Distorting the record

[Colleen Thomas]

I think it's a sad state of affairs that we have political ads at all. Political ads are just what they call themselves: "ads". The whole point is to bash the competing brand and play up your brand and the one who does it best is the one who lies the loudest. Every political ad I have ever seen has been laughable. The fact that the deciding swing voters most often vote on these "informative tv ads" is the reason why this isn't so much a democracy as a plutocracy sustained by stupidity.

The political process, from voting to ungerrymandering districts to the electoral college to campaigns to fundraising to the two party system, is long overdue for a major overhaul. Traditions need to be broken in order to get these smug assholes in Washington to stop fucking us with the ful knowledge that they won't pay for it.

Political ads have been with us since the begining LC. The only thing that has changed is thier ability to reach a wide audience and their slickness. Oh and the fact that they now rarely carry out and out lies, which isn't true of campaigns prior to World War I.

Overhauling the system would require changes everyone would agree were changes for the good. I don't see it happening. The status Quo is comfortable for most folks. It's worked for over 200 years and the maxim if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies. For all of the haggling and humiliation florida produced in 2000 one message that everyone got was yes, your vote very well could be important, despite being one among millions.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Oh and the fact that they now rarely carry out and out lies, which isn't true of campaigns prior to World War I.

Overhauling the system would require changes everyone would agree were changes for the good. I don't see it happening. The status Quo is comfortable for most folks. It's worked for over 200 years and the maxim if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies. For all of the haggling and humiliation florida produced in 2000 one message that everyone got was yes, your vote very well could be important, despite being one among millions.

-Colly

I disagree. With Swift Boat Veterans for Peace and a few other ones this season we are seeing our share of total fact-devoid bullshit. It's one of the reasons that while people are willing to say "yes, Kerry distorts himself to win swing voters" they also say that Bush is continuing his winning strategy of telling bold-faced lies.

Yeah, I know the change is never going to happen. Once something becomes a tradition, you simply can't get rid of it without serious work and angry prtoest.

I disagree on Florida. I got the impression from the whole thing that the big message was "we won't let your vote be important if there's a chance it'll cost us the White House." The Bush, Gore debate on how to recount, the political games with the black voters and the butterfly ballots, and the anti-democratic and illegal way the Supreme Court stepped in. All of it bad.

The real thing that gave the message you said was Arizona. Where people's votes were key but the stakes weren't as high.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I disagree. With Swift Boat Veterans for Peace and a few other ones this season we are seeing our share of total fact-devoid bullshit. It's one of the reasons that while people are willing to say "yes, Kerry distorts himself to win swing voters" they also say that Bush is continuing his winning strategy of telling bold-faced lies.

Yeah, I know the change is never going to happen. Once something becomes a tradition, you simply can't get rid of it without serious work and angry prtoest.

I disagree on Florida. I got the impression from the whole thing that the big message was "we won't let your vote be important if there's a chance it'll cost us the White House." The Bush, Gore debate on how to recount, the political games with the black voters and the butterfly ballots, and the anti-democratic and illegal way the Supreme Court stepped in. All of it bad.

The real thing that gave the message you said was Arizona. Where people's votes were key but the stakes weren't as high.

I wish I could give you a copy of one of my prize books, sadly it never went to publication due to a disagreement between the two professors who co authored it. I managed to con one of them out of a pre production copy. It basically outlines the dirtiest campaigns in U.S. history.

Today you have to distort the truth or make assertions that you can at least in some way support. Back in some of these campaigns, you could just out and out lie. Candidates were accused of practically every offense to man and god known, up to and including incest and beastialty, without a shred of proof.

The mud slinging back then makes today's campaigns seem benign in comparrison.

the sins of yesteryear do not excuse the sins of today, but they provide a context for what you are seeing now that explains more eloquently than words why you are seeing it.

Attack ads have turned more thn one election around and given victory to a candidate who seemed doomed. Truman defeating Dewy is the classic example of this.

Bottom line is, it works. If you can't show yourself in a good light, your best bet is to make you opponent look even worse. Sophistry is alive and well, only the medium has changed.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I wish I could give you a copy of one of my prize books, sadly it never went to publication due to a disagreement between the two professors who co authored it. I managed to con one of them out of a pre production copy. It basically outlines the dirtiest campaigns in U.S. history.

