SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (6180)8/27/2003 10:54:25 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793626
 
Total-War Recall
Will the campaign turn ugly?

By Arnold Steinberg

SACRAMENTO - A credentialed Democrat who has soured on Governor Gray Davis recently e-mailed me. She describes fellow Democrat Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante as "slime-adjacent." Why is Bustamante's main backer the gambling industry? Why is his campaign manager a lobbyist? Why would unions gladly trade-in Davis for Bustamante?

It does not matter that Cruz publicly used the offensive N-word to describe African Americans. He said it was an accident. But a Republican would have been consigned to Spiro-Agnew-land. Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson, Willie Brown, and Maxine Waters have signed on for Cruz. In other words, the deals have been cut. Can Al Sharpton be far behind?

A one-time Davis aide e-mailed me, too: "The reason why Davis hasn't thrown mud at Arnold Schwarzenegger? He waits for Arnold to drive all the other Republicans out of the race. At that point, Gray will destroy him. Afterwards, he will order his henchmen to anonymously strike at Cruz, knocking him down a few notches."

How can Republicans confront this den of thieves?

What word drives Schwarzenegger's campaign strategy? "Inevitability." That's why Republican VIPs want other candidates to quit. But heretics Tom McClintock and Peter Ueberroth insist Arnold is not California's destiny. Would their exits make Arnold manifest?

What will convince them? Schwarzenegger must do heavy lifting: Take positions. Answer questions. Debate. Instead, the Terminator cherry-picks. He calls talk radio. These shows helped Bill Simon defeat Dick Riordan. Now, they are McClintock's base.

The hosts trade softball questions to Arnold for access. Arnold is eloquent on taxes. But does he try too hard? If this man is not himself, he cannot win. Why is he having a midlife campaign crisis?

Restless reporters wait to undo him. A tough New York Times article previewed an expected Democratic attack: that outsider Schwarzenegger is beholden to insiders. Arnold had implied he would self-fund. Now, he is accepting money from the usual suspects. Arnold's spokesman told the Times: "Many of these donors will include people who have contributed to other candidates in the past. The difference is that they do not expect anything in return." In other words, Arnold is no longer a virgin. But they are in love.

Ugliness, then, is in the eye of the beholder. When will the negative campaign start?

Schwarzenegger had said he would be positive. But the recent Los Angeles Times poll exaggerates a Bustamante lead. The resulting media spin could make this poll self-fulfilling. Now, Arnold is hinting of attacks on Bustamante. Truth is, Arnold cannot win without taking Bustamante down.

Bustamante seems nice. He looks like your friendly butcher, his intended job. But he must know that anti-Davis voters are motivated ? more than the Davis voters who held their noses last year. Bustamante must demonize Schwarzenegger. But how do you make Arnold a right-wing extremist? More likely, they will attack Schwarzenegger's credibility, and Arnold's campaign and its flip-flops have left him wide open.

McClintock prods, but barely engages, Arnold. Without money for professional ads, McClintock must earn attention, the old-fashioned way. He must confront Schwarzenegger daily. He might also go after Bustamante. That would imply a two-way race: Tom-Cruz has a ring to it.

Then, there's Peter Ueberroth. He is the Harold Stassen who has never run. He says he will never attack. I believe him. He runs a résumé radio spot. He ran the successful 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Let the games begin.

? Arnold Steinberg is a California-based political strategist and author of graduate textbooks on politics and media.
nationalreview.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6180)8/28/2003 2:44:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793626
 
Cinderella wants to go to the ball, but is waiting for Prince Charming to ask her.

[The New York Times]
August 28, 2003
General Is Said to Want to Join '04 Race
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 - Wesley K. Clark, the retired four-star general who has been contemplating a run for president, has told close friends that he wants to join the Democratic race and is delaying a final decision only until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning the nomination.

"It's safe to say he wants to run," said a longtime friend who has had frequent political conversations with General Clark. "But he approaches this like a military man. He wants to know, Can I win the battle? He doesn't want to have a situation where he could embarrass himself, but I'm absolutely certain he wants to run."

