Media outlets reported allegations Biden plagiarized Kinnock, but not that he had previously credited him
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times reported that when Sen. Joe Biden ran for president in 1987, he "was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." The New York Times and the Associated Press made similar reports. But they did not note that Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock, as The Washington Post reported at the time: "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it."
In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock." But those articles did not note that while Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association, Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock. According to a September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it."
In contrast with the August 23 Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and AP articles, an August 23 Chicago Tribune article reported:
Twenty years ago, Biden was, in a sense, the Obama of his time, a young turk of a politician with a gift for soaring, transcendental rhetoric. But his first bid for the presidency imploded in 1988 when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock that described the candidate's working-class roots. Biden was forced from the race after the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis circulated a videotape with Biden failing to give credit to Kinnock for a speech he gave in Iowa.
Biden, however, had credited Kinnock with the remarks in his other speeches, leaving many of his supporters at the time -- and long after -- feeling like Biden was pushed from the stage unfairly.
From the September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, by staff writer Eleanor Randolph (retrieved from the Nexis news database):
Campaign aides to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) reacted angrily yesterday to a report that a fellow Democratic contender for the presidential nomination had given at least one journalist a videotape suggesting that Biden plagiarized a campaign speech of British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.
Biden himself said he wasn't angry, adding that his rivals may be "a little worried there's some movement" toward him in the race for the Democratic nomination.
The tape, which yesterday's Des Moines Register described as the first example of an "attack video" launched by a political rival, showed an excerpt of a widely discussed Kinnock commercial from last summer's British general election and then an excerpt from an Aug. 23 debate in Iowa in which Biden borrowed the British leader's words.
Biden did appear to drop his own family something of a notch downward on the economic and social scale to appear more like Kinnock. But Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks -- and in a speech Friday night in Philadelphia.
"I've been using it all over," Biden said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged failing to credit Kinnock Aug. 23 but said many members of that Iowa audience had heard the same words, fully credited to the Briton, in other campaign appearances.
[...]
The Kinnock commercial, which was part of a Labor Party broadcast that many British viewers saw as an American-style advertisement, showed the Welshman saying at one point: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? ... Was it because our predecessors were thick? ... Was it because they were weak, those people who could work eight hours underground [as coal miners] and come up and play football, weak? ... It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand."
Biden, in the Aug. 23 debate said: "Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? ... Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in ... generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? ... Was it that they didn't work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? ... It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand."
Biden aides said yesterday that Biden began using the Kinnock rhetoric in August and had credited Kinnock on virtually every other occasion when he used it. John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14.
Stories in The Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it.
It is NOT an “allegation” like the MMFA headline states, it is fact. Biden admits that he gave speeches and did not credit the original source. It is even stated in this very story. MMFA can say what ever they want, but Biden committed the offense, and it is fair game in this campaign.
Exactly… It is like the liberals are claiming that yes he murdered 3 people, but he also saved two as well. Unbelievable how MMFA and the left refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the left. You have to do the right thing not once or twice, but every time.
Exactly… It is like the liberals are claiming that yes he murdered 3 people, but he also saved two as well.
What does murder have to do with this?
What does murder have to do with this?
LOL
Nothing, but when you have no point, change the subject.
Per usualy Pear, you address no issues or points made, and add nothing to the discussion. Oh well, it is lights out time in the nurising home, so you should be asleep soon.
POV, you are not credible at all. "You speak ill about that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought...and only little wit can excuse you."*
Quoting J.R.R. Tolkien
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
-Bob Marley
You're a dick and a jackass to boot.
Me.
Per usualy Pear, you address no issues or points made, and add nothing to the discussion. Oh well, it is lights out time in the nurising home, so you should be asleep soon.
LOL
Sorry POV, did you address any issues or have a point?
Oh and by the way, the next time you want to make a snarky suggestion, "light's out at the nursing home", at least learn how to spell it correctly.
I'd help you with the "Per usualy Pear" spelling, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.
What does murder have to do with this? - Loonz
It's clear to me. POV is murdering the art of analogy.
Exactly… It is like the liberals are claiming that yes he murdered 3 people, but he also saved two as well.
I love how sourcing is analogous with murder. God these people are stupid.
Don't you know? Every time you forget to cite a source when you paraphrase in a speech, God kills a kitten.
Please, think of the kittens.
