Snopes Bad for Convention Speeches

Zell Miller should learn to check snopes — or at least google — before busting a blood vessel in front of America. Turns out that a key chunk of his twisted, toxic speech at the RNC was lifted directly from a widely circulated chain email supposedly demonstrating Kerry’s record on defense spending, but soundly unraveled by snopes. I’m sure Miller’s explosive retort: “Get out of my face!” to Hardball’s Chris Matthews isn’t helping his image much.

Thanks Martini Republic.

Music: Miles Davis :: In a Silent Way

6 Replies to “Snopes Bad for Convention Speeches”

  1. I’m not sure what’s more insane about this whole thing, that he (or someone else) wrote the speech without fact checking it or that he made the speech and screamed it like it was cold hard fact without making sure it was I can’t wait to see the reaction play out. It’s just plain amazing.

  2. Chalk up another one for the Republican party. The press has been hibernating for way too long: it’s time for them to wake up and earn the “liberal” tag that people incorrectly apply to them. Somebody in the media needs to grow a pair and start informing the public of what the hell is going on.

  3. Someone oughta have the cojones to speak the truth that this two party system has become a complete and utter train wreck.

    Someone oughta have the cojones to call Bush a liar and Kerry no better.

    Someone oughta have the cojones to realize that Republicans mean corporations running amok treading on workers and not giving a damn about anything except tomorrow’s bottom line.

    Someone oughta have the cojones to realize that Democrats mean a nanny government sucking everyone’s money to fund disastrous social programs to soothe the guilt of the educated wealthy. I mean, look at public housing. Look at public education. You want to hand the gubmint health care, too?

    I’m tired of the, “Hitler or Stalin?” elections where both parties and their advocates try to convince me, “Our guy’s bad, but that guy is SO much worse.”

    Do YOU have the cojones to wake up?

    (that’s a non-specific “you.” i’m not directing this at any one individual.)

  4. Mneptok,

    “I agree, how do we fix it?” That was my gut reaction, then I thought the standard liberal things:

    People don’t vote

    Money has corrupted the process

    The media is lazy

    etc.

    Then I had some different thoughts: our system of government works perfectly — it does, and has done, everything that the voting, engadged, public desires. There is nothing wrong with the two party process.

    If our way of thinking is not being properly represented its either because there are not a significant number of people who think that way, in comparison to another way, or too many people have opted-out.

    Our system of government does nothing for those who opt-out, and those who opt-out have no ground to stand on to make complaints — even with electioneering, corruption and dishonesty throughout the beaucracy everyone has not just a right, but a duty to themselves to be heard and counted.

    To not be counted because of opting-out does not mean the system is broken or corrupt, it means the system is perfectly functional.

    /end devil’s advocate

  5. So Gilbert, if I want America to be run more like Canada, or Australia, or Denmark, i.e. as a democratic socialism with higher taxes and a higher standard of living for everyone, which candidate do I vote for? Which party is going to promise me a sane America? Sure I’m going to end up voting for the lesser of two evils again, but I fail to see how the two-party system is working when neither party will ever represent my views. I’m not opting out, but I sure don’t sense the opportunity to have my vision for a great America represented in the political process.

    You’re right in the sense that there’s no socialist party in American politics because there aren’t enough socialists in America to make one viable. But there’s a chicken/egg problem here – if there were one and if people didn’t feel so trapped in the two party system that they feel they have to vote for one party just to keep the other party out, then we never have an opportunity to break the cycle.

    That’s where mnep and I party company – he will never vote *against* a candidate. He’ll treat the system like a multi-party system. I applaud this idealism but can’t bring myself to allow a vote to be “wasted.” Maybe someday, if we have an election where the stakes aren’t as high as they are right now…

  6. >So Gilbert, if I want America to be run more like Canada, or Australia, or Denmark, i.e. as a democratic socialism with higher taxes and a higher standard of living for everyone, which candidate do I vote for? Which party is going to promise me a sane America? Sure I’m going to end up voting for the lesser of two evils again, but I fail to see how the two-party system is working when neither party will ever represent my views. I’m not opting out, but I sure don’t sense the opportunity to have my vision for a great America represented in the political process.

    I think we’re thinking too hard, reading into the problem. The gut reaction has been, if my views are not being represented by the powers that be than I need to look elsewhere – hence the Green Party, and others. If we lived in a parliamentary system that tactic might just work, but we don’t live in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, we desire many of the same values that are represented in Europe, Canada and elsewhere; but that shouldn’t blind us to the reality that the political (as opposed to policy) venues required to “get there? will be significantly different due to the end-game rules of our own democracy. The rules of our political process dictate absolute participation within a confined set of doctrinal standards of conduct that ensure slow, agonizing progression and transformation.

    My case example is the Republican Party’s transformation. It has become what it is today because of internal participatory action by three forces: corporations, conservative and evangelical Americans. These three parties are vocal, engaged and know how to use the rules of the political process to their advantage. Yes, that means dirty politics, but more importantly it means straightforward participatory hardball. If conservatives or evangelicals had damned the Republican Party like many liberals have damned the Democratic Party America would be a very different place.

    >You’re right in the sense that there’s no socialist party in American politics because there aren’t enough socialists in America to make one viable. But there’s a chicken/egg problem here – if there were one and if people didn’t feel so trapped in the two party system that they feel they have to vote for one party just to keep the other party out, then we never have an opportunity to break the cycle.

    Continuing my comments from above – by focusing on internal reform within the Democratic Party Liberals temporarily scale their sights back temporarily. First the party, then the nation, then the world (so to speak). Walking out the door on a major party has never really worked in our nation (to my knowledge), however, parties have transformed over time. The chicken/egg problem is solved by never forgetting what our goals are and always marching, hand-in-hand, with other Liberals and Democrats even when we don’t see eye-to-eye, immediately, on every issue and remembering that while we don’t agree right now either idea is (probably) more agreeable than the one being generated across the isle. We win now, straighten things out later.

    What this will eventually lead to, hypothetically, is a party that better represents our values and more effectively implements them on a state, local and national scale. None of this would be possible by isolating ourselves into an ideologically pure minority party, which is ultimately what we are whether we like it or not – so are evangelicals, conservatives, and corporations.

    >That’s where mnep and I party company – he will never vote *against* a candidate. He’ll treat the system like a multi-party system. I applaud this idealism but can’t bring myself to allow a vote to be “wasted.” Maybe someday, if we have an election where the stakes aren’t as high as they are right now…

    I don’t think a vote is wasted on third parties, anyone should be “able? to have a fair shot at running for any office in the land, however, idealism, it seems, has never been able to leave its crib. Another kind of idealism is the one that I am proposing here, I would like to think of it as a pragmatic idealism – to effect proper change we need to use the rules to our best advantage – it gives us the best chance at success. To play against the rules ensures failure. If we do not like the rules we can change them when we do succeed.

    Lest, of course, Thomas Jefferson’s tree of liberty is true, and I pray that it isn’t:

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *