WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-08-11 16:12:01 +0000

There's a huge difference in being political in music by documenting/detailing/etc. the plight of underprivilidged people and being told how people should vote. Rich was totally right about Dave Douglas. This guy was doing instrumental jazz for ninety minutes. The only thing he said was "Vote Kerry." Maybe, maybe if he'd had some vocal songs about Haitian refugees or genocide of Croatian Muslims it wouldn't have sounded out of place. Having said that, keep politics in music, just drop the op-ed. -B

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-11 17:11:54 +0000

well said BQ. I totally didn't mean to devalue political message music of any kind. More a rant about people voting for someone because they are being told to / led by a pied piper instead of using an individual's song message as a spring board for active thought to make your own conclusion.

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-14 22:58:19 +0000

I'm telling you both right now: Vote Kerry. How is that different from D. Douglas or B. Springsteen? That really isn't the most cogent Pro-Kerry argument, it definitely hasn't swayed BQ or Rich. It's also alienated them, so, Douglas maybe should stick with instrumental music. Maybe he was contemplating Balkan genocide or US involvement in the overthrow of Aristide when he wrote those songs. I don't think the Doctor/Lawyer analogy plays out. Politicians are by no way highly trained in the same manner, in fact, they probably share more traits with performers than with other professions. One of the most revered politicians in recent times started out as an entertainer (R. Reagan, anyone?) Heck, I'm trained as a mechanical engineer and I make a quick buck doing computer programming, but that doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion about this country's elected leaders. That's the point, right? We the People. Celebreties do have opinions and can share them, I don't see why should be automatically gaged. Granted, as the entertainee you're not paying to go to seminar on the 2004 election, you just want to hear jazz, for example. I guess I can't get too worked up about that. Would you have had the same reaction if these musicians are Pro-Bush?

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-16 16:19:33 +0000

Reagan was in politics for over 30 years after his acting career. How many offices have you or Bruce Springsteen held?

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-16 20:18:46 +0000

One does not need to be an office-holder to have an opinion about office-holders. We, the electorate, are by the vast majority not office-holders, yet, our opinions about office-holders are still valid. (Grammer on that last sentence?) Not only does everyone have a right to hold an opinion, everyone (excluding minors, convicts, non-Citizens) have a right to vote according to those opinions. I think that sharing opinons before election day is a vital apart of the civic duty of deciding who should be office holders. Even though Douglas and Springsteen (and Lorber) have expressed their opinions crudely (Vote Kerry) it Is A Good Thing(tm), because it can spark a more meaningful debate. Although, we're still caught up in the meta-debate on this one. ;) Yes, Reagan held office for 30 years. My opinion of his tenure is low. I don't see why my lack of being in office invalidates my opinion or anyone elses.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-08-16 20:50:14 +0000

I think we're missing the big point. The thing is these people don't want debate. The talking heads who feel like they have something to say about politics (both sides) overwhelmingly cannot construct a more convincing argument than such "bold thinking" like "Bush is Hitler" or "Hillary Clinton is a Nazi." To use an argument, like "well since we all agree here than Bush has failed the U.N. and free markets worldwide with his handling of aparent WMDs, the war on Terror, and Iraq, let me bring up reasons why Kerry is a better choice to repair the U.S.' image and provide direction in the chaotic Middle East etc..." isn't on these people's agenda. They want the spotlight. They have a snappy one-liner, a bon mot, and they're quoted in newspapers/radio shows/etc. The majority of celebrities who are talking about politics aren't saying anything new or anything apposite. They are being quoted on their "views" of politics because they are famous.

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-16 21:28:06 +0000

I agree that the level of discourse is bwing dumbed-down, with snappy one-liners and over-simplistic phrases and gross stereotyping as the norm. (Thinking of the late Patrick Moynihan's essay on [i:f4442118ae]Defining Deviancy Down[/i:f4442118ae], which I haven't read...) However, you have to admit that there is a difference between someone saying "Bush is Hitler" and "Vote Kerry". BUT! Time and time again, this is what the people want. How many people have actually read the Republican and Democrat Party platforms? (Not I) How many people have read position papers published by each campaign? (Not I) The electorate responds to sound bytes. This has been shown consistently since television has become the medium of choice. Just as I'm not going to criticize someone for making a quick buck on the stock market (Hey, it works), I'm not going to criticize someone for expressing their views in five words or less (Hey, it works). Until people starting responding to a more nuanced debate, that's what we're going to get.. This is why some of us get worked up about media coverage. The media, television particularly, tend to focus on the trivial instead of on the concrete. How many articles about Edwards' wife gaining weight and pictures of the Bush girls do we really need? Bush [url]http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/[/url] Kerry [url]http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/[/url]

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-08-16 21:40:28 +0000

Terry G's poses the following question: "How many articles about Edwards' wife gaining weight and pictures of the Bush girls do we really need?" I'd say 4-5 photos of the Bush girls a day is a good number.

Posted by edward on 2004-08-17 02:57:54 +0000

Everyone, except for the truely apathetic, has an opinion on politics, and Springsteen has voiced his. The country is incredibly polarized right now, and I see more and more people showing where they stand on issues, but less and less from the actual politicians, which is frustrating. The guys delivering wine to my restaurant talk about tax burdens on the middle class more than any sound bite from the news, 'cause hey, it's boring, and that's bad television. Fox News has proved that. Musicians tend to be liberal. Now when they say as much, it alienates and perhaps offends some of the audience. But there is Ted Nugent who undeniably offends people, and I bet your typical CEO/CFO/CTO voice a conservative political slant to their listeners. I'm just less often one of them. So I don't see too much hypocracy in this over all. Finally, it's true that no one can tell you how to vote, no matter how much you like their music. But if some guitar player says, "Vote Hitler," you rationalize an opinion on that, which ultimately you display in a voting both. And perhaps they're just trying to get you to vote.... Napa is nice....

