Comments: Cheney

What do you mean? There are millions of people out there who agree with him, so it must be so. Like guardian angels..... Which is why we keep losing elections.....

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 28, 2004 02:36 PM

I know you don't have to be told this :) but a million people believing something that's demonstrably untrue can't change the facts. If everyone on the planet starts believing something that's demonstrably untrue, it's going to be every bit as untrue.

Seriously. those people need to get out more. Stop watching FOX just because it reinforces their prejudices. Open their minds to the possibility that they just might be idiots...I mean wrong.

Although...I've had a few uncomfortable minutes myself recently. The problem is that I'm incapable of not looking at both sides of every issue and I can actually see where Bush/Cheney & Co are coming from. I understand how they fooled themselves into believing they were on the right path. I could even make a decent case for doing a lot of what they've done and that it was worth a try.

In the end, I guess what I can't forgive them for is their refusal to back down in the face of evidence that their view of reality is badly flawed.

Posted by Anne at May 28, 2004 03:41 PM

I'm reminded of the famous bumpersticker: "37 million Americans can't be wrong." As I recall, that was from late 1964, after Goldwater lost the election. There was a grain of truth in that bumper sticker, not the factual content of the statement, but something about the confidence of the attitude: the future belonged to these people. 16 years later they finally elected a candidate.

Posted by Lawrence Krubner at May 28, 2004 10:19 PM


Cheney last month told thousands of Republican Party loyalists that he “ends up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they’re more accurate”

Anne - he's a (career) politician at a party gathering. Just like John Kerry at Earth Day says he doesn't have a SUV and then in front of autoworkers talks about his SUVs...targeting your talk to your audience..like he's going to say something different given Murdoch has given lots of bucks to the Republicans..and there is something new about that..I mean Microsoft has only given $800,000, so he can't say MSNBC..Oh, and for the record, at least my experience in Washington, most of those guys and gals don't watch the news..they have people who watch the news and read the papers and then give them the summaries..


"Instead, he parroted the Wal-Mart executives, the same ones who are bankrolling the Bush-Cheney campaign, and called for “litigation reform,” saying the problem afflicting America is pesky workers who have the nerve to challenge corporate malfeasance in court."

Ok, from a "progressive" group website:
Bush has raised more from lawyers and law firms ($5.4 million) than from any other industry so far this year. The real estate industry is his next most generous giver, with $4.9 million in individual and PAC contributions. Securities and investment firms follow with $3.8 million. Also among his top 20 industries are doctors and other health professionals ($2.0 million), insurance companies ($1.4 million) and the oil and gas industry ($953,000).

And if you follow the Wal-Mart folks, you know (1) they were also big Clinton supporters (Arkansas connection - what a surprise); and (2) they actually tend to give to both parties depending on where they are trying to get new stores (again, what a surprise)..And (more surprise) - he's talking to Wal-Mart folks!

Oh, and trial lawyers also give lots of money to Dems too..seen any real tort reform legislation make it through either party recently? While I agree there are cases where litigation has proven effective in correcting injustices, there are more than enough "frivolous" lawsuits as well that make the average person scratch his or her head..and well, let's see perception wise who is painted as in the trial lawyers' pocket (democrats)..And if you really want to make a dent with voters, Wal-Mart bashing isn't going to help..if you've been to one, there's a lot of swing voters there..

“Donald Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense the United States has ever had.” The statement effectively endorsed Rumsfeld’s failure to plan for post-war Iraq and his dishonest statements about Iraq’s (still non-existent) WMD arsenal. It also undermined Bush administration apologies for Abu Ghraib by giving a public vote of confidence to the same defense secretary who supported the brutal interrogation tactics..

Well, what would he say assuming the President decided not to fire Rumsfeld.."Don is one of the average SecDef's we've had?" or "Gosh, second time still isn't a charm?"..And let's be careful throwing around the WMD charge..because you can also find Clinton, Kerry and others on the record about Iraq and having WMD..put the blame if we never find WMD where it belongs..at Tenet or our failure to pressure/monitor Syria in the war/pre-war stages (now that failure does belong partly to DR)..As for planning, well wrong again..There was in fact A LOT of planning done..it you want to criticize DR, CPowell, CRice, and other, do it for the right reason..relying on assumptions and advice from outsiders as opposed to the advice given by professional military and state department planners..

But you know what..I'm ALMOST ready to agree with you Anne on your last statement..I don't quite see it as their view of reality is BADLY flawed, but I believe there is an unwillingess to assess objectively the situation, compare that assessment to the assumptions made, and make appropriate corrections..Although geared at the tactical level, I think Sun Tzu's thoughts can apply at the operational and strategic level too

"Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in win'ning, may be called a heaven-born captain.

Posted by Col Steve at May 28, 2004 11:55 PM

I cited the Cheney example because there are factual untruths in what he said and because I have ethical problems with his particular examples, but it's bigger than that.

I'm dismayed that it's considered perfectly acceptable in today's politics to tell lies if you don't have any palatable truths for the audience in front of you.

Please rest assured that if I were seeing the press coverage of Kerry making dishonest speeches, I'd be dissing him for it. .

Posted by Anne at June 1, 2004 08:29 AM

Anne - Ok, I tend to agree with you, but that is a different take than your original post and a much more "fair and balanced" comment than the article to which you provided the link.

I would ask this of the author of that article - Did you actually READ the UM PIPA study?

The author writes about Fox "a far higher rate than viewers of any other network." Ok, what did PIPA find (and let's clarify the timeframe was in Summer 03 and even the NEW YORK TIMES is saying that its coverage was not exactly the best)? The author cites the 80% figure which means that 4 out of 5 FOX Viewers had at least 1 view of an issue (out of 3) different than the actual "truth." The issues were on AQ- IRAQ links, WMD in Iraq, and World opinion of the Coalition War on Iraq.

But the author conveniently forgot to add that CBS has 71%, ABC 61%, NBC 55%, CNN 55%, and print media 47% - lower to be sure, but (especially for CBS), not exactly "far higher"..

When you look at the AVERAGE rate, the numbers were Fox - 45; CBS - 36%, CNN - 31, ABC 30, NBC 30..I didn't see a "margin of error" rate to judge if potentially CBS and Fox were statistically in a tie..

The study authors also conclude that Reps/Dems/Inds were similarly likely to have the misperception - so political party identification was not a casual factor.

So, perhaps Fox viewers sense of reality is different than the "truth", but it is not much different than the majority of their peers.

I respect that people writing opinion articles will have partisan views and seek to support them, but the cherry picking of a fact and its subsequent proliferation without context in the end causes the same result the author wants to criticize the VP about..

Of course, NPR/PBS has the lowest rate among viewers/listeners, but that must be because they draw excessively from conservative sources as you pointed out in another post! Ah, but now I know why I listen to NPR.


Posted by Col Steve at June 1, 2004 12:18 PM