Breaking My Silence
If you've e-mailed recently, you probably know I've spent most of the past week in seclusion. And even after recovering my apartment keys, I remained in seclusion. You see, some vicious rumors about yours truly have been circulating across the Internet - charges so tawdry and sordid, even I wouldn't forward them. This has been an extremely painful time, not only for myself, but for all members of my family that still speak to me. So let me take this opportunity to once and for all clear the air.
The job of writing America's #4,323-rated public affairs blog on an almost weekly basis is a difficult one. In an effort to beef up my staff, I interviewed, via webcam, a few applicants for the position of Lomblog executive editor. During one of these conversations, I apparently left the cam on before I had completely changed out of my Spider Man pajamas. Because the camera was fuzzy and I happened to be eating a McDonald's breakfast burrito at the same time...well, evidently this constitutes sexual harrassment in certain jurisdictions. Needless to say, I am completely innocent of these vile accusations. I will continue to fight these smears for as long as it takes to clear my name, or until an incriminating screenshot has been posted or broadcast on a major network.
On advice from my attorney, I'm trying to remain mum on specifics. But let me state the following:
• I've never so much as passed a falafel stand, much less used one with impure intent
• If I ever sat on a battery-powered device, it was entirely by mistake
• I've never used my position to curry sexual favors. In fact, the thought never occurred to me until just now
Like any public figure, I am a target. Every week, but especially around the first of the month, I receive letters from people trying to extort money from me. This is the price I pay for speaking out. Luckily, I do have a very loyal fan base. I want to thank all of you for continuing to stand by me, especially those that bought my newest publication, Playa Out: LF's Handbook For Abstinent Teens. Your support has not just moved me, it's made me a better man.
Ok, enough said. Join us next week when Paris Hilton enters the No-Crap-Zone; I'll ask if her parents are happy they raised such a no-talent skank. See you then.
Anyone for some Greek?
Friday, October 22, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
Charting the Undecideds
The 2004 campaign has now entered the home stretch. In a little more than two weeks, we will know which candidate has been fraudulently elected president of the United States. But for now, there are still many Americans who have yet to decide whether Bush or Kerry should spend the next four years in the White House or wasting away in a drunken, urine-soaked stupor. In our latest Cheese Or Lose Special Report, we zero in on some of the critical swing voting blocs that could determine this election.
Joining us once again is our resident polling expert, William Sliender. Bill is a Senior Fellow of Self-Evident Debate Analysis at the Bricklined Institute, a Washington-based think tank. His recent column, Debate Winner: Did The Debates Produce A Winner?, appeared in over 500 newspapers and 200 internets. Here's our discussion of his latest findings.
LOMBAIRE FAN: Hey Bill, good to see you again.
WILLIAM SLIENDER: Great to be back, LF. It's really getting down to the wire --- or should I say, "down to the wire"?
LF: It certainly is. Tell us about the voters you talked to.
WS: Well, as you know, in every election, there are certain key undecided voting groups that everyone agrees will be decisive - that is, if they decide to decide. In past years, we've had "soccer moms", "NASCAR dads", and "MILFs". Well, the focus groups we assembled to watch Wednesday night's final debate were broken down into representative samples of constituencies that both candidates must woo to be successful. That is, to succeed in winning the election.
LF: And what was your approach to interviewing them?
WS: Well, each member of our groups were given electronic instruments - instruments with a safety margin of plus or minus 100%. Through this, we were able to instantly record, in chart form, voter response to the debate. And as you'll see, each chart contains two lines - one for each candidate. These lines go up; they also go down. Down means the voters didn't like what they were hearing, up means they did. And to avoid any further confusion, we've chosen entirely different colors for both nominees. So the yellow line represents Senator Kerry, while the white lines - as in his party days - belong to the president.
LF: So tell us about the first group.
WS: Well, as you know, LF, health care is a very important issue in this campaign. So we wanted to test the reaction of some would-be voters who are perhaps closest to the American medical system: hospital patients who are currently unconscious and being kept alive via respirator. There are thousands of comatose voters in battleground states across this country who could make all the difference if they awake before Election Day and turn out at the polls. Using a cardiograph, this is the result we captured:
As you can see, not a lot of movement. For all the talk of stem cell research, medical malpractice and the like, these voters just didn't budge. What will it take to engage them? Who knows? We thought we saw a bit of a blip when the president raised his voice and pounded the podium a few times, but alas, nothing. On the other hand, the Kerry campaign will point to this group's constant somnolence as further evidence the Senator is a reassuring figure who doesn't "alarm" voters. So basically a wash. Looks like this is one bloc of undecideds that both campaigns might as well just write off.