I know this won't get anywhere near penetrating the rock you call a skull but your analogy is not even close to accurate. If Biden had used those words without ever crediting the source, it would be plagiarism. If he only gave credit after being discovered in the paraphrasing, that would be plagiarism. But neither of those things were the case. He credited the source most of the time and failed to on at least one occasion. The pattern of giving credit shows no intent to plagiarize, only a failure to cite.
So, back to your ridiculous analogy. It isn't like writing three different books and only citing your sources in two of them. It's like having three different editions of the same book published but in one of those editions the bibliography is left out.
Stupid and thoughtless mistake, yes. Malicious intent to deceive, hardly.
And any student who did the exact same thing would be failed for Plagiarism, plain and simple. I am not saying Biden is an evil or a bad guy, but he is guilty of this, and it is fair game in a campaign.
Moonbats example would not hold up in a court of law.
I think it would hold up.
but won't change history.
What will change history is the election of another bunch of psychopathic, lying, warmongering, hypocritical republicans.
And any student who did the exact same thing would be failed for Plagiarism, plain and simple.
And how exactly would that go? He writes the same paper three times to his professor and what happens next?
It is very simple. He writes the same paper 3 times to the same professor, or to different professors. Biden gave his speech to different audiences, so that analogy is very fitting. The student passes the work of as his own in the third paper, as Biden did in his speeches., and he is failed for the act. Very simple, and it happens more than you think.
Yes, intent is important. But Biden failed to credit his sources, and that what is at issue here.
It is very simple. He writes the same paper 3 times to the same professor, or to different professors. Biden gave his speech to different audiences, so that analogy is very fitting.
So the professor would cite him with plagerism even though he has in his possession the two other papers with the accreditation? A more reality-based conclusion would be the professor saying: "You forgot the accreditation in this version. Write it in".
Exactly. Don't try to argue with these nutcases.
Besides, it's doubtful if any of them went to college during a time period when clear-cut 'plagiarism' rules were extant. Or if they went at all.
So they have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
A student who quoted something 3 times but only credited two of those citations would not be failed for plagiarism, they'd be downgraded for incomplete references. The two cited instances make it clear that the student knows that he is paraphrasing someone else and is not making an attempt to hide that.
Oh, and idiot #101, courts of law have all kinds of rules about showing intent, some crimes can be thrown out completely if lack of intent can be proved and others have the charges adjusted if that is the case.
But hey, if we want to go back 20 years to dig up trivial and ultimately meaningless digs at the candidates, let's go. McCain isn't exactly wihtout skeletons in his closets.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Students are failed for that very act, and even much less serious types and examples of plagiarism. Passing off another persons work or ideas as your own is not an oversight, it is intellectual theft.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Students are failed for that very act, and even much less serious types and examples of plagiarism.
Sources?
oh, but he is a bad guy.
"With the selection of Senator Joe Biden as Senator Obama's vice president, the Democrat's ticket has now become an even greater gamble for the Jewish community. Throughout his career, Senator Biden has consistently been wrong on Iran and his voting record on Israel has been inconsistent. Like Obama, Biden fundamentally misunderstands the threat posed by an Iran determined to obtain nuclear weapons. Biden has continuously demonstrated poor judgment on Iran. He has voted against significant legislation that would pressure Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. Biden has failed to recognize the serious threat that Iran poses to Israel and the US and its allies in the Middle East," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.
In 1998, Sen. Biden was one of only four senators to vote against the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, a bill that punished foreign companies or other entities that sent Iran sensitive missile technology or expertise. Biden was one of the few senators to oppose the bipartisan 2007 Kyl-Lieberman Ammendment labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In a December 2007 debate, Biden said "Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Biden said he "never believed" Iran had a weapon system under production.
"The Jewish community was already gravely concerned with Senator Obama's naïve understanding of the Iranian threat. An Obama-Biden ticket has proven that it is ill-equipped to deal with this threat. By selecting Senator Biden to join his ticket, voting for Senator Obama has now become an even greater risk," said Brooks
"We seek to foster and enhance ties between the American Jewish community and Republican decision makers. We work to sensitize Republican leadership in government and the party to the concerns and issues of the Jewish community, while articulating and advocating Republican ideas and policies within the Jewish community. We are committed to building a strong, effective and respected Jewish Republican voice in Washington and across the country."
Not that there's anything wrong with that at all, but it makes it pretty clear that the Executive Director of the RJC isn't going to have an unbiased or impartial opinion of a Democratic politician and his opinionis definitely not going to be fact.