Today you have to distort the truth or make assertions that you can at least in some way support. Back in some of these campaigns, you could just out and out lie. Candidates were accused of practically every offense to man and god known, up to and including incest and beastialty, without a shred of proof.

The mud slinging back then makes today's campaigns seem benign in comparrison.

the sins of yesteryear do not excuse the sins of today, but they provide a context for what you are seeing now that explains more eloquently than words why you are seeing it.

Attack ads have turned more thn one election around and given victory to a candidate who seemed doomed. Truman defeating Dewy is the classic example of this.

Bottom line is, it works. If you can't show yourself in a good light, your best bet is to make you opponent look even worse. Sophistry is alive and well, only the medium has changed.

-Colly

I hear that. <raises beer glass>

 

[Teenage Venus]

One of the biggest problems in American government is that our elected representatives don't actually 'represent' their constituencies. As a young student in elementary school learning about democracy vs. every other kind of government, I had formed the mistaken impression that the people we elect into office are supposed to champion the positions of the people who elected them. As an example, only one member of Congress voted against going to war in Iraq despite the massive protests across the country. One. After she was vilified in the press for her opposing vote, she explained that she had a duty and responsibility to represent her District, and the people in her District were opposed to going to war with Iraq.

I fault our Congress for failing to live up to their responsibilities and failing to adequately represent the views of the people who elected them. I fault Americans for not holding their representatives accountable, and for gullibly swallowing the disingenuous rhetoric spewed by both parties. Kerry and Bush represent their political parties and ambitions; neither represents me.

As one young 'un supporting another sensible person, I say, "Okay, 'experts', pick holes in that. And ask yourself 'Who is to blame?', then tell us your answer.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

As one young 'un supporting another sensible person, I say, "Okay, 'experts', pick holes in that. And ask yourself 'Who is to blame?', then tell us your answer.

One hole I would poke in it would be massive protest. Even a protest of 1 million people, which I don't remeber any of the organized protests approaching would still be less than 1/294 th of the population at large.

Senators & reps, no matter what their other faults, remain closely attuned to public opinion in their district or state. If Joh C. Filabuster (I) Iowa voted to go to war, you can bet it was because his folks back home told him that would take him further along the path to getting reelected than voting against it would have.

The country was angry. The electorate was scared and at the time there were few who questioned the legitimacy of the Administration's case for war with Iraq.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I can't agree that today's attack ads are no more than business as usual. I’m aware of nineteenth century campaign techniques and of smearing a candidate’s character with accusations of immorality and drunkenness and outright lies, but there’s something especially sleazy about accusing John Mc Cain-- a POW for what? 4 years?--of collusion with the enemy, or of phoning the voters of South Carolina on the eve of the republican primary and reminding them of Mc Cain’s “black baby” (McCain adopted a child from Bangladesh) Both of these tactics are vintage Karl Rove.

I’ve followed elections for a while now, and I’ve seen distortions and attacks and dirty tricks, but these Swift Boat ads define a new level of chutzpah to me. They’re totally without honor. And soare me the lie that the Bush campaign has nothing to do with them. The republicans had said as far back as the Iowa caucas they were going to attack his war record.

As I said earlier, I’m willing to be corrected, but I’d like to know what the dems have said about Bush that was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

---dr.M.

 

[Teenage Venus]

One hole I would poke in it would be massive protest. Even a protest of 1 million people, which I don't remeber any of the organized protests approaching would still be less than 1/294 th of the population at large.

Protest DO work - eventually, provided they are peaceful. It takes time -Viet Nam for instance.

Senators & reps, no matter what their other faults, remain closely attuned to public opinion in their district or state. If Joh C. Filabuster (I) Iowa voted to go to war, you can bet it was because his folks back home told him that would take him further along the path to getting reelected than voting against it would have.

It was probably true it would take him further - and keep those around him employed, so they would advocate it.

I doubt if it was the honest feeling of the man in the street.

I agree they were scared, they were almost certainly also ignorant of the true facts - relying on our censored media.