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-17 03:12:24 +0000

I'll say it again: I'm more willing to listen to or read Steve Forbes or Condolezza Rice or Tom Ridge or Noam Chomsky or Jack Kemp or Bill Weld or Colin Powell or George F Will than I am to Fat Mike , Bruce Springsteen, or Meryl Streep, or Danny Glover (who fucking cares he isnt going on a cruise?). Al Gore raised about $5 million in his campaign in 2000 in CA. Compare that to Kerry's $47 million. Tell me all of that isnt coming from Hollywood. Message time: there are about 50% of people living in the United States that arent spoken for in the NYC and LA sensibilities. Im not in favor of limiting freedom of speech: everyone has a choice in what they want to say, Im more interested in forming an educated decision based on several different perspectives. Terry is absolutely correct in saying we the people. I dont want Terry (or anyone else for that matter) to think that Im saying any one of us is incapable of making sound political desisions or running for office. but if the argument is we should take our info from sound byting actors and musicians who dont know what the fuck they are talking about, you can leave me out. phew!

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-17 13:46:23 +0000

I guess I'm [b:05ab6b440b]more[/b:05ab6b440b] critical than Rich on whom I'm willing to listen to. I don't think that someone being succesful in the business world is worthy of my attention when it comes to social issues (Forbes, Perot). I think that someone who can craft an articulate message about the Vietnam war and the working class living in the rust-belt (Springsteen) might be more worthy. I don't know or really care what someone whose name is "Fat Mike" thinks. Springsteen's editorial in the NY Times a few days ago was pretty good, BTW. [quote:05ab6b440b="Rich"]Tell me all of that isnt coming from Hollywood. [/quote:05ab6b440b] It's not. Look it up here: [url]www.opensecrets.org[/url]. Rich, you've fallen for a classic Republican sound bite there, "Democrats are in bed with Hollywood". I'd argue that there are more than 50% of the people aren't spoken for by the Corporate/Big Business communities. Note: I make a distinction with Small Business. Median income in 2000 was $42,000 [url]http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-213.pdf[/url]. Do people making 10X that share the same concerns? Whether they are from Holllywood or not?

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-17 14:11:53 +0000

But people making 10X that 42 K amt arent always just flat out wealthy. These are the people that star new businesses and create jobs. If you increase taxes, penalize people more on investments what are the incentives to start new businesses? A flat tax would be much more equitable (and fair) as opposed to just blindly taking money from wealthy people because "they won't miss it that much".

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-17 15:09:18 +0000

Geez, Rich, that's two more topics! ;) [url]http://www.rideside.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1187[/url] [url]http://www.rideside.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1188[/url]

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-23 16:46:15 +0000

Im sorry If I 'fagened' Fat Mike for terry - he is the NOFX bass player who has had a large hand in establishing punkvoter.org, a website that you, terry, had forwarded to me as citation for some of your arguments. The following commentary posted on pitchforkmedia.com I felt hit the nail on the head of this thread's argument. <<< Sleater-Kinney: "Off with Your Head" George W. Bush's incompetence is evidently so potent, pervasive and diabolically effective that it's managed to infect many of his opponents. Glance at the classifieds of The Nation and wince at the empty, witless t-shirts and bumper stickers for sale. Skulk around pretty much any lefty political rally and marvel as the IQ points melt away, while otherwise highly intelligent people substitute middle-school booger-flicking for politics. Longtime lunkheads like NOFX have become rabidly oppositional fist-wavers, and their Fat Mike is doing some great work with PunkVoter, but their recent anti-Bush screed on Late Night with Conan O'Brien was musically limp and slightly embarrassing. It'll be nice when things get back to their regular level of fucked and we can all start thinking again.>>

Posted by Time Wisrd on 2004-08-23 17:24:37 +0000

[quote:4cc67bc8ea="rladew"]Im sorry If I 'fagened' Fat Mike for terry - he is the NOFX bass player who has had a large hand in establishing punkvoter.org, a website that you, terry, had forwarded to me as citation for some of your arguments.[/quote:4cc67bc8ea] I didn't intend a citation for my arguments, rather, a slightly more active website in the vein of indyvoter.com, which F. Trippi had posted. I confess that I did not peruse the website. To refresh: [url]http://www.rideside.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=771&highlight=#771[/url] I agree that the level of discourse is, frankly, embarassing. I disagree that "being a musician" means that you should be scorned for using your publicity for advancing a cause you believe in. Especially if you advance it in a thoughtful manner (e.g., Springsteen's NY Times Op.Ed. piece).

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 17:25:10 +0000

Fagin means never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by Time Wisrd on 2004-08-23 17:26:17 +0000

Wow, I outed myself.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 18:08:16 +0000

It didn't take long for the RSDN fake accounts to start, did it?

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-08-23 20:16:45 +0000

Another thought here, (trying desperately to get back on this topic). Everybody on this board knows my feelings towards the new Beastie Boys CD "To the 5 Boroughs." (For those who don't know: I love it, but are the Beasties going to tell me how to vote? Not a chance!) They are trying their damnedest to do a political record but ended up sounding trite and cloying at their best. For instance, take the following examples: "By the time Bush is done what will be left? Selling votes like E-pills at the discotheque. Environmental destruction and the national debt. But plenty dollars left in the fat war chest" "Stop building SUVs strung out on OPEC" "We got a President we didn't elect. The Kyoto Treaty he decided to neglect." "Since 9/11 we're still living and loving life we been given. Aint nothing gonna take that away from us. We're looking pretty and gritty cause in the city we trust. Dear New York I know a lot has changed two towers down but you're still in the game." Such stunning political insight. I guess if artists want to make political statements and shove their opinions down our throats, than by all means, go ahead. We can laugh at them. -B

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 21:28:29 +0000

The Beastie Boys fucking crack me up- 'Ill' was all about cocaine and blowjobs, then two albums later they start writing songs about respecting the sistas. Two albums from now they'll be hardcore Republicans anyway.

