MSNBC's David Shuster on "audacity, fearlessness, and chutzpah"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Who is winning this race and why... (David Shuster)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

To win a presidential election, strategists of every stripe will tell you that your campaign must show audacity, fearlessness, and chutzpah. And it's why the Republican party and the Bush campaign has been crushing the democrats and John Kerry.

Take the CBS/Bush national guard documents— Republicans are hammering the anti-Bush story and those responsible for it. The GOP is even demanding a Congressional investigation. Quote, (from a Republican letter on capitol hill): "We urge CBS to retract its story, and to disclose the identities of the people who have used your network to deceive your viewers." A congressional investigation may be warranted. But keep in mind this is the same group of lawmakers who tried to BLOCK investigations into the false testimony, forged documents, and outright lies used by the CIA and Pentagon to make the case for war with Iraq. Audacity? You bet. Agressive and smart politics? Indeed.

Here's another example. Guess who said, "It's simply wrong to vote to commit our troops to combat and then refuse to provide them with the resources they need." Was this (a) a Democrat complaining to military leaders in March 2003 about the decision to send troops into Iraq without bullet proof vests. (something testified to by military leaders at the time.) Or was this (b) Dick Cheney slamming John Kerry for his vote against supplemental war funding. If you guessed "b," you know who is showing confidence and strength.

How about this example: Guess who said this week, "I believe a president must confront problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations." Was this (a) President Bush talking about Iraq or (b) John Kerry bemoaning the record budget deficit and calling on higher taxes on the rich to close the gap. If you guessed (a), you know which candidate is showing the fearlessness it takes to win.



whore (hawr)
n (plural whores)
1. an offensive term for a prostitute
2. an offensive term for somebody regarded as being sexually indiscriminate
3. an offensive term for somebody who is regarded as willingly setting aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives (insult)

vi (past whored, past participle whored, present participle whor·ing, 3rd person present singular whores)
1. an offensive term meaning to work as a prostitute
2. an offensive term meaning to be a regular customer of prostitutes

(Old English hôre . Ultimately from an Indo-European base meaning “to desire” that is also the ancestor of English cherish, caress, and Kama Sutra.)
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Protected]

1. I think David Shuster makes a good point

I must be a whore.

[shrub chipper]

3. But isn't it the role of Journalists to call the liars

on the lies they tell.

It used to be, but, I guess, now, we don't have Journalists, only pundits and screamers.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. I have a hard time with Shuster celebrating Bush's statement that...

"I believe a president must confront problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations"...

He's passing ALL KINDS of problems on to future presidents and future generations, first and foremost being our diminished stature in the world community as the result of our invasion of Iraq, including (but not limited to) the "frat pranks" at Abu Ghraib prison.

In Bush's case, I attribute that comment to ignorance and an advanced state of denial, not "fearlessness." Shuster is most certainly NOT practicing "journalism" here. It seems more like he's auditioning for a spot at Fox News.

Cheney is "strong and confident?" Sure, he's got all of those no-bid Halliburton contracts to keep him warm at night.

Shuster is an asshat. Oh, yeah...he's also a whore.

[shrub chipper]

10. I know, there was a time when

Reporters gleefully pointed out exactly this type of lie.

It is evident that time has passed.

[Guaranteed]

15. It sounds like

he kind of is, in a backhanded way.

[girl gone mad]

2. So...

Bush is good at saying the opposite of what he is doing. THerefore we should vote for him.

:puke:

[dennis4868]

4. basically he is saying.....

you have to cheat and lie to win.....great....

[bagnana]

5. shamelessness, hypocrisy, mendacity

Just call a spade a spade. They lie shamelessly.

[A_Possum]

6. Bah. More media excuses for themselves

It's the MEDIA who are rolling over like submissive dogs to the absurdities of the Pugs.

And they know it. That's all this is, trying to blame Kerry for their own wussiness.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

8. * is reckless

and foolish- not audacious. His policies, whether considered by this a**hole to be good politics or not, have caused chaos throughout the world and in our country. Since when was plunging the world into dissension indicative of a great leader? How about an example of that?