LF: Very interesting. Are there any voters who are surprisingly undecided?
WS: Yes, LF - the media. That's right, the media. Many people assume that all journalists secretly carry a partisan axe but in fact, several prominent newsmen have not yet picked a candidate. Take Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. Though he works for a network known for its conservative leanings, O'Reilly professes to be undecided. Moreover, on the day of the final debate, Bill was slapped with a multimillion dollar sexual harrassment lawsuit. So it's safe to say he had a lot on his mind. But with the help of a female Fox News producer who covertly attached a blood-pressure meter to Mr. O'Reilly's person, we were able to catch his response to the debate as it happened:
Lots of up-and-down movement, as you would expect from O'Reilly. As you can see, his interest peaked early on, when President Bush referenced prostitution. Other Bush answers that resonated with O'Reilly included the president's discussion of the so-called "back-door draft" and a mention of Bangor, Maine that the anchorman may have misinterpreted. Kerry's best moment, from the O'Reilly perspective, came when he mentioned Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. But President Bush topped even that by talking about his own college-aged daughters. In fact, just about any mention of "Bush" or "daughters" seemed to play well with the New York-based broadcaster. I think everyone at our polling unit would agree that despite his protestations to the contrary, Bill O'Reilly is definitely leaning in the president's direction - and leaning pretty hard.
LF: What about the gay community? Any undecideds there?
WS: Certainly. At a Seattle tavern, we assembled a group of over 200 uncommitted lesbians - purely for research purposes. How did they react to the debate?
As you can see, very tight race. In fact, neither candidate scored as well as they did in the last debate, when both mentioned timber. If I can offer a little bit of advice to both men, it's that they're going to have to work awfully hard to reach that lesbian vote, if they don't want to go home on Tuesday November 2 feeling the cold slap of rejection.
LF: Lesbians, the comatose, Bill O'Reilly - who could be left?
WS: Well, our next group was arranged just for a bit of fun. In every campaign, there's much discussion of children, families and the American future. So we played the debate for gaggle of toddlers in Des Moines, Iowa. We actually found them less demanding than your typical undecided voter. And their response to the debate was quite sophisticated:
Is it a bunny? A kitten? Some kind of giant mouse? Hard to tell. In fact, that's all that you can say about who's winning this race: it's just too hard to tell.
LF: Thank you, Bill. Insightful as always.
WS: My pleasure. In fact, the pleasure is mine.
The 2004 campaign has now entered the home stretch. In a little more than two weeks, we will know which candidate has been fraudulently elected president of the United States. But for now, there are still many Americans who have yet to decide whether Bush or Kerry should spend the next four years in the White House or wasting away in a drunken, urine-soaked stupor. In our latest Cheese Or Lose Special Report, we zero in on some of the critical swing voting blocs that could determine this election.
Joining us once again is our resident polling expert, William Sliender. Bill is a Senior Fellow of Self-Evident Debate Analysis at the Bricklined Institute, a Washington-based think tank. His recent column, Debate Winner: Did The Debates Produce A Winner?, appeared in over 500 newspapers and 200 internets. Here's our discussion of his latest findings.
LOMBAIRE FAN: Hey Bill, good to see you again.
WILLIAM SLIENDER: Great to be back, LF. It's really getting down to the wire --- or should I say, "down to the wire"?
LF: It certainly is. Tell us about the voters you talked to.
WS: Well, as you know, in every election, there are certain key undecided voting groups that everyone agrees will be decisive - that is, if they decide to decide. In past years, we've had "soccer moms", "NASCAR dads", and "MILFs". Well, the focus groups we assembled to watch Wednesday night's final debate were broken down into representative samples of constituencies that both candidates must woo to be successful. That is, to succeed in winning the election.
LF: And what was your approach to interviewing them?
WS: Well, each member of our groups were given electronic instruments - instruments with a safety margin of plus or minus 100%. Through this, we were able to instantly record, in chart form, voter response to the debate. And as you'll see, each chart contains two lines - one for each candidate. These lines go up; they also go down. Down means the voters didn't like what they were hearing, up means they did. And to avoid any further confusion, we've chosen entirely different colors for both nominees. So the yellow line represents Senator Kerry, while the white lines - as in his party days - belong to the president.
LF: So tell us about the first group.