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-23 21:29:13 +0000

Please dont misunderstand me. Springstreen can assemble a coherent argument and write in complete sentences. (I actually do appreciate that he can do this as opposed to a lot of people's knee-jerk liberalism on issues) Springsteen has freedom of speech and as a (I think this is correct at least) citizen of NJ in the USA. He has the right to argue/sing/run for office or make any point he pleases. But just as I WOULD NOT buy (or at least SOLELY base my opinions of what "good, entertaining, or interesting" music is) an album from Bill Clinton playing sax or any of Orrin Hatch's "musical" endeavors, I wouldnt make my voting decisions based largely on what an entertainer is telling me. At all. No matter who it is, how intelligent they are and what the agenda might be: right wing, left wing sideways-wing etc. If the doctor / lawyer argument doesn't play out, fine. But I am not voting for Bruce Springsteen and whatever he thinks is fine and could be used, even, to support or refute an argument in which you believe in. But if you go to a bruce concert or read a Bruce editorial and vote for Kerry because Springsteen told you to: Shame on you! Anyone listening to Springsteens music over the past 3 decades wouldn't be shocked at his political directions, but I am saying that we as readers should do our homework. NYT shouldn't "censor" people who are making statements... but how about balancing an argument such as including Springsteen's comments with that of a well respected Economist? It becomes irresponsible and lacking good judgement when all sentiment pours in one direction. Please dont get emotional when you are making these decisions and responses. They require too much careful thought to have someone you already like make all of your decisions for you. I hate Bush as much as I hate Kerry and I am so close to just "throwing my vote away" on voting for something I actually believe in. I see that we as a nation are headed for big changes, negative in either direction we go. I probably wont know who I will vote for until the day of the election.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 21:51:55 +0000

It's a matter of stickiness, too, though- I think that people are fairly decided on who to vote for this time around, but other times, when things aren't so polarized, repeated namedrops can get people to check things out re: a candidtate and his/her platform.

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-23 22:08:00 +0000

My impression from BQ and Rich is that they disregard all political sentiment from artists.. Am I offbase? My standpoint is, base your criticism on the merit of the arguement, not on the profession. Music is a powerfull medium, so it makes sense for someone to try and use it to send a political message. I fail to see how the Beastie Boys are shoving a message down anyone's throat. Maybe you were caught off guard the first listen, but now you can choose to listen or not. I'm still not sure of the uproar: are we indignant that an artist's would try to express opinions in music? are we laughing at they're feeble attempts? do we think they are trying to brainwash their listeners?

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 22:10:18 +0000

Crux = If your opionion is based JUST on some performer's endorsement, then you're ill-informed, I think. Or fifteen. Lord knows I did that shit enough when I was younger. Having said that, though, music made me go out and research stuff. Easier now that there's an internet.

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-23 22:16:09 +0000

[quote:3cc6417815="frame609"]Crux = If your opionion is based JUST on some performer's endorsement, then you're ill-informed, I think.[/quote:3cc6417815] Here. Here. I'm losing less sleep over fifteen-year-old kids _who_can't_vote_ having their opinions formed by the Beastie Boys and NOFX than I am over large portions of the electorate who rely on FOX News for "fair and balanced" reporting.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-08-23 22:18:16 +0000

Well-said. NOFX and the Beastie Boys are doing more to get 'em young than either party is.

Posted by $Trippi$ on 2004-08-24 13:36:19 +0000

They tried to impeach Clinton over a BJ. If rockers want to talk trash. I say let em. Alice Cooper does not agree with me however! http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=26066

Posted by edward on 2004-08-24 18:48:19 +0000

I think we're coming to an agreement on this. It's okay to listen to the Boss and Fox News, as long as you also look at (many) other sources. And you can say: "Are the Beasties going to tell me how to vote? Not a chance!" But in the long run you have to justify your sentiment and your vote. Playing devil's advocate doesn't work in politics.

Posted by on 2004-08-25 02:00:38 +0000

[url]http://www.musicforamerica.org/?q=music2%2Fartist%2F2495[/url] Well, it is an unabashed pro-Kerry site, but Steve Albini is not telling you who to vote for, just to go out and vote :) too bad there aren't any mp3s to download... Even if they changed the lyrics to the Watch Song into a pro Kerry message it would be pretty entertaining: "Hey Bush, I wanna have a fight with you...." I

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-25 02:39:41 +0000

Hey Terry, I feel like you're gonna have to add my name to the log in twice reference, I keep getting the guest shaft. I must've gotten crazy deleting cookies or something. [quote:715ddb0bd0="terryg"]My impression from BQ and Rich is that they disregard all political sentiment from artists.. Am I offbase? [/quote:715ddb0bd0] I try to take political sentiment in music with a grain of salt, but saying I completely disregard it would be inaccurate. Mike F hit the nail on the head of my central argument with his "crux" statement and I also agree that Music is a catalyst: In high high school a lot of my attention to US and World news / history / politics was brought to my attention by Public Enemy, Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys, Bob Marley, Frank Zappa (an awesome equal opportunity offender BTW) Metallica (well at least And Justice For All) etc. etc. And from the above influences along with being brought up (and still am BTW) a Unitarian Universalist, you can guess which way I swung with my politics when I was 18. I would argue though, that at this time I was feeling or emoting my way through historical / political arguments instead of investigating logic, facts and information. (as a UU respecting the inherent worth and dignity of every individual while trying to adhere to an economically conservative ideology is very difficult BTW - I rarely ever agree with my most valued and respected friends and family on a lot of these issues) Would I block artistic expression ever? Not a chance. But if you have opinions voiced in creating your music, I have opionions based on that as a listener and any artist has to be prepared for criticism as well as glowing praise for their sentiments. How easy is it for a kid to say the system sucks after hearing James Hetfield bellowing "Halls Of Justice Painted Green Money Talking" - but what is that sentiment based on? If that prompts said listener to read the Constitution and find out how the country works or does not work bravo, but I feel more and more like the media in this country are not fostering independent thinkers. What's more punk than independent thinking? Do people in Las Vegas gambling their kids college funds away give a fuck if Linda Ronstandt wants them to see Farenheit 9/11? Save it for the locker room, Linda. We're not going to censor you, but if you provide paying people with unsolicited sentiment you as an artist have to take what you dish if certain people disagree with you. Terry is absolutely correct when he says Music is a powerful medium - but the basis of a medium such as music or art or literature IMHO is cultural / artistic / entertainment and not based on presenting people with flat out information such as factual journalism and news "should" but often does not. This is why music as an artform should not be taken lightly nor should careful mulled over political decisions. [quote:715ddb0bd0="terryg"]I'm losing less sleep over fifteen-year-old kids _who_can't_vote_ having their opinions formed by the Beastie Boys and NOFX than I am over large portions of the electorate who rely on FOX News for "fair and balanced" reporting. [/quote:715ddb0bd0] 15 year olds can play their part in being a part of the "misunderstood" at the mall for as long as they like but I feel like like citing 15 year olds is oversimplifying the issue. Sources / People like Fox News, The Beastie Boys, Meryl Streep, the NYT, Alice Cooper, Michael Moore, Spike Lee, Rush Limbaugh, Bruce Springsteen are affecting some intelligent American people of voting age decisions on a stealth level without being fair or balanced, so we the people need to be aware of this. Sorry for the tirade. I will go back to posting about music and film like a good boy now.