That is why I advocate US citizens drop their complacency, and seek the truth by garnering a general concensus from sourses outside the USA, via radio/web/international newspapers, etc.

If you think about it: Our 'democratic government system', just does not exist. Irrespective of incumbent President, we are run my a multi-headed Dictatorship of a quango of big business heads. Government toes the line or gets the chop - Kennedy, for instance. (They couldn't allow him to put through his latest proposed measure.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I can't agree that today's attack ads are no more than business as usual. I’m aware of nineteenth century campaign techniques and of smearing a candidate’s character with accusations of immorality and drunkenness and outright lies, but there’s something especially sleazy about accusing John Mc Cain-- a POW for what? 4 years?--of collusion with the enemy, or of phoning the voters of South Carolina on the eve of the republican primary and reminding them of Mc Cain’s “black baby” (McCain adopted a child from Bangladesh) Both of these tactics are vintage Karl Rove.

I’ve followed elections for a while now, and I’ve seen distortions and attacks and dirty tricks, but these Swift Boat ads define a new level of chutzpah to me. They’re totally without honor. And soare me the lie that the Bush campaign has nothing to do with them. The republicans had said as far back as the Iowa caucas they were going to attack his war record.

As I said earlier, I’m willing to be corrected, but I’d like to know what the dems have said about Bush that was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

---dr.M.

I haven't seen the swift boat ads. In fact, I haven't seen a single GWB ad. I don't have any grasp on what the GOP is saying about Kerry beyond knowing they are running attack ads. I would have known this even without the thread. It simply makes sense that they would be.

I have only seen two different Kerry ads, one by a Veterans group and one featuring a retired member of the joint chiefs. Both played up his military experience and war record. Neither mention his protest activites.

That is distortion of the facts. Distortion by omission. It obviously makes sense to do so. In the curent climate in this country trumpeting that you protested the war is not likely to win you many votes in the southeast, midwest or west, where Kerry needs to pick up states that went to GWB in 2000.

I have read several harsh critiques of ads by Moveon.org in the conservative rags I keep up with. Since I haven't seen them, I can't say with assurity that they are attack ads that distort the truth, but that is certainly the feeling one gets reading the articles.

In a real sense, distortion isn't needed to attack Bush and his cronies. Their actions are bad enough you just don't need to. At the same time, it seems distortion is neded to deflect some criticism of John Kerry and his record.

In the end, both sides will do or say whatever they think they need to do or say to win the election. The GOP just seems to have better spin doctors this time around.

I would still like to know what happened to the team that got Bill Clinton elected, particularly the second time around. That bunch had an almost uncanny understanding of how to run a campaign. I can't believe the Democrats fired them, but the people they have running this campaign and Gore's campaign seem to be several degree's of competance lower.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I would still like to know what happened to the team that got Bill Clinton elected, particularly the second time around. That bunch had an almost uncanny understanding of how to run a campaign. I can't believe the Democrats fired them, but the people they have running this campaign and Gore's campaign seem to be several degree's of competance lower.

-Colly

James Carville was Clinton's campaign strategist, as I recall, and Bush Sr. was a much less politically savvy opponent, crippled by his "No New Taxes" betrayal and that campaign trip he made to a supermarket where he was shocked to learn that bread cost more than $1.00 a loaf.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the party doesn't run the candidate's campaign. The candidate picks his own advisors. I've got to agree with you that whoever is running Kerry's campaign is doing a pretty sorry job of it.

The latest polls show Bush up by 11 points.

Depressing as hell.

---dr.M.

P.S. I was just thinking: remember that terror alert we got just before the Democratic convention? The one that wasn't at all political, but that was vital to get out to America becuase some sort of Al Qaeda attack was all but inevitable over the summer?

Whatever happend to that non-political warning? Whatever happened to that inevitable attack?

You think Bush doesn't play politics with terrorism? Ha!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

James Carville was Clinton's campaign strategist, as I recall, and Bush Sr. was a much less politically savvy opponent, crippled by his "No New Taxes" betrayal and that campaign trip he made to a supermarket where he was shocked to learn that bread cost more than $1.00 a loaf.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the party doesn't run the candidate's campaign. The candidate picks his own advisors. I've got to agree with you that whoever is running Kerry's campaign is doing a pretty sorry job of it.