WS: Well, as you know, LF, health care is a very important issue in this campaign. So we wanted to test the reaction of some would-be voters who are perhaps closest to the American medical system: hospital patients who are currently unconscious and being kept alive via respirator. There are thousands of comatose voters in battleground states across this country who could make all the difference if they awake before Election Day and turn out at the polls. Using a cardiograph, this is the result we captured:
As you can see, not a lot of movement. For all the talk of stem cell research, medical malpractice and the like, these voters just didn't budge. What will it take to engage them? Who knows? We thought we saw a bit of a blip when the president raised his voice and pounded the podium a few times, but alas, nothing. On the other hand, the Kerry campaign will point to this group's constant somnolence as further evidence the Senator is a reassuring figure who doesn't "alarm" voters. So basically a wash. Looks like this is one bloc of undecideds that both campaigns might as well just write off.
LF: Very interesting. Are there any voters who are surprisingly undecided?
WS: Yes, LF - the media. That's right, the media. Many people assume that all journalists secretly carry a partisan axe but in fact, several prominent newsmen have not yet picked a candidate. Take Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. Though he works for a network known for its conservative leanings, O'Reilly professes to be undecided. Moreover, on the day of the final debate, Bill was slapped with a multimillion dollar sexual harrassment lawsuit. So it's safe to say he had a lot on his mind. But with the help of a female Fox News producer who covertly attached a blood-pressure meter to Mr. O'Reilly's person, we were able to catch his response to the debate as it happened:
Lots of up-and-down movement, as you would expect from O'Reilly. As you can see, his interest peaked early on, when President Bush referenced prostitution. Other Bush answers that resonated with O'Reilly included the president's discussion of the so-called "back-door draft" and a mention of Bangor, Maine that the anchorman may have misinterpreted. Kerry's best moment, from the O'Reilly perspective, came when he mentioned Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. But President Bush topped even that by talking about his own college-aged daughters. In fact, just about any mention of "Bush" or "daughters" seemed to play well with the New York-based broadcaster. I think everyone at our polling unit would agree that despite his protestations to the contrary, Bill O'Reilly is definitely leaning in the president's direction - and leaning pretty hard.
LF: What about the gay community? Any undecideds there?
WS: Certainly. At a Seattle tavern, we assembled a group of over 200 uncommitted lesbians - purely for research purposes. How did they react to the debate?
As you can see, very tight race. In fact, neither candidate scored as well as they did in the last debate, when both mentioned timber. If I can offer a little bit of advice to both men, it's that they're going to have to work awfully hard to reach that lesbian vote, if they don't want to go home on Tuesday November 2 feeling the cold slap of rejection.
LF: Lesbians, the comatose, Bill O'Reilly - who could be left?
WS: Well, our next group was arranged just for a bit of fun. In every campaign, there's much discussion of children, families and the American future. So we played the debate for gaggle of toddlers in Des Moines, Iowa. We actually found them less demanding than your typical undecided voter. And their response to the debate was quite sophisticated:
Is it a bunny? A kitten? Some kind of giant mouse? Hard to tell. In fact, that's all that you can say about who's winning this race: it's just too hard to tell.
LF: Thank you, Bill. Insightful as always.
WS: My pleasure. In fact, the pleasure is mine.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
VP Debate: Number 2's Throw Down
If you thought the presidential debate was exciting, then you must have been really riveted by last night's prime-time duel between John "Pretty Boy" Edwards and Dick "Dickie Boy" Cheney. The atmosphere within that Cleveland auditorium was electric. Everyone gathered knew that in a close race like this, even a debate between second-stringers could have.....marginal impact at best. With stakes that high, Cheney and Edwards had clearly left the boxing gloves in an undisclosed location. Just seconds after the handshake and huddle, they got down to some of the nastiest political action Ohio's seen since Jerry Springer was mayor of Cincinnati.
After the first Bush-Kerry debate, much comment was made on the body language of the two candidates. Well, this debate also had some interesting body language, but unfortunately, most of it took place off-camera. Good thing I took notes:
Yes, there was a chill in the air, and not just from Second Lady Lynne Cheney as she eyed me draining my Slurpee. These two guys really don't like each other. The hostility was so thick, you could cut it with a knife, then spend the rest of your life at Guantanamo. Cheney sought to portray Edwards as an inexperienced, undistinguished first-term senator who flip-flops on major issues. Meanwhile, Edwards portrayed Cheney as a dishonest, ultra-conservative corporate criminal whose only saving grace is his Sapphic daughter. How refreshing. Voters who complain about choosing "the lesser of two evils" would have no trouble finding truly great evil on display here.