Posted by tgl on 2004-08-27 22:59:31 +0000

[quote:467554789d="rladew from a different topic"]Everyone has freedom of speech, but c'mon spike, stick to making movies[/quote:467554789d] The Poly Post descibed Lee as a political activist first and a filmaker second. (Although they flip these distinctions in the follow-up article). So he's partly know for his political speech. I guess I want you or BQ to come out and say it's b/c you disagree with their sentiments that you'd rather have entertainers stay topical. Do you have the same reaction to Heston? Schwarzenegger? While I might disdain Heston for his stint as spokesperson for the NRA, I'm not saying "Geez, Charley, get back in the loincloth." Maybe it's more like, "The Constitution does not protect an individual's right to bear arms! Solely within the context of a militia! I'll let you have all the shotguns and handguns and rifles you want, but let's be sensible and try to reduce the number of 'assualt' weapons out there." So I ask: Would Prince be better if he was Episcopalian?

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-28 01:51:40 +0000

Prince being Epicopalian, Heston in a Loincloth: I'm not sure I know to answer to any of these. Im shuddering to think of sitting to listen / see crusty hold Heston with his "Cold Dead Hands" Motto in a speech, so yeah, I think the "Apes" Heston is where I would rather see him. As far as me being annoyed at Spike's ongoing tirades to the media, again I'm not telling him to stop it or put a stop to it, I just think he does something else better and that people prefer not to be hit over the head with their messages. When I hand over $10 USD for a ticket to see "She Hate Me"[url]http://www.sonyclassics.com/shehateme/[/url] (Which I would if all the NH and Massachusetts theaters would be willing to give a film that doesnt make $100 million in opening weekend a chance.*I would be much more willing to listen to Spike's argument than if I happened to turn on a radio or news program or read an editorial of his comments. (And that's just me... Im sure some people feel that Spike is right on... Im not trying to silence anyone here) *side Note - Manchester NH had Bambozzled in the theater 4 years ago for a week. I went one night and was the ONLY person in the theater, the film broke, natch and the projectionist threaded the film backwards and I saw 20 minutes in reverse before they fixed the problem) Before I could get a refund to see it again, it was gone, like, one night later... Make room for from Justin to Kelly....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-08-28 20:08:15 +0000

How can an artist stick to what they do, when the politics is such a part of their art? Imagine if Bob Dylan had left social commentary out of his songs, or if Mingus wasn't haunted by segregation and race riots... We would be left with essentially nothing, except for the first few Beatles albums with songs about girls and first crushes. We can't go back to 1964. Still, maybe the additional commentary in between songs at a live show is uncalled for; the art should be strong enough to do it on its own.

Posted by rladew on 2004-08-28 20:14:46 +0000

[quote:af412b8262="dawnbixtler"] Still, maybe the additional commentary in between songs at a live show is uncalled for; the art should be strong enough to do it on its own.[/quote:af412b8262] here, here. that's all i'm sayin!!!! A world without Mingus, Dylan (or Michael Moore) would be sad indeed. I thought a lot of being artists was to bring your point across in a powerful way. Unsubtly giving biased opinions outside of yr art doesn't seem to do this and is annoying at best.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 11:59:30 +0000

[img:e5b9d3a8e2]http://www.urb.com/online/images/119_SEPT.jpg[/img:e5b9d3a8e2] hmmmm pick up your copy at a Newbury Comics near you... I guess my politik hiatus is back off, again...

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-09-10 15:03:14 +0000

Who says theres no liberal bias in the media? See above.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 15:32:36 +0000

You'll never get me to believe that a culture magazine with a cover story of the Beastie Boys and the quote "Don't Vote for Bush" is an indication of liberal media bias. Where is the bias? It's truthfull, at least, that's what they are saying. Are we just miffed at equal time? If we couch it as a business decision... is BQ advocating that government tell a business person what to run on the front cover of their magazine in the hopes of balanced coverage? I'm not very familiar with the Urb. Does it puport to be a news magazine? You'd have to show systematic skewing of print, radio, broadcast and cable TV news content for me to agree to a bias (Left or Right). ...and no, showing that journalists and reporters tend to be liberal does not indicate a bias in their reporting. If anything, journalists have given the Bush Administration a pass on many of the facts, for fear of being labeled "biased". Who says there's no conservative bias in media? See below: [img:206060dba8]http://www.nationalreview.com/images/cover_072803_large.gif[/img:206060dba8]

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 16:07:31 +0000

Here's a bold statement which is totally arguable, not backed up by the NYT BBC, the economist or any other source,: [size=24:9e9fcf42b8][color=red:9e9fcf42b8][b:9e9fcf42b8]People reading and considering the National Review on average are more aware and educated of political situations than an average reader of the URb[/b:9e9fcf42b8][/color:9e9fcf42b8][/size:9e9fcf42b8]. No Numbers, polls, reports, or studies back this up. but in my gut I would argue hat the likelihood someone reading the NR would know more about how government works than a trio that once decided to name their debut album "don't be a faggot" ...... [quote:9e9fcf42b8]I'm not very familiar with the Urb. Does it puport to be a news magazine? You'd have to show systematic skewing of print, radio, broadcast and cable TV news content for me to agree to a bias (Left or Right). [/quote:9e9fcf42b8] So you think that all these sources you quote Terry are unbiased? It's fine if you do, I just cant believe that any position contrary to yours would sway your opinion on this....