Whether he does, his friends said, will be determined by his instincts and a firm assessment of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, whose early success has come in part through criticism of White House strategies in Iraq that are every bit as strong as General Clark's.

While General Clark has consistently maintained that he has not yet made up his mind, his friends said a major obstacle has been cleared ? family approval. They said his wife, Gert, who had initially expressed reservations, now favors his running.

"He is going to do it," said another of General Clark's friends. "He's just going back and forth as to when" to announce.

In an interview from his office in Little Rock, Ark., General Clark said today that he intended to announce his decision whether he would run in two weeks or so.

"I've got to by then," he said. "I've just got to. I can't have done nothing, and if I do it, there's groundwork to be laid."

More than likely, General Clark would wait until sometime after Sept. 15, a financial reporting date for presidential contenders. If he announces before then, he would have to reveal how much money he raised in the third quarter of the year, which pales beside the millions generated by Dr. Dean, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and other leading Democratic candidates.

A possible date for an announcement is Sept. 19, when General Clark, who has been highly critical of Bush administration foreign policy, is scheduled to deliver a speech at the University of Iowa. The subject is "The American Leadership Role in a Changing World."

The addition of General Clark into the presidential campaign could shake up a race that has remained fairly static for months, with Dr. Dean, Mr. Kerry and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri showing greater traction than the others running: Senators Bob Graham of Florida, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Edwards of North Carolina, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, former Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

While some contenders view General Clark more as a running mate than presidential threat, his credentials could pose problems for several of them. As a former military officer, he would sound at least as credible on national security matters as Dr. Dean. As a Southerner from Little Rock, General Clark might blunt the appeal of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Graham in the South.

And as a Vietnam veteran, he would temper a prominent theme of Mr. Kerry's campaign, that he is the only Democrat running to have served in combat.

But almost all the other Democrats have financial and organizational advantages over General Clark. He has done almost nothing to prepare for a nationwide campaign or even one centered in the early test states, Iowa and New Hampshire. A spokeswoman, Holly Johnson, said his only political activity had been traveling the country, giving speeches.

Despite his lack of financial and personnel support, two Internet-based groups have worked for months as de facto campaign organizations for him, rousting up as much potential support as volunteer groups can in the hope that their services would be called upon. Neither has had any direct contact with General Clark.

One group, whose home page is draftclark.com, is lining up operatives in all 50 states and recruiting people who might serve as campaign manager, pollster and political advisers.

The other, DraftWesleyClark.com, had generated pledges for nearly $900,000, and an event in Manhattan put the figure over $1 million tonight.

Leaders of both groups say they are ready to combine forces in a Clark campaign.

Jason McIntosh, coordinator of draftclark.com, said his group, based in Little Rock, had state and regional coordinators who would shift from the draft efforts to a campaign organization. John Hlinko, a founder of DraftWesleyClark.com, has said his group used the Internet and community meetings around the country to generate money that would be turned over to a Clark campaign.

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he would welcome a candidate of General Clark's stature into the field, calling him "a huge benefit" as a steady critic of Mr. Bush, especially on national security and military issues.

"The more the merrier," Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview. "General Clark would have tremendous credibility, and it doesn't come at the expense of anyone else running."

Tonight about 100 people gathered at a graphics design studio in Manhattan to support the idea of General Clark's entering the Democratic primaries. A spokeswoman for DraftWesleyClark.com, Maya Israel, said people at the meeting were promising that "if General Clark should run, they will put forth X-amount of dollars." Ms. Israel added that the group had secured $1.7 million in pledges.

One of those attending was Amy Larkin, a cultural policy consultant who lives on the Upper West Side.

"In this time when the country and the world is in peril here is a man who understands war, peace and nation building," Ms. Larkin said.

Doug Finley, who runs a publishing business in Hell's Kitchen, said he had promised $25.

"He has military experience, which the Democrats need," Mr. Finley said of the general. "He has enormous integrity. He's intelligent, thank God. Best yet, he's not a tainted politician."