The latest polls show Bush up by 11 points.

Depressing as hell.

---dr.M.

I didn't know that. I always assumed the party handled all of it. That explains a great deal, but is also depressing. With so much riding on this election, it's a terrible time to end up with less than the very savvyest of PR folks

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think Bush and his advisors are shamelessly using every ploy, above board, below board and back room to win here. There is very little I would put past them. I see increasingly a win at all costs mentality that is rationalized by God being on their side. It's immensly scary to feel Nixxon's dirty tricks committee might be ashamed of some of the tactics the Bush campaign has adopted.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I finally got around to reading the text of Zell Miller's keynote speech. Wow. That has to hurt if you are a democrat.

Recent polls show about a 13 point swing to Bush overall and a pretty good swing in projected electoral votes. The articles I read indicated the Swift ads were in no small part responsible, but all of them noted Miller bashing his own party was also a factor.

I didn't see the speech and apparently there is a good deal of belief among liberals and Democrats he's been chewing loco weed, but I have also seen his speech described as powerful.

Certainly it hit where it hurt most, falling right in line with the GOP's contention that Kerry would make a poor Commander in Chief.

Does anyone here know if there is a precedent for this? I have never been big on conventions, but I can't remember a case of a member of one party heading up the speeches at another party's convention. If it is unprecedented, it might explain the jump Bush got in the polls, especially in Louisianna and Virginia. Some pundits have even gone as far as to say in the wake of this Kerry is abandoning his drive to win any southern states other than Florida, which is still isted as too close to call.

-Colly

Edited to add: Never mind the question. According to the Ap it has never happened before.

 

[SlickTony]

I can't recall seeing any ads where Bush's position on anything has been intentionally misrepresented by democrats.

They constantly allude to the Bush Administrations "ban against embryonic stem-cell research." Actually, there is a ban against federal funding for reasearch on any stem cell lines except some that were in existence the day he signed off on the law, and which turned out to be fewer than everyone had thought. There is no ban on privately funded work with lines other than those. They just can't get any government money. Yet the Democrats talk as if all stem cell research were forbidden. The Democrats may just be using a kind of shorthand when they talk about it, but the way they allude to it makes them seem disingenuous.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I finally got around to reading the text of Zell Miller's keynote speech. Wow. That has to hurt if you are a democrat.

Personally, I have to believe that there's something wrong with Zell. Seriously. I mean something like incipient Parkinson's or something else organic.

You had to see the speech. The spit was literally flying out of his mouth. I mean, this was not just a policy disagreement or difference in opinion. This looked like something deeply personal and very irrational. The man looked ill to me.

After the speech he was interviewed by Chris Matthews of Hardball on a split screen from the convention floor. I didn't see the entire interview, but I did see when Miller personally tried to challenge Matthews to a physical duel. I'm not joking. Miller didn't like Matthews' questions, and so he snapped back into that mad-dog mode and said something like "I only regret that we live in a time where I cannot challenge you to a duel." It was one of the most bizarre political performances I have ever seen on TV.

Yes it was upsetting to see a man spitting this kind of personal hatred on national TV. I really believe that there's something wrong with the man. I look for some kind of announcement about his health in the next 6 months.

I think Jon Stewart summed up the RNC best when he said, "Look, these people have the White House, they have the Senate and the Supreme Court. What in the world are they so angry about?"

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Personally, I have to believe that there's something wrong with Zell. Seriously. I mean something like incipient Parkinson's or something else organic.

You had to see the speech. The spit was literally flying out of his mouth. I mean, this was not just a policy disagreement or difference in opinion. This looked like something deeply personal and very irrational. The man looked ill to me.

After the speech he was interviewed by Chris Matthews of Hardball on a split screen from the convention floor. I didn't see the entire interview, but I did see when Miller personally tried to challenge Matthews to a physical duel. I'm not joking. Miller didn't like Matthews' questions, and so he snapped back into that mad-dog mode and said something like "I only regret that we live in a time where I cannot challenge you to a duel." It was one of the most bizarre political performances I have ever seen on TV.