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 16:13:04 +0000

These arguments also dont hold up if you look at dischord's web site [url]www.dischord.com[/url] Taken from the "news" section: "The election is coming and no matter how you feel about the candidates the one thing you can be sure of is that they are NOT counting on your vote. Apathy is one of the most effective tools of the status quo and after every election statistics show that while young people are often the most passionate about global issues they are the least likely to vote. It's not the meek who will inherit the earth, it is the young. You can register to vote at this address: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/pdf/nvra.pdf " It's important that you vote in November. Period. If you're going to let the people decide LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. anyone with half a brain knows what political stance Ian Mackaye takes through his music and I respect him 100% for that. I also appreciate the fact that he doesn't insult my intelligence like this bullshit from the URB.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-09-10 16:30:18 +0000

I offer the following well-crafted essay: http://www.providencephoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi_1/documents/02965052.asp

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 16:42:49 +0000

Rich I'm glad you're concerned for the unaware and uneducated readers of URB magazine. However, it's an article on the Beastie Boys and they are quoted as saying "Don't Vote for Bush". Where is the media bias? I have a hard time seeing any member of the group claiming that URB is misrepresenting their opinions in a biased way. If you want to talk about misguided, where's the outrage that ~40% of the public still believe that Saddam Hussein gave substantive help to Al-Qaeda in planning the attacks on Sept. 11? [quote:2c0b3867d4]So you think that all these sources you quote Terry are unbiased?[/quote:2c0b3867d4] My news sources are unbiased, yes. Why can't we get past the distinction between news and opinion? I'll grant you that there are more liberal columnists at the NYT than at the WSJ, but the news in both sources are balanced. I agree with Rich & BQ that the Beastie Boy's method of trying to sway opinion is poor. I disagree that an article in URB magazine that contains factual quotes indicates media bias. [quote:2c0b3867d4]These arguments also dont hold up...[/quote:2c0b3867d4] Sorry, lost me, what's the argument? Finally: Deriding musicians for once being homophobic is like deriding the president because he once was an alcoholic. People change, right?

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 17:07:41 +0000

[quote:eb0faf0cee="bizquig3000"]I offer the following well-crafted essay:[/quote:eb0faf0cee] <sarcasm>C'mon, BQ, you're not deciding for yourself! Rich and I will not allow that!</sarcasm> OK, I see we're talking about two different things. I disagree with Brudnoy's complaints over NPR and the NYT. I think their news coverage is pretty straight. However, I see his points about how the "message" implied in television programming is leftward leaning. Who's fault is that, though? Advertisers and consumers drive programming. They want [i:eb0faf0cee]Will and Grace[/i:eb0faf0cee], that's what they get. I don't get Brudnoy's hang-up on the prominence of blacks in fictional roles, though. I thought we're all striving to be "color blind"? There will always be people complaining about the liberalness of the "cultural message", my guess is that they are roughly 50% of the population. That's never going to change.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-10 17:19:36 +0000

What kinds of magazines feature artists on the cover saying 'Don't vote for Kerry!', anyway?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 17:22:03 +0000

[quote:e52e0c68c4]Finally: Deriding musicians for once being homophobic is like deriding the president because he once was an alcoholic. People change, right?[/quote:e52e0c68c4] terry's right about this, but it was too fun not to add. I would argue they werent even being homophobic, just crass... people do change. IMHO sometimes for the worse, but to touch on our other music chat of the moment, their music still rocks, and thats all that matters :)

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 17:22:38 +0000

Probably the same type of magazine that the URB is: bland, pop-culture trash.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 17:58:41 +0000

[quote:9cfb56af5d]What kinds of magazines feature artists on the cover saying 'Don't vote for Kerry!', anyway?[/quote:9cfb56af5d] that's an excellent question. If they exist, I haven't seen them, if anyone knows of any please let me know!

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 18:17:17 +0000

[img:b5c88c80cb]http://www.altpress.com/sections/issue/10-25-1999/cover-133.2.jpg[/img:b5c88c80cb] OK, he's not on a magazine cover with a Bush slogan yet, but Kid Rock evidently left a "Vote Bush. Bush Rocks." note for Sean Combs during the RNC festivities. But then again, is this the guy you want promoting Bush's agenda? From the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03pink.html?pagewanted=all&position=]NY Times[/url]: [quote:b5c88c80cb]Kid Rock, the Detroit-born rap artist who is a member of the spiky clump of George W. Bush supporters in the wonderful world of entertainment, trumpeted his support for the president Wednesday night at the recording-industry party for Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker. The Kid, as he is called, was wearing a black Western-style bowler hat with a rhinestone band over his sweat-drenched stringy blond hair. He jumped right into an elaboration of his own considered brand of Republicanism. If he were president, he explained, he would never get caught having sex in the Oval Office, but would instead install cameras in the Lincoln Bedroom. The Kid professed interest in smoking a joint while joining the Mile High Club on Air Force One, emphasizing his bullet points by punching his muscled arms in the air. [/quote:b5c88c80cb]

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 18:37:59 +0000

Terry: You're reaching and you admitted it yourself. The question was is there a magazine with a well-known celibrity on the front cover of a magazine with "Don't Vote For Kerry" on it? And more importantly: Kid Rock has never asked anyone to take him seriously. Do you think if, say for the sake of argument, the beasties behaved as Kid Rock did (or allegedly did) in these reports you cited that anyone would take Yauch's Bush is Hitler comments as seriously as they do with all of the Beastie's "awareness" benefits like the ones on their current tour and political posturing in magazines right now?