Not that the two men didn't demonstrate any positive qualities. In contrast to the president, VP Cheney showed an astonishing command of the facts, especially considering that so little of what he said was factual. The North Carolina senator, on the other hand, was a study in all-American telegenic star power, every bit as boyishly charming as in his days playing "John-Boy" on The Waltons. I'm glad he's had the mole taken in a little. The only downside is that Edwards may have seemed a little too young, a little too fresh, maybe coming off as something of a lightweight. Not a problem for Cheney, who once again showed that he is a major Dick. A highly accomplished, very experienced, gravitas-laden, bigtime Dick.
The fact that Cheney and Edwards debated while seated at a table rather than standing behind podiums probably worked to the Republican's advantage as well. Edwards had to have it in the back of his mind that at any moment, Cheney could reach over, rip his heart through his chest and devour it with a plate of lima beans. Of course, the highly disciplined GOPer knew this would have been terribly "off-message", though admittedly very tasty.
Still, there were gaffes. The most notable came when Edwards attacked Cheney for his stewardship of the controversial Halliburton oil company, and Cheney responded by telling viewers to get the "real story" at "factcheck.com"; the actual address is factcheck.org. Oops! I have to confess the Vice-President isn't the only one with a little egg on his face. I guess I wasn't listening closely enough, but I could've sworn the words in question were not "fact check" but well....something kinda similar. Before I learned the truth, I'd already spent several hours paging through sites like this:
I won't lie: I was really befuddled by this mixup. I didn't get it - was the Vice President saying he couldn't have been aware of Halliburton's crimes because he was too busy "chubby-chasing" around the office? This from an administration that promised a "change in tone" from the Clinton years.
Finally, the debate ended up as more or less a draw. Both candidates achieved their goals. Cheney proved he could sit for 90 minutes without keeling over. And Edwards went head-to-head with the most powerful vice-president in history - a feat that certainly qualifies him to take on terrorists with only slightly less personal charm.
Bring on the next debate!
If you thought the presidential debate was exciting, then you must have been really riveted by last night's prime-time duel between John "Pretty Boy" Edwards and Dick "Dickie Boy" Cheney. The atmosphere within that Cleveland auditorium was electric. Everyone gathered knew that in a close race like this, even a debate between second-stringers could have.....marginal impact at best. With stakes that high, Cheney and Edwards had clearly left the boxing gloves in an undisclosed location. Just seconds after the handshake and huddle, they got down to some of the nastiest political action Ohio's seen since Jerry Springer was mayor of Cincinnati.
After the first Bush-Kerry debate, much comment was made on the body language of the two candidates. Well, this debate also had some interesting body language, but unfortunately, most of it took place off-camera. Good thing I took notes:
Yes, there was a chill in the air, and not just from Second Lady Lynne Cheney as she eyed me draining my Slurpee. These two guys really don't like each other. The hostility was so thick, you could cut it with a knife, then spend the rest of your life at Guantanamo. Cheney sought to portray Edwards as an inexperienced, undistinguished first-term senator who flip-flops on major issues. Meanwhile, Edwards portrayed Cheney as a dishonest, ultra-conservative corporate criminal whose only saving grace is his Sapphic daughter. How refreshing. Voters who complain about choosing "the lesser of two evils" would have no trouble finding truly great evil on display here.
Not that the two men didn't demonstrate any positive qualities. In contrast to the president, VP Cheney showed an astonishing command of the facts, especially considering that so little of what he said was factual. The North Carolina senator, on the other hand, was a study in all-American telegenic star power, every bit as boyishly charming as in his days playing "John-Boy" on The Waltons. I'm glad he's had the mole taken in a little. The only downside is that Edwards may have seemed a little too young, a little too fresh, maybe coming off as something of a lightweight. Not a problem for Cheney, who once again showed that he is a major Dick. A highly accomplished, very experienced, gravitas-laden, bigtime Dick.
The fact that Cheney and Edwards debated while seated at a table rather than standing behind podiums probably worked to the Republican's advantage as well. Edwards had to have it in the back of his mind that at any moment, Cheney could reach over, rip his heart through his chest and devour it with a plate of lima beans. Of course, the highly disciplined GOPer knew this would have been terribly "off-message", though admittedly very tasty.