Yes it was upsetting to see a man spitting this kind of personal hatred on national TV. I really believe that there's something wrong with the man. I look for some kind of announcement about his health in the next 6 months.

I think Jon Stewart summed up the RNC best when he said, "Look, these people have the White House, they have the Senate and the Supreme Court. What in the world are they so angry about?"

---dr.M.

I have seen several people postulate dimentia or some other form of mental illness. I have seen about as many postulate that he is just trying to sell books. Smaller numbers have noted that he wasn't like this till he went to Washington to fill out the term of a disceased state senator. They note he stopped going to caucus with the democrats and started voting republican. I think he was the only democrat who voted not to increase time on unemployment benefits. These folks say he had a hard time with the party leadership and was treated less than well because he was percieved as a "rube".

His own explanation is that his party has abandoned him. That it has moved so far to the left it has abandoned the very things that drew him to it almost 50 years ago.

Conservative commentators note his constant statement that 9/11 changed everything. That too is possible, it was a watershed event. Perhaps the major event of my lifetime. Also a lot have noted he was a Marine and National Defense has always been one of his pet concerns.

I did a lot of reading last night. The strange thing is, if you read left leaning opinions and right leaning opinion, you wouldn't know they were discussing the same speech, except for their references to Zell.

Whatever the reason, his has done a pretty through 180 on a lot of major issues, including pro-choice to pro-life and Gay freindly to a staunch supporters of a ban on same sex marriages.

The general opinion seems to be that whatever the cause of his change of heart, he was very sincere in his speech and it has done incalcuable damage to Kerry's campaign. According to several pundits, liberal and conservative, Kerry's campaign is in damage control mode now.

I wish I had seen the speech now. I have read the text, but apparently it was as much how he said it as what he said.

-Colly

 

[SummerMorning]

They do it because it works.

The other part is saying "my god idiots will be in charge of whether or not our country puts itself back together again or declares war on the world".

Of course - no offence intended - but we of the world will not roll over if that happens.

It's a funny thing about America, but the last 4 years it has been acting markedly like an empire in decline. When the others cease to believe in your legitimacy and you have to resort to force, that's decline.

The numbers in Europe say it, the numbers in Asia, in Africa, in Lamerica... actually not the best kind of outcome, as quite honestly, I think things aren't so jolly gloomy - but there you have it.

 

[Guest]

I wish I had seen the speech now. I have read the text, but apparently it was as much how he said it as what he said.

-Colly

Colly -

As dr.M. said, Miller's speech was nothing compared to his spittle-induced rage afterwards in the interview.

Venom spewing, wild-eyed rage. It was truly frightening to view. My husband and I looked at each other in shock and disbelief during his performance.

'Tis a shame that interview isn't being broadcast everywhere.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove is a smooth, jovial political operative with a Texas-honed reputation as a ruthless competitor and three George W. Bush victories under his belt. Mary Beth Cahill is a daughter of Boston's rough-and-tumble ward battles who just last year brought her no-nonsense organizational skills to Democratic opponent John Kerry (news - web sites)'s camp.


The lead operatives in the most expensive presidential race in history, the two are facing off as their bosses compete for the White House.


As a whole, the Bush team is remarkably unchanged from his 2000 presidential bid, run in corporate style by a familiar and relatively small inner circle. Kerry, by contrast, tends to favor a wide circle of advisers dominated by longtime allies from Massachusetts, but has plenty of influential faces more recently plucked from the Washington political crowd.


A look at the top hands for each side:


ALL-AROUND CHIEF:


Kerry: The unassuming, limelight-avoiding Cahill gave up her job as chief of staff to the senior senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, last November to become the junior senator's presidential campaign manager. She quickly streamlined the organization and focused the candidate, campaign and message. A former head of EMILY's List, which campaigns for women candidates, and of the Public Liaison Office in the Clinton White House, Cahill functions as a gatekeeper who quiets internal clashes.


Bush: Rove grew up in the West and, though he never completed college, is a self-taught history buff with an almost encyclopedic command of data. He became a force in Texas politics and engineered Bush's successful 1994 campaign for governor, his 1998 re-election and his 2000 presidential campaign. While Rove oversees Bush's bid for a second term from his post inside the White House, campaign manager Ken Mehlman is responsible for day-to-day operations. Rove is often credited with virtually unchecked power; rightly or wrongly, his stamp — and political calculus — is seen on almost every White House move.