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-10 18:44:12 +0000

Don't forget, Rich, that 'Licensed to Ill' is an album about doing drugs and getting blowjobs.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 18:59:10 +0000

When you're watching a TV show, you might be more aware that there is an underlying political context, [i:35a46996b0]The West Wing[/i:35a46996b0] comes to mind. But football? [url=http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091004.shtml]Daily Howler[/url] [quote:35a46996b0] MADDEN (9/9/04): It’s what you call a flip flop! MICHAELS: You’re in the right state for that! In other words, Kerry’s a flip-flopper.[/quote:35a46996b0] Give the Beastie's credit for at least being up-front with their views. When football commentators parrot a Republican spin campaign... it's subtle and insidiuous. I'm glad we couldn't hear the broadcast last night, I don't even like Al Michaels football acumen. I see Brudnoy's point about so-called "liberal" values being protrayed evasively in the media. I think he's on the right looking at the middle ground of U.S. cultural mores. My contention is that the factual news reporting does not reflect a bias, you may disagree with me on the NYT point, but I see the same articles on the AP, Reuters, UPI, Knight Ridder, etc. [quote:35a46996b0]Terry: You're reaching and you admitted it yourself. The question was is there a magazine with a well-known celibrity on the front cover of a magazine with "Don't Vote For Kerry" on it? [/quote:35a46996b0] Still looking... I've only found references to Britney Spears and Kid Rock. I assume there must be some Nashville Country rag out there... Nothing is stopping a magazine from running a "Don't Vote for Kerry" cover story. That's why I love America.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 19:09:27 +0000

yeah but in 1985 the beasties werent too interested in railing against Ronald Reagan

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 19:11:40 +0000

Lack of celebrities on magazine covers does not indicate a liberal bias. That's like saying a lack of child molester's on magazine covers indicates a... crap, I don't know what it indicates. Some people may disagree with me, I won't name names if it's OK with dawnbixtler, but there's not a right-wing conspiracy to report in a certain way on Fox Cable News, just like there isn't a left-wing conspiracy to only protray liberal messages in the media. If most of the marbles in the bag are red, doesn't that indicate that most of the marbles are red?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-10 19:12:36 +0000

OK once and for all: there is a CONSERVATIVE media bias! Look at the people who run the largest TV stations and newspapers: Rupert Murdoch, Robert Wright, Michael Eisner, Russell Lewis and Sumner Redstone. Do you want to know who they gave money to this election? Name a national source left of NPR? (which many consider still right of center because of its pro-government, "ruffle no feathers," stance as it gets $ from the government.) I live in a city where one out of three people think Bush should be impeached, and the first and third largest circulated weekly papers called for his impeachment. No media covers this nationally. Yet as a country, we impeached Clinton over a drastically smaller crime. We've been over this before....

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 19:12:49 +0000

[quote:4429a11d7d="rladew"]yeah but in 1985 the beasties werent too interested in railing against Ronald Reagan[/quote:4429a11d7d] I'm sure they regret it now....

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 19:20:00 +0000

I made two new threads in "Politik"because I think we're talking about two different things. Rich & BQ get aggravated because there is no one in popular culture that holds the same opinions as they do. Ned & I get aggravated that the news media has completely failed us in challanging the Administration on dishonest statements.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 21:10:48 +0000

Another bold and arguable statement from yrs truly: Maybe conservatives are less interested in having celebrities parrot sound byte philosophies on popular culture magazines. The GOP DID kindly decline Ms. Spears's services at the RNC afterall. Terry's right: the 1st ammendment isnt stopping celebrities from telling readers to vote for Kerry on the fronts of magazines, but maybe tact is. again no polls, surveys, studies or non partisan group sources, just my opinion.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 21:34:00 +0000

[quote:81e55ceb5b]I'm sure they regret it now....[/quote:81e55ceb5b] thats too bad becuase the beasties were a lot more fun, entertaining and rocking before all of this nonsense started. Maybe they will make more $$$ and more fans than they ever had before chanting to Buddha, trying to liberate Tibet and railing against George Bush, but somehow I doubt it. If Rage Against the Machine didnt have good Led Zep like riffs that rocked, would everyone give them the same level of business because of their political stance? I would guess the answer here is no. Hearing "Hit a Motherfuckers Face With A Cue Ball" or "you think its choclate milk but its watered-down yoo-hoo" works a lot better for me than getting some half-baked discourse on the Kyoto treaty. Just my 2 cents though.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-11 01:26:52 +0000

So are you saying if the music's good (ala RATM) the lyrics don't matter, or if the lyrics are good (ala early Beasties) the message doesn't matter? Or both? Sure the GOP declined Ms. Spear's (probably because of her disgraceful anulment, and brickwalled career), but they've been courting the talentless Jessica Simpson all the same. Their dying for the youth vote. Can there be "tact" in a GOP campaign driven by mudslinging?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-11 11:22:48 +0000

[quote:6a37119e52]So are you saying if the music's good (ala RATM) the lyrics don't matter, or if the lyrics are good (ala early Beasties) the message doesn't matter? Or both?[/quote:6a37119e52] I wasn't saying anything like that. I was opining what about those two groups I personally liked and was hypothesizing what made them as popular as they were. If you are saying politics, I disagree with you. The argument I was focusing on had nothing to do with sincerity of a message in the music. [quote:6a37119e52]Can there be "tact" in a GOP campaign driven by mudslinging? [/quote:6a37119e52] Come on Dawn, its not as black and white as the Democrats being "nicer" than the republicans. Kerry and Bush are going to fight their way to the Whitehouse any way they can. Kerry is not a "nicer" candidate who behaves better than Bush, and even if he was, that's not going to win an election like this. Kerry picked this military service fight, and he's getting more than he bargained for on it. No question he served more honorably in the military than Bush, but why wont he release his full military records like Bush has? Because of the principle? Because he shouldn't have to because he's a hero? So when a year ago everyone was giving Bush shit about the guard service or lack thereof (which is now making a weak comeback by democrats scrambling to make this an issue) as well as how this year Kerry opens his DNC speech with "I'm John Kerry reporting for duty" MAKING his military service a big deal and then wont release the full details of his service record like Bush did through the FIFA.... and then "complains" the Bush camp is fighting dirty through the Swiftvets that Bush "controls" through 527 groups which Kerry has profited much more from both in terms of revenue and in terms of popular media message (moveon.org) It seems like when the republicans do it, its mudslinging, but when the Democrats do it, it's "asking questions to raise our nation's awareness"... awareness of what?