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6180)8/28/2003 3:03:17 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793626
 
Dean Sweeps Across Nation in an Early Show of Strength
Presidential aspirant's stand against the war in Iraq fires up crowds and donors far beyond the crucial states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

August 26, 2003

AUSTIN, Texas ? From suburban Washington, D.C., to downtown Seattle to President Bush's home state, Howard Dean has sent a message in the last three days to his Democratic presidential rivals with an imposing display of nationwide organizational strength.

Since Saturday night, Dean has crisscrossed the country on a four-day, eight-state, 10-city "Sleepless Summer Tour" that reached Texas on Monday and will end today with a late-night rally in New York City. Almost every event so far has drawn large crowds, and a coordinated drive to raise money through the Internet while Dean is on the road approached its $1-million goal.

"We wanted to demonstrate that we are a national campaign," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. "We are running in 50 states and we are doing it right now."

Indeed, the tour underscores Dean's evolution from a dark-horse candidate who typically would be forced to focus limited resources on Iowa and New Hampshire ? the key early contests on the nomination calendar ? into a top-tier contender with the money and popularity to compete across the country.

"I think he is going to be around past Iowa and New Hampshire," said Bill Carrick, a senior strategist for Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), another presidential contender. "He is going to have enough money to take a punch or two and keep going."

Dean still faces resistance from many party leaders who believe he has taken positions too liberal ? such as his unrelenting opposition to the war in Iraq ? to effectively compete against Bush next year.

But his current tour shows how much ground Dean has gained since he began his campaign as the little-known former governor of Vermont, one of the nation's smallest states. His fierce criticism of Bush's march to war with Iraq won him a core of energetic supporters, and he surprised many by raising more money than any of his Democratic opponents in the year's second quarter. Recent polls have put him narrowly ahead in Iowa, viewed as a must-win state for Gephardt, and in New Hampshire, where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) had been the early favorite.

Dean appears to have gotten a new burst of momentum from the increasing violence and turmoil in Iraq. Following the quick fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime in the spring, most of Dean's rivals believed he would be on the defensive by now for opposing the war. Instead, he's been aggressively contending that the war may have diminished American security by creating chaos in Iraq ? an argument with powerful appeal to many Democrats who opposed the invasion in the first place.

"There is no question he has captured something," Carrick said. "He has been able to take the activist base of the party and convince them he is what they want ? which is a strong anti-Bush, antiwar candidate ? and he has translated that into genuine support."

That was evident the last few days. Rarely has a presidential candidate sought to demonstrate organizational strength in so many parts of the country so far before the first caucuses and primaries.

In part by using the Internet to rally supporters, Dean turned out more than 4,000 people at Saturday's kickoff event in Falls Church, Va., and about 800 in Milwaukee later that day. On Sunday, at least 3,000 turned out to hear him in Portland, Ore., and more than 8,000 greeted him shortly after in Seattle. Another 900 showed up at a Spokane, Wash., rally Monday morning, and about 500 then attended a Dean fund-raiser in Austin. More than 1,000 turned out later for a rally in San Antonio.

The crowd in Seattle was so large that it spilled out of downtown's Westlake Park and filled the surrounding block. Hundreds of people held signs printed by the Dean campaign, while others waved homemade banners. One read: "It's time for the real Democrats to take the party back from the gutless wonders in DC." Another, playing off the new Bravo TV program, read: "Queer Eye for the Dean Guy."

While Dean spoke ? declaring himself "awestruck" by the turnout ? volunteers distributed signs and buttons and collected e-mail addresses. Some in the crowd had waited more than two hours to hear him; many echoed the enthusiasm that Dean aides say has been essential to his early successes.

"If we get involved, turn out this early, it really can happen; we really can change America," said Allison Edgemont, a jewelry designer who attended with her 9-year-old daughter.

In Austin, supporters filled a coffeehouse, roaring with equal enthusiasm at Dean's denunciations of Bush and the other Democrats seeking the White House. "The way to beat this president is not to try to be like him," Dean said, as people yelled out: "Give 'em hell, Howard."