___


GUT CHECK:


Bush: Karen Hughes is one of Bush's most trusted sounding boards. As press secretary in the 2000 race, she was part of the "Iron Triangle" of Texas advisers who vaulted Bush into the White House, along with Rove and campaign manager Joe Allbaugh. She left Bush's full-time employ in 2002 and moved to Austin, Texas, but has continued to talk regularly to the president and has stepped up her involvement in the campaign in recent weeks.


Kerry: The senator consults his younger brother, Boston telecommunications lawyer Cam Kerry, on nearly all political matters. Kerry also would make almost no big decision without consulting his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, a prominent philanthropist in environmental, health and education causes.


___


PULSE TAKER:


Bush: Matt Dowd, who previously worked for Texas Democrats, was also Bush's top pollster in 2000. This time around, he plays a broader role as the campaign's chief strategist who has become known for downplaying expectations in the media.


Kerry: Kerry looks in two directions for polling advice, from Boston-based pollster and longtime adviser Tom Kiley and from Washington consultant Mark Mellman.


IMAGE MASTER:

Kerry: Sought-after Democratic message guru Bob Shrum first appeared in Kerry's political life during the senator's tough 1996 re-election race against then-Gov. William Weld. Though he has been a force behind several successful Senate races, he has never worked on a winning presidential campaign.

Bush: Mark McKinnon is reprising his 2000 role as the campaign's top media strategist. The cowboy hat-wearing, former country-rock singer-songwriter based in Austin, Texas, used to be a Democrat and specializes in warm-and-fuzzy biographical spots. He also has been the architect of hard-hitting attack ads against Kerry.

___

CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN:

Kerry: Kerry regularly turns to former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen for advice. She helped him win her state's primary, and remains important as the usually Republican-voting state is up for grabs in this election.

Bush: Bush picked former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot to chair his campaign, moving him from his post as chairman of the Republican National Committee (news - web sites). Racicot was one of the most visible Bush defenders during the 2000 Florida recount.

___

MONEY MAN:

Bush: Mercer Reynolds is the Ohio financier behind the record-setting effort that has raised $242 million through July for the president's re-election. Reynolds, a former partner with Bush in the Texas Rangers baseball team, gave up his cushy assignment as ambassador to Switzerland to be the national finance chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Kerry: Bob Farmer, Kerry's national campaign treasurer, is a veteran Democratic strategist and fund-raiser whose previous campaigns included Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential bid. Kerry had raised $233 million until his nomination in late July.

PARTY TENDER

Kerry: Kerry named longtime ally and Boston operative John Sasso to a newly created position at the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) to give Kerry control of the party without upsetting its current leadership structure. Sasso is a former chief of staff to then-Gov. Michael Dukakis and manager of Dukakis' losing 1988 presidential campaign.

Bush: GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie is a successful lobbyist who also served last year as general strategist for Sen. Elizabeth Dole (news - web sites)'s successful campaign in North Carolina, and held a key job at the Republican National Convention in 2000. He is also a former communications director for the Republican Party and was instrumental in drafting the Contract With America that House Republicans rode to power in 1994.


That's a look at the campaign staffs. Besides Rove, very few of the names are more than passingly familiar to me.

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

Thanks for that post, Colly. It was quite informative. I've heard interviews with Karen Hughes on Public Radio and there was a big piece on Shrum in The New Republic..

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks for that post, Colly. It was quite informative. I've heard interviews with Karen Hughes on Public Radio and there was a big piece on Shrum in The New Republic..

Have to thank the good Doctor. I didn't realize the people who run these things weren't the same folks who run the party until he mentioned it.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Bump.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Here's the face off between Zel Miller and Chris Mathews in case anyone hasn't seen it or wants to see it again.

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&i=77ff0b06-ef9a-42a8-b329-9afcf270061f

It's really quite amusing in a depressing sort of way, can't believe this guy was the keynote speaker for the RNC, he belongs in an institution!