Posted by on 2004-09-12 21:32:32 +0000

Rich, You've been blinded by the right. [quote:4c0a23ef98]Come on Dawn, its not as black and white as the Democrats being "nicer" than the republicans. Kerry and Bush are going to fight their way to the Whitehouse any way they can. Kerry is not a "nicer" candidate who behaves better than Bush, and even if he was, that's not going to win an election like this.[/quote:4c0a23ef98] Yes, actually it is that black and white, and maybe I'm too optimistic here, but I do think Kerry will win by taking the high road. Did you see any of the conventions, or even read about them? Anyone could see the RNC was a Kerry bash-a-thon. It is so black and white where each campaign is headed. Kerry may not be "nicer," but the Democrats are certainly more ethical. The Swift Boat thing was dreamt up by Bush, Rove, Bush's lawyer and Texas friends. They got one guy who served on a swift boat to say, "I know nothing about Kerry's service in Vietnam." Then they get three respected men to say, "What I know about Kerry in Vietnam, he didn't deserve those medals." The whole GOP campaign hinges on smearing like this. Are they lying? No, because these people don't know anything about Kerry, but where's the ethics? They don't care if any of is true or not, just as long as it hurts them. Are you going to equate a 527 ad like the Swift Boats, to the MoveOn.org's (founded as an anti-Clinton organization), where they show deficit data straight from the Bush Administration? One ad has people talking about someone they've never met, the other shows Government supported statistics. Please! Bush created "the War on Terror," and he started the whole "War President" thing. So why not look into his war record. [quote:4c0a23ef98]which is now making a weak comeback by democrats scrambling to make this an issue[/quote:4c0a23ef98] Did Kerry make a phone call to CBS to run the story? No way! In the conservative controlled media, that just can't happen, like it can for Bush. I'm proud of CBS for going against the grain. [quote:4c0a23ef98]It seems like when the republicans do it, its mudslinging, but when the Democrats do it, it's "asking questions to raise our nation's awareness[/quote:4c0a23ef98] It doesn't seem, Rich. It actually is, because as I pointed out, they are doing very different things. [quote:4c0a23ef98]Awareness of what?[/quote:4c0a23ef98] Do I have to answer that?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-12 22:20:11 +0000

[quote:28958e782a]The Swift Boat thing was dreamt up by Bush, Rove, Bush's lawyer and Texas friends.[/quote:28958e782a] Prove this. It all sounds like a lot of paranoid nonsense to me. Kerry can't have it both ways. If he wants to make his exemplary service an issue in this campaign he needs to release ALL of his records. Bush had to, so why doesn't Kerry?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 03:30:45 +0000

Proof: http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=13244&formType=E72 Google any of those names in Schedule A. (ie. Bob J. Perry, Bush's good friend and active member of the hateful Club for Growth) Plus Ben Ginsberg, Bush and the RNC's lawyer step down August 25th, because of his involvement in the Swift Boat garbage. The Washington Post, NY Times and the Globe let all of this out of the bag two weeks ago. It's funny that this is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are 30 years old relating to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is black and white. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of evidence proves that the charges against Bush are true. But I'm also reminded of the phone farms the Bushes had in '00, when they called up hundreds of thousands of people in North and South Carolina posing questions like, "If you found out John McCain had an illegitimate black child, would you be less likely or more likely to vote for him." It's disgusting... Prove to me that the Democrats do this. Lastly, who says Kerry isn't releasing his records? I have not heard of this....

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 14:14:16 +0000

There are still portions of Kerry's military record that have not been released to the public. I guess Kerry needs to authorize them. The same is true for Bush. There have been slow document leaks (the possibly forged documents on CBS not-withstanding) over the past four years, but not full disclosure of where he was during is Guard duty. Kerry's military record is a fair target, he did bring it up. However, it would be nice if the criticism was based on fact and not hearsay. That's the beef. The SBVT charges are entirely false, anyone doing a cursory examination will plainly see that. The SBVT evidently are mostly miffed about Kerry's anti-Vietnam activities (oops, I meant flip-flop), if they had led with that in their ads, no one would have given them the time of day. The facts remain: Kerry volunteered for service in Vietnam, risking his life for this country. Bush did not. If it was me, I'd probably try for the Bush route. However, I'm not trying to protray my self as a War Hero like Bush is. If you're looking for tact in the national debate, you should probably find another country.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 15:36:35 +0000

[quote:3818be4235]Kerry's military record is a fair target, he did bring it up[/quote:3818be4235] that's all I'm saying. Clearly, Kerry spent more time serving the country honorably than Bush did. I in no way am a "swiftvet for truth" supporter, I just think it's funny that its ok for one group to criticize and when the other group even as so dares asks a question, it's treated as if its off limits and how dare anyone asking a question be so unpatriotic as to question someones service. Right now, I am working up a pro/con sheet for voting for either Kerry or Bush culled with as much "non-partisan" stuff I can find. My attemp to make it fair will probably be my undoing :) What I have seen so far is that I have as many negatives for each candidate. Please don't mistake me here: if i do wind up voting for Bush, it doesn't mean I'm with him 100% or even 10% for that matter....

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 15:53:36 +0000

[quote:6f77b9c19f="rladew"] I in no way am a "swiftvet for truth" supporter, I just think it's funny that its ok for one group to criticize and when the other group even as so dares asks a question, it's treated as if its off limits and how dare anyone asking a question be so unpatriotic as to question someones service.[/quote:6f77b9c19f] It's not that it's off-limits, it's that the particular criticism in question (we're taking about their claims off falsifying action reports to get medals, right?) are completely bogus. The uproar isn't "how dare they besmirch Kerry's record", but, "how dare they besmirch Kerry's record with outright lies"

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 16:03:43 +0000

the thing of this is though, even with Dawn Bixtler's tax document that showed that friends, and only friends (not specifically Karl Rove or Bush or any othe r boogey man of power conspiring against we the people) signed on to this swiftvet thing. I think Terry's overall stance of the swiftvets being more concerned over Kerry disposing of his medals and adamantly decrying vietnam when he returned while a lot of his fellow brethren were still over there getting killed and disrespected is what the swiftvet's beef is. Is it "nice" politics? absolutely not. But put yrself in Bush's shoes: Would you denounce this if you were Bush though? if someone gave you a B- on a paper when you knew you had earned a C+ (and in Bush's case it would be amazing if he ever got a C+ BTW.....) would you tell the public you had a C+? Maybe in an absolute black and white comic book world you would, but if you think Bush (or even Kerry for that matter) will leave anything to chance to get elected, I would argue that that is a naive sentiment.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 16:16:37 +0000

So if you were Rove, would you put your name on the Schedule A? I wouldn't...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 16:25:35 +0000

The Globe had a piece yesterday about how all the "type set" mumbo jumbo on Bush's failed guard duty is BS. They were using an early 70's IBM Selectronic printer or something...