The room erupted the loudest when Dean said, "Most of you know that I am the only leading candidate who did not support the war in Iraq." As the cheers echoed off corrugated walls, he added: "Don't yell so loud. [Bush political advisor] Karl Rove will hear you all the way over in Crawford."

Carrick, like many political professionals, cautioned that large, noisy rallies can create false impressions about a candidate's strength. Drawing a crowd is "in some ways a function of how much resources you put into it," he said.

Eric Hauser, communications director for former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential bid, agreed that Dean's crowds may demonstrate more the depth of his support among activists than the breadth among the Democratic voters he will need to capture the party's nomination. But Hauser added the tour showed formidable organizational capacity.

Trippi said that in addition to trying to demonstrate nationwide appeal, the tour was intended to expand Dean's volunteer base. The campaign has set a goal of identifying 450,000 supporters by the end of September; Trippi said the number now stands at 305,000.

"We are trying to keep our campaign energized over the summer," he added.

The tour also has provided the Dean campaign an opportunity to exercise its electronic fund-raising muscles. During the April-through-June period, Dean collected almost half of his $7.6 million in donations through the Internet, in part by conducting a sort of online telethon that enabled donors to track his financial progress. On its Web site, the campaign used a baseball bat graphic to measure the fund-raising results.

The campaign revived the bat Friday, asking supporters to contribute $1 million during the current tour to match the amount Bush raised last week at a fund-raiser in Portland.

By late Monday, the Web site reported contributions of more than $687,000.

When the fund-raising line on the bat "goes up, it's like I'm a junkie in Las Vegas," one supporter wrote on the campaign's Internet "blog." "I just can't stop watching! and contributing!"

Even more than the crowds Dean has generated, his unexpected ability to raise money has caused his opponents to treat his candidacy with increased respect and concern. Trippi said the campaign hopes to prove it was not "a one-quarter wonder" by raising as much money in the three months that end Sept. 30 as it did in the period that ended June 30.

Privately, aides in the other Democratic campaigns said they believe Dean might raise considerably more than his $7.6-million second-quarter figure.

[latimes.com]
latimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6180)8/28/2003 6:13:28 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793626
 
A Blog from John Hawkins I found interesting.

In Dr. Chuck Tryon's English 1101 course at Georgia Tech, the students are doing something a little bit out of the ordinary to build their skills. They're studying bloggers! Including these "famous bloggers"...

"Once you've looked around for a while, you can find bloggers whose values either align with or contrast with your own beliefs. A few more famous bloggers:

* Oliver Willis

* Atrios

* Instapundit

* Lawrence Lessig (copyright law)

* Andrew Sullivan

* Right Wing News

Ah! There's something very satisfying about being considered a "famous blogger". Of course, it's not as cool as actually being studied in class...

"Read sections from each of the following three blogs. Then, pick one blog, and take a closer look. For your second blog entry, you will then discuss how that one blog makes its arguments. You may use the questions on 100-102 to provoke your thoughts, but for the most part, you'll want to focus on (1) locating a central argument; (2) analyzing the language and style of the argument; and (3) determining how the author establishes ethos, pathos, and logos.

The three blogs we'll be focusing on in class discussions (which will therefore be off limits for the paper): Rachel Lucas, Joanne Jacobs, Tom Daschle. We will also spend a few minutes talking about Rhetorica. Another blog you might find interesting is Chris Allbritton's Back to Iraq . Allbritton was an independent journalist during the war who was not embedded with the military. Looking through his blog you might find an intriguing position on the war. One example of a soldier blog is located here.

Finally, you should explore adding comments to your blog no later than Monday of next week."

Wow, imagine that class discussion...

Dr. Tryon: So Qadeer Parekh, what did you learn from reading Rachel Lucas' blog?

Qadeer Parekh: Ehr...shooting people is good and dogs are cool?