Still, there were gaffes. The most notable came when Edwards attacked Cheney for his stewardship of the controversial Halliburton oil company, and Cheney responded by telling viewers to get the "real story" at "factcheck.com"; the actual address is factcheck.org. Oops! I have to confess the Vice-President isn't the only one with a little egg on his face. I guess I wasn't listening closely enough, but I could've sworn the words in question were not "fact check" but well....something kinda similar. Before I learned the truth, I'd already spent several hours paging through sites like this:
I won't lie: I was really befuddled by this mixup. I didn't get it - was the Vice President saying he couldn't have been aware of Halliburton's crimes because he was too busy "chubby-chasing" around the office? This from an administration that promised a "change in tone" from the Clinton years.
Finally, the debate ended up as more or less a draw. Both candidates achieved their goals. Cheney proved he could sit for 90 minutes without keeling over. And Edwards went head-to-head with the most powerful vice-president in history - a feat that certainly qualifies him to take on terrorists with only slightly less personal charm.
Bring on the next debate!
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Debate Aftermath
Ye olde devoted reader(s), oh how I've missed you! I'm now back from three days of detainment in Coral Gables, Florida - site of the first presidential debate and by strange coincidence, the latest federally designated disaster area. Since the Bush-Kerry face-off Thursday night, initial impressions have gelled and then hardened - and as you know, it's hard work getting impressions to harden. Who won? Well, I had seats close to the stage, so I was a bit distracted by Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's constant snuff-chewing. But most polling has given Massachusetts' junior senator a discernable "bounce". And for the Kerry campaign, this has to be the biggest break since TBS stopped showing Munsters reruns.
Most experts and many viewers seem to believe the Senator came off more "presidential" than the president. But I believe there was an extra dimension to Mr. Bush's performance - in fact, he was downright "presi-dimensional". Yes, there's probably never been a greater display of presi-dimensia in all of American political history.
How did the president do? Almost from the beginning it seemed like he was on the defensive, displaying the body language of Bambi's mom after hearing the hunters approach:
Still, he wasted no time reminding the audience of his major accomplishment: holding office through a succession of tragedies. Terrorism dominated the discussion; an apt subject matter, given gaps in Bush's 90-second responses large enough to drive a truck bomb through. Let's hope our public transportation is less vulnerable to derailment than the president's train of thought.
The candidates went back and forth on the Iraq war. Kerry argued that the president failed to build a broad international coalition, relying largely on the help of Great Britain and Australia. To which the president interjected: "Actually, you forgot Poland." Now, under the rules, the candidates were not allowed to question each other directly. Too bad, as it would've been interesting to see Kerry ask, "Mr. President, exactly how many Poles does it take to help us in Iraq?" (Answer: thirty to guard the oil in the pipeline, forty to keep the others from huffing it).
I can't wait for the next debate on Friday, and neither can the people of Florida, who are anxious to learn which candidate is a strong, decisive leader that will help reconstruct their porch.
Ye olde devoted reader(s), oh how I've missed you! I'm now back from three days of detainment in Coral Gables, Florida - site of the first presidential debate and by strange coincidence, the latest federally designated disaster area. Since the Bush-Kerry face-off Thursday night, initial impressions have gelled and then hardened - and as you know, it's hard work getting impressions to harden. Who won? Well, I had seats close to the stage, so I was a bit distracted by Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's constant snuff-chewing. But most polling has given Massachusetts' junior senator a discernable "bounce". And for the Kerry campaign, this has to be the biggest break since TBS stopped showing Munsters reruns.
Most experts and many viewers seem to believe the Senator came off more "presidential" than the president. But I believe there was an extra dimension to Mr. Bush's performance - in fact, he was downright "presi-dimensional". Yes, there's probably never been a greater display of presi-dimensia in all of American political history.
How did the president do? Almost from the beginning it seemed like he was on the defensive, displaying the body language of Bambi's mom after hearing the hunters approach:
Still, he wasted no time reminding the audience of his major accomplishment: holding office through a succession of tragedies. Terrorism dominated the discussion; an apt subject matter, given gaps in Bush's 90-second responses large enough to drive a truck bomb through. Let's hope our public transportation is less vulnerable to derailment than the president's train of thought.
The candidates went back and forth on the Iraq war. Kerry argued that the president failed to build a broad international coalition, relying largely on the help of Great Britain and Australia. To which the president interjected: "Actually, you forgot Poland." Now, under the rules, the candidates were not allowed to question each other directly. Too bad, as it would've been interesting to see Kerry ask, "Mr. President, exactly how many Poles does it take to help us in Iraq?" (Answer: thirty to guard the oil in the pipeline, forty to keep the others from huffing it).
I can't wait for the next debate on Friday, and neither can the people of Florida, who are anxious to learn which candidate is a strong, decisive leader that will help reconstruct their porch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