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 16:31:24 +0000

dawn: what's your point here: is there proof that Rove organized this or not? If there isn't proof, you can say that you suspect it , which I would completely respect, but there isn't anything that conclusive there.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 17:21:50 +0000

Whether or not the documents are fake, it doesn't matter. Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush in Alabama. Done. I've had enough of Vietnam, anyway. Conspiracy theory: The fake documents are a right-wing plant. The more disussion of Vietnam the better, they don't want the public to dwell on Bush's failures the past four years. The SBVT follows classic Bush Family campaign strategy. The original commercials were made by the same people who produced "Willie Horton", the smear against McCain in North Carolina in '00, etc. These guys never heard of "nice" politics. Bush can't call for the ad to be taken down, that would prove collusion with the SBVT group. He could denounce it's content, which he hasn't. The election of a president is a little more important than a quarter point or two on a college essay. We all know why Bush doesn't want to denounce the ad, that doesn't make the ad campaign right.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 17:24:20 +0000

[quote:212bdbd5a1]Bush can't call for the ad to be taken down, that would prove collusion with the SMVT group. He could denounce it's content, which he hasn't. [/quote:212bdbd5a1] Ill ask the same thing verbatim I posted earlier: Would you denounce this if you were Bush ? if someone gave you a B- on a paper when you knew you had earned a C+ (and in Bush's case it would be amazing if he ever got a C+ BTW.....) would you tell the public you had a C+? Maybe in an absolute black and white comic book world you would, but if you think Bush (or even Kerry for that matter) will leave anything to chance to get elected, I would argue that that is a naive sentiment.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 17:25:27 +0000

Sorry, got an edit during your reply, see my last line.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 17:28:56 +0000

so he should denounce them and hurt his election chanches because its the right thing to do? If politicians did the right thing to do, would we be having any of these discussions at all? the right thing to do sounds too Hallmark or Norman Rockwell to me when yr taking about politics.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 19:11:22 +0000

[quote:fbc8fba7c1="rladew"]so he should denounce them and hurt his election chanches because its the right thing to do? If politicians did the right thing to do, would we be having any of these discussions at all?[/quote:fbc8fba7c1] The right thing to do is denounce them, yes. I completely argee why he shouldn't and understand why he wouldn't want to do so. If you want to support a candidate whose only chance of getting re-elected are dependent upon false "issues" ads that draw attention away from the reality of 2004, go ahead.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 19:18:59 +0000

[quote:8013a2bb0c]"I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." [/quote:8013a2bb0c] George Bush, 28th August '04 Time magazine interview, addressing the Swift Boat ads. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A13FA345A0C7A8EDDA10894DC404482 So Bush admits it, and Bush doesn't put on his socks without Rove's permission. Don't you know who John O'Neill is?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 19:22:13 +0000

[quote:a04bf8d617]"I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." [/quote:a04bf8d617] Isn't this what you and Terry were asking Bush to do anyway? And Dawn: I must be really dense here: how are you proving Rove did any of this? can you explain it a little more plainly with or without a url so that I can understand you? I'm not trying to patronize here, I just dont see the connection. I truly don't get it.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 19:29:35 +0000

[quote:93641f694c="rladew"]Isn't this what you and Terry were asking Bush to do anyway?[/quote:93641f694c] I think there is a contextual difference between denouncing all 527 ads and saying that the claims of SBVT regarding Kerry's war medals are false. See my above post about what Bush should do, however. [quote:93641f694c="rladew"] And Dawn: I must be really dense here: how are you proving Rove did any of this? can you explain it a little more plainly with or without a url so that I can understand you? I'm not trying to patronize here, I just dont see the connection. I truly don't get it.[/quote:93641f694c] That the ad was produced by the same team that produced the "Willie Horton" ad (for Bush 41), was funded primarily by a Rove pal in Texas, and has had at least two consultants tied with the Bush campaign (now resigned from said comapaign) makes one suspect that Rove had a role in this affair. I'm not sure it can be proved.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 21:26:05 +0000

There's a huge difference between denoucing all 527's, and denoucing a specific one. In fact, they maybe the opposite of each other. Rove [i:687be04390]IS[/i:687be04390] the RNC. He is the first person Bush talks to every morning, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040830-2.html (question#8) and according to many, he is Bush's brain. (see www.bushsbrain.com) I thought we all knew who Rove was....

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 22:21:25 +0000

ok. continue to blame Rove. this will be my last post on Rove unless you can show me a document that is proof he set this 527 up. I'm talking to wall on this I think. also, Ive been very careful (and I think Terry has been too) to cite mainstream media sources for my quotes and arguments, a lot of time the same one you guys are talking about (Boston globe, NYT, WSJ, Economist. What's up with this Bush's Brain stuff? Im sure you guys would get pretty pissed if I started quoting the John Birch society, the george bush website, or other such mindless propaganda. How is Bush's Brain different?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 23:41:41 +0000

Again, I thought, people knew who Rove was. Just Google his name.... He never ties his name to anything, and many people just consider him to be the Emporer (ala Star Wars). He doesn't do interviews. He has rarely been seen even talking. A story that ran in during the '00 Presidential race (I do forget the source here) was that in '96 when Bush (then Governor) locked his keys in his car in Austin, he called Rove for help. (Just a symbol of Rove's influence.) "Bush's Brain" is done by legitimate news and movie people in and around Austin with a staff from Dallas Morning News, NBC, CNN, CBS, etc... The title is a little harsh, but probably necessary for ratings. No, it's not a true impartial source, but I don't think these people are lying. And I don't have much time here at work to look through all Rove's garbage. Does anyone think Rove did not having to do with the Swifties? Prove that...

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-14 06:05:35 +0000

In the interest of a level-headed discussion, Dawn, I think it's up to you to prove that Rove is connected to the Swifties, not the other way around. Just like it's up to the Administration to prove that there was WMD in Iraq. I _suspect_ Rove is involved in the Swifites, but there isn't going to be a memo or phone record. That guy is too smart.