Dr. Tryon: Very good Qadeer! Now what is Joanne Jacobs trying to get across on her blog? Melissa Boswell, what do you think?

Melissa Boswell: Uh...education is like good and stuff? And that people who don't do a good job of educating kids are bad?

Dr. Tryon: Very good! Now Lynn Replogle, what did you learn from reading Tom Daschle's blog?

Lynn Replogle: All I remember was something about him being saddened and disappointed and then I woke up 3 hours later. It put me right to sleep...

Dr. Tryon: Well Lynn, no one can blame you for that...

Just kidding everybody! That's what us "famous" bloggers do when there's no real news and we still feel the need to post something. But since I'm probably going to have a bunch of college students reading this post, I thought I should take the opportunity to give you a little advice. If only something would have told me all these things before I went to college!

-- Most of your professors are crazy quasi-commies who'd probably end up living in a shotgun shack or drunk in an alley if they ever left the sheltered university environment. So don't pay any attention to them when they talk about politics.

-- Make sure to schedule all your classes on Tuesday and Thursday as soon as it's feasible & Mon-Wed-Fri classes until then. Trust me, there's nothing better than having 5 days a week to goof off!

-- Don't take 8:00 AM classes. You're not going to get up for them, especially if attendance isn't mandatory.

-- If you're making a "D" or "F" in a class early on, drop it before the deadline. If you're not cutting it early on, it's only going to get worse and you're probably going to flunk. Why not just start over?

-- Get out of your parents house and on your own as quickly as possible. The sooner you have to start doing your own laundry, fixing your own food, and living without mom & dad looking over your shoulder, the better off you'll be.

-- Don't EVER give in to the temptation to "take a semester" off. Almost everyone I've ever known who has done that hasn't come back.

-- If you don't have any idea of what you want to do after college, well join the club. I got a Psychology degree and you know what my first job was after college? Working as a Walmart photographer. Now I work for an internet wholesaler, yet back in college I flunked the only computer college course I ever took.

-- When you're in college, you think nothing can ever happen to you, mainly because it never has. Oh, how wrong that can be. Just ask my ex-roommate who get herpes at 19 & one of my friends who knocked one of his knees out of joint after passing out snorting nitrous oxide in the middle of a college dorm.

-- Credit cards are EVIL! I'm talking Freddy Krueger, Jason, & Fidel Castro combined evil. Take it from someone who ran up hundreds of dollars od charges on useless junk when he had $2 in his bank account. It was such a pain paying it all back that I STILL won't use a credit card to this day.

So there you go! Just follow all of those tips and...well you'll still probably end up working as a night manager at Wendy's after college, but it could be worse!
John Hawkins
rightwingnews.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6180)8/28/2003 7:41:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793626
 
press box
Liar, Liar
Liberal writers steal a rhetorical trick from the conservatives.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 1:56 PM PT

The best way to gain the momentary advantage in a debate is to call your opponent a liar, his every statement a falsehood, and his gist pure propaganda. Your sucker-punched foe will gasp, the audience will move to the edge of their seats, and the flustered moderator will struggle to regain control of the conversation. It makes for great theater and will suppress the fact that you were losing the debate for a couple of minutes.

Over the past decade, conservative TV and radio personalities?Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al.?have used variations on the liar-liar-pants-on-fire technique whenever they run into trouble or out of imagination to unhinge their ideological opponents. So, too, has fellow-traveler Bill O'Reilly, who dodges the conservative label. Liar-liar works magnificently against the TV rookie, the minor-league humanities professor blinking into the camera from a remote studio in the Midwest. But it can also give an emotional seizure to the media-savvy third-term congressman sitting in the studio with the host.

As television's conservative performers know, if liar-liar fails, your next fallback is to call your foe depraved, unpatriotic, or immoral. Wrapped between hard covers, these blustery allegations can become best-selling books: See Hannity's Let Freedom Ring, Savage's Savage Nation, Coulter's Slander, and also-rans by Mona Charen (Useful Idiots) and Tammy Bruce (The Death of Right and Wrong). Coulter's latest best seller, Treason, charts virgin rhetorical territory by accusing Democrats of assisting foreign enemies in overthrowing the United States.