And any student who did the exact same thing would be failed for Plagiarism, plain and simple.
Hardly. If a student had cited a quote twice, but neglected a third time, the only thing that would happen would be that it would get circled.
What school do you go to?
Only if McCain is an idiot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/mccain-plagiarized-foreig_n_93769.html
. If you write 3 different books, and publish them, you need to cite the source in all three of them - even if the source is exactly the same - or its plagiarism. You don't get to cite a source in 2 books, then release a third not citing the source.
Another clueless rightie.
First of all, these aren't books, just verbal remarks. Second, if someone has attributed an over-and-over again quote, and then uses it again, the attribution has already been made. No reasonable person would call it "plagiarism" either, if credit has already been given.
And, it was TWENTY years ago, for chrissakes.
Don't you just love how the right imposes such a scholarly concern on Dems, but their own people are always immune from criticism?
And, 20 years ago, the previous attributions were NEVER mentioned by the MSM.
The two main sources that come up are:
motherearth.org, commondreams.org
Those are credible sources? lol
When one of the top sources states: Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future.
Its no longer a credible source.
"Their mission statements makes their writings, opinions, and spin purely biased, and that makes them not credible as a factual source."
Will you apply this same partisan statement to the right wing sources like the right wing conservative Newsmax (or Newsmuck), or the right wing WorldNet Daily, or the right wing Accuracy In Media, or the right wing conservative Little Green Footballs/Little Green Fascists, or RedState.org, or does your criticism only apply to left wing/liberal progressive sites?
Nonsense. Again you argue using the genetic fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously take the material presented and provide a factual refutation of it based on facts, logic, and credible evidence. You haven't done that so go away.
- Blueneck / Saturday August 23, 2008 6:40:28 PM EDT
Would you want to slog through a dozen freerepublic postings and carefully refute them so as to avoid the genetic fallacy, or would you have better things to do?
Hmm…a little hard to get what your point is. Actually that is not the way it works. If a source assumed to be biased is presenting a falsehood as a fact it is the obligation of anyone wishing to dispute the assertion to present contrary evidence or demonstrate logical inconsistencies. If the assertion is false this should be relatively easy. No need to slog through a dozen posts on any site. We all have better things to do than deal with the inane.
I really want to see the VP nominee of "don't know how many homes and not rich till your worth 5 million" McCain bring this up in a face to face with Biden. That would be fun
Yes it would. I'd just continue to ask Joe, after every line he says, if he came up with that himself or if he'd like me to pause so he can give credit to anyone.
A textbook during my sophomore year in high school gave a page and a half giving the plagiarism story. This is the first I've ever heard that he gave credit where it was due.
... and I always thought there was a left-wing bias in our government educational system...
- DAWUSS / Saturday August 23, 2008 3:53:14 PM EDT
Perhaps the result of an underlying right-wing bias you're too obtuse to acknowledge?
The text books are mostly non-partisan due to the fact that the same books are used in many different states and areas.
What is used as an example of left wing bias is usually something thrown out by right wing anti-science, pro religious agitators. Science has no bias.
History is another subject that's targeted by right wing zealots who can't accept that, as great as our country is, it does have it's faults. Until recently those faults were overlooked in history class.
What every parent, school kid and citizen should do it to think for themselves. Research everything they're taught and accept nothing as gospel.
Most education in the US is neither left leaning or right leaning. Although some teachers might slant somethings when thy can, most teach to the text books.
I only can name ONE* (8th grade US history) who didn't give a one-sided slant in their teachings (not including math teachers), out of those who actually taught (in other words, maybe they should let coaches and teachers be in separate groups)
*I will give an honorable mention to another (high school world history) who tried - it wasn't his fault that he couldn't (primarily a problem of the school schedule structure)
The text books are mostly non-partisan due to the fact that the same books are used in many different states and areas.
I was under the impression that many of them were state-specific. I don't think an "Indiana edition" textbook would be seen in Long Beach Poly High School.
What is used as an example of left wing bias is usually something thrown out by right wing anti-science, pro religious agitators. Science has no bias.
On the subject of evolution, I think that's one issue that's been distorted to the point where it is controversial. Evolution today isn't what it was in, say, Darwin's time. And as it has become a controversial issue (when reached to certain levels), the views of both sides should be expressed in an educational manner.
Science may have no bias, but it sometimes has a biased agenda.
History is another subject that's targeted by right wing zealots who can't accept that, as great as our country is, it does have it's faults. Until recently those faults were overlooked in history class.
