times we will in the
media act as Charlie Brown, kicking with futility at the phony football
that Rove and this White House hold out for us, again and again and
again.

Posted on August 23, 2006 12:05 PM

"Grey Satterfield" wrote ...
On 8/23/06 11:21 AM, in article

"Jack Linthicum" wrote:


I can sense that you have never written a headline

Their may be something to the excuse Jack posits for the pollster's
headline, so let's try this. Suppose I should concede that the pollster
wrote the headline in good faith and that it was reasonably fair. Would
Jack then concede that ABC News's headline, "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New
Cheney," was also written in good faith and was also reasonably fair?
I'll
bet I already know the answer.


Having earlier in life spent 5 years as the part time and undersompensated
resurant reviewer for a newspaper of modest circulation and done a stint
wriuting all to much bad ad copy - including headlines in both ventures - I
tend endorse Grey's opinion to the extent that I don't quite understand why
Jack seems so needful of straining at gnats. After all, it's politics being
written/pontificated about.

All sorts of Biblical references asides, analogies and comparisons
simplified and getting to the heart of the issue, "Former but Again Unlikely
Candidate" Kerry (the Dems and their "Red Dean" being oft foolish but not
outright fools) was (at least by ABC's bar) saying that since mr. Lieberman
talked like VP Cheney, they must be closely related in views and
perspectives.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, chances are it'sa duck.

Gee, Jack, I'm not sure why you're so upset about Kerry's intonation being
translated by the media, much as if we were arguing over the joint and
several ages and sexes of all those poor Viets that he had us (and himself)
murdering right and left. Like last time, he picked his stage, chose the
uniform of the day and made his remarks. Like Senator Floridoso Pomposo of
the Shattered Capillaries, the Commonwealth's Senior Senator, Kerry seems to
need a crew of muckers-out trailing him to edit, alter and redirect the
remarks that flow from the Augean Stables of his fertile and imaginative
mind.

If the choice comes down to former naval officers I may come around to being
able to Vote for McCain, a fellow over whom anda number of beers one of his
ex-squadron mates raised some highly critical issues, but showing up in his
utilities, bleeding all over the hearing table, soured me permanently on he
who was an officer but avoided the gentleman part.

TMO

TOliver wrote:
"Grey Satterfield" wrote ...
On 8/23/06 11:21 AM, in article

"Jack Linthicum" wrote:


I can sense that you have never written a headline

Their may be something to the excuse Jack posits for the pollster's
headline, so let's try this. Suppose I should concede that the pollster
wrote the headline in good faith and that it was reasonably fair. Would
Jack then concede that ABC News's headline, "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New
Cheney," was also written in good faith and was also reasonably fair?
I'll
bet I already know the answer.


Having earlier in life spent 5 years as the part time and undersompensated
resurant reviewer for a newspaper of modest circulation and done a stint
wriuting all to much bad ad copy - including headlines in both ventures - I
tend endorse Grey's opinion to the extent that I don't quite understand why
Jack seems so needful of straining at gnats. After all, it's politics being
written/pontificated about.

All sorts of Biblical references asides, analogies and comparisons
simplified and getting to the heart of the issue, "Former but Again Unlikely
Candidate" Kerry (the Dems and their "Red Dean" being oft foolish but not
outright fools) was (at least by ABC's bar) saying that since mr. Lieberman
talked like VP Cheney, they must be closely related in views and
perspectives.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, chances are it'sa duck.

Gee, Jack, I'm not sure why you're so upset about Kerry's intonation being
translated by the media, much as if we were arguing over the joint and
several ages and sexes of all those poor Viets that he had us (and himself)
murdering right and left. Like last time, he picked his stage, chose the
uniform of the day and made his remarks. Like Senator Floridoso Pomposo of
the Shattered Capillaries, the Commonwealth's Senior Senator, Kerry seems to
need a crew of muckers-out trailing him to edit, alter and redirect the
remarks that flow from the Augean Stables of his fertile and imaginative
mind.

If the choice comes down to former naval officers I may come around to being
able to Vote for McCain, a fellow over whom anda number of beers one of his
ex-squadron mates raised some highly critical issues, but showing up in his
utilities, bleeding all over the hearing table, soured me permanently on he
who was an officer but avoided the gentleman part.

TMO

Okay, I have no axe to grind on Kerry. I got asked about what I
considered a rather dimwitted attempt to make some sort of political
hay out of a headline. If you have any newspaper experience you know
the headline is the least important part of the story, but as I have
constantly said here is the only part that many people read. Making a
paper with a certain slant (we don't write headlines here with the name
of Democrats or Republicans in them, son) a "conservative" or "liberal"
paper when the story is the same in both, the only difference is the
hed.

As I have said several times the people I talked to in this time frame
did not seem to have any compunction about what was happening, contract
employees and arms experts are who I talked to and they didn't think
about what needed to be done as far as they were concerned.

I would say that the junior senator needs someone to shut his stupid
mouth up, he just cost himself a shot at a high federal office with his
personal prejudices. Several people in the Republican side of Virginia
have commented previously on his inability to understand that Virginia
went back into the Union in the 1870s and it is not a Western state
anyway.