[Justice]

9. This leaves me speechless

I know it is true, it is how they all think but I cannot believe it is true.

So Bush lies. Really resolute about lie. Very strong, aggressive. Lying though. We are to admire him? This is a good thing.

Kerry tells the truth, perhaps with nuances. We say, not aggressive, therefore, bad. Truth, thoughtful, but bad.

[shrub chipper]

11. Have they all really misinterpreted the role of Media in this?

They should be pointing out these lies, not 'interpreting' what the voters want.

I can't decide whether the present day reporters are evil or merely lazy and clueless!! The result is the same either way.

[A_Possum]

12. I wrote the guy an e-mail

pointing out exactly that.

Suggest we remind him of his role, instead of letting him excuse himself.

[shrub chipper]

13. I just did exactly the same thing.

Are they that lazy??

[grasswire]

14. what email addy did you use?

for Schuster?

[A_Possum]

16. [email protected]

[demwing]

17. Maybe this guy IS a whore, BUT -

What he is saying is as keen as the edge of a razor.

Listen:
"A congressional investigation may be warranted. But keep in mind this is the same group of lawmakers (Republican on the Hill) who tried to BLOCK investigations into the false testimony, forged documents, and outright lies used by the CIA and Pentagon to make the case for war with Iraq. Audacity? You bet. Agressive and smart politics? Indeed."

What he is laying out is what we already know -The nice guy, or the right guy, doesn't always win the election. The agressive guy, with the cojones to do or say whatever it takes to get elected, gets elected.

Now if the press did its damn job, and if the lies of Bush/Cheney were reported and condemned, then the nice/honest guy would fare much better, but that isnt the case

[A_Possum]

18. That's like saying the bully always wins

Cause nobody will ever stand up to him, therefore bullying is the only winning strategy.

I don't think Bush is gonna win. I have a feeling the wave is coming, silently and hard, out there on the ocean still just a couple of feet tall. But when it gets to shallow water...

Tsunami.

[demwing]

21. Bullying is not the ONLY winning strategy

but it IS a winning strategy, unless someone stands up to the bully.

And like you, I don't think Bush is gonna win.

Unfortunately, he didn't win last time either.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

19. I hear what you're saying, but I stand on my comments in #1 and #7

The aggressive opponent has a distinct advantage. However, when you're talking about the guy who will "do or say whatever it takes to get elected" and that guy is Karl Rove, it's one thing to ACKNOWLEDGE it...it's another to APPLAUD it. My initial reaction to the piece is that Shuster is definitely applauding.

Yes, there is a foundation of truth under what Shuster is saying.

There's nothing to be admired here. If two men are standing in the middle of a field, and one has a big stick with a nail in the end of it and the other has an Uzi, the guy with the stick is going to have a W-I-D-E hole blown in the middle of his ass.

That doesn't necessarily mean we should admire the guy with the Uzi for HAVING an Uzi. He wasn't talented or gifted by virtue of his ability to own the gun and pull the trigger.

[demwing]

22. I agree with all you say

And I don't refute the "this guy is a whore" argument.

But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this guy got it right, if only for just this one moment.

Should Shuster admire the guy with the UZI?
Nope

Should we admire the Shuster for stumbling on the truth?
Again - Nope.

Should we ignore him on this because he's a media whore?
Not a chance.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

24. You're right...

I didn't ignore him, I posted his comments here. Whether it's Shuster or Matthews or Hannity, it's all part of the coal in the engine that's sending this election down the tracks.

And yes, he's correctly identified the nature of the beast. The beast that Shuster described...the one that all of the other posters in this thread have discussed...most certainly IS the beast that John Kerry will need to defeat in order to become president.

He can defeat it with whatever combination of sheer brute force and intellect works, but he can't walk around it...he can't jump over it or tunnel under it...and I personally believe the "Carville-ization" of his campaign is an acknowledgment of this.

I honestly believe that Kerry entered into this campaign thinking there was a better, a NOBLER way of winning than locking horns with Karl Rove. I also believe his comments about "steering his boat into the attack" were genuine. He WILL utilize strategy. He WON'T play exclusively by the Rove playbook. The next couple of months will be amazing.