Liberals and lefties, who know a thing or two about the politics of vituperation, have never held back from ridiculing conservatives. In recent years a bevy of such titles by James Carville, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, and others have sold well. But libs and lefties have generally shied away from calling conservatives liars?at least on their dust jackets. But no more. Having realized their side is getting whupped in the court of TV, three liberal/lefties who are talk-show regulars have incorporated the "L" word into the titles of their new books. Comedian and former Shorenstein Center fellow Al Franken takes on Republican politicians and the greater media culture, including Hannity and O'Reilly, with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. New York Observer columnist and Clinton apologist Joe Conason holds the laughs as he surveys similar territory in Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth. David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, has a similarly themed book coming out next month that focuses solely on the president's serial prevarications, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. (Disclosure: Corn is a friend, and I read part of his book in manuscript.)

Franken, Conason, and Corn aren't just ginning it up. They accurately document the right's most egregious lies and acts of hypocrisy. They uncover Coulter's loony untruths, dissect President Bush's tax cut claims, and rebuke him for his insincere promise to lead a more decorous political debate. If you ever doubted the GOP's fondness for "crony capitalism" or its pork-barrel duplicity, you'll find the complete story here. And so on. But in excavating conservative bullshit, these writers begin to resemble their colleagues on the right: Their primary mission isn't to uncover lies and reveal the truth. If it were, they'd chart the deceptions and propaganda emanating from both political wings. Their only goal is to win one for their side. (This criticism applies more to Franken and Conason than it does Corn?you can't expect a book about Bush's lies to also be about Clinton's lies. And Corn acknowledges in his intro that Bush isn't the first White House liar and that Clinton lied, too. For a comprehensive lefty takedown of Clinton's lies, see Slate contributor Christopher Hitchens' 2000 book No One Left To Lie To: The Politics of the Worst Family.)

The unspoken premise of the liar-liar books?no matter who writes them?is that the other side lies and mine doesn't. Of course, neither wing has ever told it straight, a fact all liar-liar books neglect. The rise of the liar-liar book coincides with the proliferation of political talk on TV and radio?especially TV?where the liar-liar dynamic rules. When Crossfire, Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan and Press , and the other shows recruit on-air guests, they approach the task like casting directors. They pre-interview potential guests to make sure they'll fulfill the binary requirements of the drama?left-right, pro-anti, skins-shirts. Those without an ax to grind need not apply.

Their ideal guest is a water carrier for his political class, somebody who is as adversarial as a prosecutor or as one-sided as the leader of an opposition research team. If, by chance, the water carriers stumble, the script calls for the hosts to step in and save the segment with the appropriate conservative or liberal platitude. Given the structure of the shows, it's inevitable that these "debates" have degenerated into "Your side is lying"?"No, your side is." And it's only logical that TV hosts and guests have had the commercial sense to use the shows as infomercials to drive partisan viewers to bookstores to buy their books.

The popularity of liar-liar TV and publishing indicates a deepening interest in politics, but only for a political conversation that's narrow enough to entertain simple-minded viewers and readers, many of whom regard politics as one of their hobbies, like clogging or license-plate collecting, or worse yet, as their secular religion. To dismiss the liar-lair books as preaching to the choir misses the whole point: The devout demand a Sunday sermon, and the last thing they want to hear is an open-minded lecture about atheism.

Liberal scriveners may improve their team's political lot by matching the conservative investment in liar-liar stock, but it will come at the expense of their credibility. I suppose that when consuming liar-liar books in pairs, say Sean Hannity's versus Joe Conason's, the average reader might come within spitting distance of political reality. But having read too many of these books for my own good, I've concluded that if you're interested in which wing lies more, you're probably not very interested in the truth.

******

Send your favorite examples of political lies, deceptions, and propaganda to pressbox@hotmail.com. Your comments and name may appear in a future column unless you designate otherwise.
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.

Article URL: slate.msn.com