But at the same time, can't we highlight the highs as well as the lows? I think there's too much emphasis on the lows of this country. And then someone like Rush Limbaugh can use that to further his argument that the left is trying to teach American children to hate this country.
I remember at the end of high school US history, I left disappointed over all the things we didn't cover...
What every parent, school kid and citizen should do it to think for themselves. Research everything they're taught and accept nothing as gospel.
But the problem is, schools don't educate people to think for themselves. They indoctrinate people to become useful idiots.
“Let's drop all of that talk about our failing "public" schools. The truth is that these schools are doing exactly what they were designed to do. They are "educating" Americans to the point that they can actually hold down a job and pay taxes, but not to the point that they become a threat to the ruling class.” – Neal Boortz
In school, I was someone who didn't take everything the teachers said as gospel. I know in high school freshman biology class I got into some very fun debates over the fraud called global warming (I was the only one debating that - everybody else just sat there and didn't question what was being said), and several times in sociology (I have a very hard time being convinced that didn't have a left-wing bias to it), I was the only one who disagreed on several issues with the teacher and rest of the class.
And as one last aside, I could easily tell which teachers were conservative. I could tell a couple that were moderate, but it wasn't as easy as the conservative ones.
Please don't judge us or our schools by what this clown posts. Most of us learned European history in addition to US History and World History.
You can always tell the poor students. They're the ones who harp continuously about France. There would be no US without France.
This idiot lacks the ability to see any problem through the eyes of someone other than a 28 year old, spoiled, racist, idiot sitting in his basement with his PS3.
worrierking:
Thank you for your post. It's always heartening to hear for someone in the US who knows about the effects the French Navy had to the defeat of Cornwallis's army at Yorktown. It's obvious however, that Moron101 is a friend of this guy:
Olympics Protest
Only one substitute teacher covered the Cold War (providing us the version described above). He also called NATO the "good guys" and the Soviet Union "the bad guys".
I don't think we was a "permanent sub", just one of those people who did it as a part time post-retirement activity.
It changes constantly. Schools and science teach the current prevailing theories which are always challenged. The challenges are reviewed and the theories change if proven wrong.
The other side in the evolution debate has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious beliefs. By all means, teach ID in religion classes. But it has no place in a science curriculum. It has been reviewed. It's theories cannot be repeated. It is not science.
You knew everything before eighth grade? You're a genius.
If you're just here to pick fights go away.
Actually, most High School textbooks are accepted based on that bastion of Liberality the Texas School Board.
Must have been a wonderful high school, a right-wing teacher with a nutcase agenda, going after Biden for a non-story.
No wonder you're f'd up.
(IRONY, you've just been plagiarized) :-)
I actually heard Kinnock's speech before I heard Biden use his words. It was a brilliant speech.
Biden did stop the buck where it belonged; at his own feet. Whatever a candidate's staff does falls to the candidate. The man has more honour and integrity than most of our politicians.
Yes, Kinnock had some great speeches. The fact is that he was an insufferable blowhard who's rambling, long winded diatribes streached the 15 minutes of Prime Minister's question time to make it seem as if you were sitting through an amature version of Wanger's Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung, for those who don't speak German ;-) ). It was remarked that if you offended Kinnock he would have you strapped down and forced to listen to him practice speaking.
I'm surprised anyone would have chosed to use any of his. This was reported on this side of the pond and, unlike a lot of others caught out he had the grapefruits to take the blame for it. He may not have been correct on this point but l respect him more than others who did not do what he did when found out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
In interesting bit of trivia is that the .45 caliber pistol was developed in part because U.S. servicemen found that the old .38's lacked the stopping power to prevent charging Filipino fighters from continuing to advance on their positions after being hit by the smaller round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP
Eventually, the U.S. "pacified" the islands and took possession of them, imposing their language, customs and institutions on the Philippines. English became a language of instruction in the Philippine school system. That's why the majority of the population speaks English.
Despite this history of bloody conflict, the majority of Filipinos are exceptionally friendly to Americans and don't hold a grudge over the mistakes of the unfortunate past.
So the LA Times says it was "much of [Biden's] stump speech," the New York Times says it was "part of a speech," and the Associated Press refers to "lines" from a speech.
Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.
From my own memory of the event, the AP's description is the most accurate; it was a brief passage in his standard speech. And he had credited Kinnock before. This was a classic media-magnified "gotcha!" - a minor matter turned into A BIG DEAL far beyond its actual importance solely by being hammered repeatedly. So I'm not surprised that this came up so quickly - I imagine the stories had been prepared ever since Biden's name was raised for VP.