[secular_warrior]

20. I hate to say it, but the doofus is correct.

Americans of every political stripe like a fight -- it's what separates us from most other cultures.

Americans like to think of themselves as fighters, that if someone attacks their character they will fight back. It's hard for the folks out in swing voter land to understand why a decorated war hero, a distinguished US Senator, a great American like John Kerry would not fight back. I blame this on the mindset of the Democratic establishment (exemplified best by Cahill and Shrum), and has been a problem to lesser and greater degrees for the past 30 years. Since 1968, the Democrats have wanted a polite game of chess and the Republicans have repeatedly beat us up, stolen our lunch money and stuffed us in our lockers.

See, the problem is if Americans don't view the candidate as a fighter, they're not willing to listen to anything else he/she has to say. Dukakis syndrome.

Luckily, we have John Kerry as our candidate. He will defy the Democratic establishment/nannies, fight back and close the Republicans down at the end, just when they think they've won it. The Republicans' loss will be even more brutal, to see the victory slip away right before their eyes...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

23. OK, but if YOU wrote the article, I'd AGREE with you...

...because you're right, and you're not putting anyone on a pedestal...you're just presenting an accurate snapshot of human nature.

Americans DO love a fight. And on the playground or in an election, someone's gonna end up with extra lunch money and someone else is gonna be hungry.

If Shuster just came out and said that Karen Hughes and Karl Rove don't have a conscience between them...that Hughes will play "The Christ Card" and whip the Christian fundamentalists into a frenzy, while Rove will lie and manipulate among whoever is left...then it's Hughes again, with the "compassionate conservative" crap...I might have gotten behind it.

I really hope that the "predictions" are true...I hope that we will get to the debates and Kerry will just flat-out take the gloves off and let Junior HAVE IT. I don't know how many chances he'll have after the debates if he doesn't.

For better or worse...regardless of any ideology or "in a perfect world" scenarios...I do believe that the world wants to see a bloodbath in this election. I believe that one group wants to see Kerry added as another casualty of the "Dukakis syndrome," as you put it. Another group wants to see "like father, like son, one term, he's done" become more than a catchy slogan. Then there's a tepid group in the middle...Chris Matthews lives here, so does Don Imus...who will immediately get behind the winner.

Finally, I agree completely with your last paragraph. That's what keeps me going, that's my focus. As foolish as it must seem in a race where so much is at stake, "Team Bush" absolutely MUST think they're winning, because then they relax, they get cocky, they get careless, and WE eat their lunch.

:toast:

[secular_warrior]

25. I think there's a general feeling among the American media

that the Democrats won't fight back. I think it bothers Americans when people don't stand up to bullies. I think it bothers an American journalist/whore/pundit like Schuster when an entire party wont' stand up to slimey, bully tactics -- and another part of him that respects those very tactics.

Let's journey back to High School for a second. There were bullies, there were average kids, there were geeks. When a bully would beat up a geek and the geek just stood there and took his beating, the average kids would feel sorry for the geek but would still rather be friends with the bully. After all, if they were friends with the bully everyone else would fear them as well.. it's better to be the bully than the geek stuffed in the locker. BUT.. there is no one more respected than the geek who STANDS UP to the Bully. Ahh.. now there's the true hero of the playground, the one individual Americans truly respect.

I think deep down inside, the media whores like Schuster, Matthews, Imus, et al are yearning for the geek to fight back, to see the bully face down in the dirt crying for his mommy. In this analogy, I think they are like the geek's big brother taunting their kid brother so he would FIGHT BACK already.

Here is why Kerry will win: there is no better closer in modern politics than this guy, and it's not simply about debates. He has the gift of being able to deliver in the clutch, to hone in on what's important to voters and close the sale at the buzzer. Kerry's wandering/meandering ways during the dog days of the campaign lull his opponents to sleep, only to be unprepared for the sudden fury he unleashes as the end approaches. If the Republicans are not up by at least 10 points on Nov 1st it is all over for them.