It also occurs to me that had the Dukakis campaign dealt as aggressively with Bush as it apparently did with Biden, the outcome of the election might have been different.
You really are a muppet!!!
Pity you don't have a salient point to make.
I don't remember any other poster with as little to add to any discussion as Science101. That's not his original name.
He's been coming around under a different name each time he gets booted for violating the terms of service.
We've got many people from all areas of the political spectrum who post. Most have a lot to add, even if all they do is argue (are you reading this Tommy ( only kidding) ). Everyone will defend their views and be civil. We all lose it at times. I'm as guilty, if not more so, as anyone. But it's only after butting heads with someone going back and forth for several posts. This guy goes right to insults and humiliation.
From now on I won't respond to anything he says. He's trying to hijack MMFA with his childish nonsense.
I'd advise anyone who's interested in discussion to do the same.
I don't remember any other poster with as little to add to any discussion as Science101. That's not his original name.
I don't know--Shoes gives ColombianScience a pretty good run at the "I'm a Pluperfect Moron" award...
From now on I won't respond to anything he says. He's trying to hijack MMFA with his childish nonsense.
King, I agree.
Most of the time Science is simply an a** but today it appears he's constipated.
I recommend warm prune juice.
The former POW, John McCain, believes that words deserve the fullest protection of the law at their moment of conception. He particularly finds late-term plagiarism an abomination.
John McCain's creepy smile
Creeps me out, too...it makes him look like some weird guy who was like held captive for a while and abused, you know...and then came back all creepy and demented and like has all kinds of dark secrets, you know... like somebody who leaves his crippled wife for a young babe who he marries for her money and uses it to get elected to Congress which like he planned all along while he was being held captive, you know...creepy. ;>)
It's not hard to have soaring rhetoric if you borrow it from someone else. Biden is an empty suit - a perfect match for the man with no resume. It's hard to imagine a weaker team. Not since McGovern has the democratic ticket been so pathetic.
The Democrats don't want to believe this, but abortion is a major issue in this election, and both Obama and Biden are on the losing side of that issue. Obama has effectively 'thrown the Catholic vote under the bus' with the choice of Biden (apparently his own Bishop would refuse him communion <http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20080823.CLSA001&show_article=1&catnum=3>). Other than a record of plagiarism and a presidential sized ego, what does Biden bring to this ticket?
You opened the plagarism door.
Care to discuss Gramps lifting a POW story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn?
EDROSS, If all your words are the truth, I would guess that the McCain offices, Fox news, McCains media outlet, and all of the radio conjobs, will just close up shop. If it is over, it is over.
Thank You for your Sparkling Analysis of the Election. Call McCain, tell him of his victory and swear him in tomorrow. And the funny thing is he'll believe it. Are you using the same Rovian math as Kriminal Karl used in 2006. Or are you KKarl and you are just having fun here?
Now, Edross, when McCain picks his VEEP and the Dems use exact quotes from the Cons to attack his new man, don't come here and cry about it. My sources tell me that McCain heard Bidens' speech and told his staff that Biden would be a perfect pick for his VEEP.
I think we shall wait until November. Then, you may be correct but for now, your Sparkling Analysis is just talk.
Reporters hear a standard stump speech so many times they can cite it from memory. Say "lockbox" to anyone who covered Al Gore in 2000, and you will get a reaction.
So how did the reporters know that the words Biden spoke belonged to Kinnock? Either they were knowledgedable about losing Brit politicians, or they noticed that the standard attribution they had memorized was missing.
I'm betting the latter.
Prince-
I know this is awfully slow in response,but being a Rush-billy from a red state, I actually go to bed early on Saturday night so I can wake refreshed and go to church on Sunday.
I don't think McCain is any 'shoe-in' in this election.McCain is a weaker candidate than Bob Dole, who was as weak as Gerald Ford. My point is that, facing as weak a field as the GOP has been able to muster in recent memory, the Dems have made it a contest, and continue to make it a contest. It's like neither side really wants to win.
Really, though, the left has much better things to throw at Bush then a single incident of a stump speeched with bad verbal editing. Big things like unneeded wars, huge deficits, massive corruption, poisoning the political dialogue with a deliberate policy of flogging fake and or trivial talking points endlessly and repitively to avoid discussing serious issues.