Child's Pay at the Super Bowl
Do you want Denver's own Child's Pay to be the first political ad ever run during the Super Bowl? Make it so.
Building on the power and creativity of this work, were making an important announcement: With your help, we can take the winning ad to the Super Bowl. We were planning to play the winning ad nationally on CNN during the week of Bush's State of the Union address, but the response to the ads has been way beyond our expectations. We've been working to put together something even more exciting. A political ad has never been placed on the Super Bowl before, and with your help, "Child's Pay" will be the first. Together, let's send Washington a clear message: no more politics as usual.The Super Bowl ad will cost $1.6 million to place nationally, but we can afford this if we can complete our $10 million dollar grassroots campaign, which now stands at $7.5 million. Can you help?
To make an instant, secure contribution, by credit card or check, go to:
http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/superbowl/
Remember, for every two dollars you give, a dollar is added by a matching grant, so your contribution goes even further.
[Update]
Child's Pay, not Play. I've been misreading it this whole time. Clever naming ;)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Child's Pay at the Super Bowl.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.0xdeadbeef.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2976
ok so is it Child's *Play* or is it Child's *Pay* ??
i'm confused.
Hrm. You're right. It's Child's Pay. I've been misreading it.
i was neither wrong or right... i'd seen it both ways all over the place so i thought i was missing out on some big conspiracy. i should've known it was just my grammatically-challenged buddy messing with my head. :P
Looking around it looks like this is common confusion ;)
Move On calls it Child's Pay, so we'll leave it at that ;)
Grabes cherry-picked the interpretation that best suited his ideology!!!
I thought Soros was bankrolling this whole thing.
Soros is too busy apologizing to The General and The Senator for being a successful Jewish financier!!
Soros and a partner gave them $5 million back a few months ago along with a lot more money to a lot of other groups.
Fruit of the poison tree of appeasement!!!
THE GENERAL'S DUPLICITY HAS BEEN EXPOSED!
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
Oh Grabes. Oh Grabes.
First off, Drudge's selective quoting handily reveals his support for the aims of the war. I thank Matt Drudge for innoculating Clark from the anti-war attacks sure to come in the general election. Second, he hides pages of testimony in his ellipses. All meaning and nuance is lost. There is a reason Drudge provides no link to his sources. No surprise for Drudge, but I would expect more from you.
The testimony reveals that he supported the use of force, but not until all diplomatic avenues were exhausted and allies brought on board because of the importance of the missions success
What exactly am I supposed to be upset about?
Grabes, the testimony reveals that The General believed Saddam had WMDs! The testimony reveals that The General, who cites his consistency of position on the Iraq war surely to contrast his "honesty" with Bush's "dishonesty", is indeed inconsistent!
Yes he did believe Saddam had WMD's because that was fact, as he's mentioned many times before. He believed the Administration's promises that we would be able to find them where the UN inspectors had not. He believed that the Administration wouldn't lie about an imminent threat which didn't exist. Where is the inconsistancy? Other than in your reading comprehension?
Have you read the testimony yet, or the op-ed, or the Congressional Black Caucus debate trascript? Or just the ellipsed portion provided by Drudge?
Are you a willing dupe of Drudge?
Incidentally, whether Wesley Clark believed that Saddam possessed WMD at the time of invasion is irrelevent to Bush's complicity in deception. Bush claimed solid evidence, which ended up being fabricated. Just because Clark, and me and you were duped by the evidence doesn't mean you have to continue to be duped by the Administration.
The evidence was falsified. Fake. Untrue. Bunk. Whether you have a alternate reason for supporting the war or not does not change the fact that you were lied to.
Set your mind free, unless you prefer the fantasy world Bush has contructed for you in which we can put a man on Mars for $10 billion dollars.
"'I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning,' the former general said in Detroit on October 26.
'I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now.'"
Boy. I'd better sharpen my reading comprehension! That passage is tough to interpret!
Ok, let's not rely on Drudge entirely.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/307winbn.asp
"Boy. I'd better sharpen my reading comprehension! That passage is tough to interpret!"
Apparently, especially with all that context and stuff.
And despite the availability of the Weekly Standards non-partisan viewpoint, I suggest we actually read the transcript. I'll highlight the parts that were conveniently ignored.
"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war. There was no imminent threat.
On the other hand, just like Reverend Sharpton said, Bush got all our -- the president got all of our troops out there, got them poised, committed the United States to this thing. What he didn't do was he didn't use diplomacy. He didn't use leadership. He didn't bring the rest of the world with it. He should've. There was time to do it. There was no imminent threat. And there is no excuse for his failure of leadership.
You're right, I've been there, and I know that you don't start a military operation, if you know what you're doing, unless you know how you want it to end. This president didn't know how he wanted it to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today."
He was against unilateral war without an imminent threat and then only as a last resort. He has always been against unilateral war without an imminent threat except as a last resort. Always, always, always. He's also against any sort of war without knowing how you want it to end. Bush failed us all on these counts. There is no inconsistency in Clark's position.
The fact of the matter is that there was no imminent threat, and therefore *NO* excuse for unilateral war.
Bush's falsified evidence duped Clark just as it duped you and me. You still seem content to be duped. Most people, myself and Clark included, are not. We expect more from our elected leadership (although not from Matt Drudge)
And just so there is no confusion, let me lay this out one more time.
Clark is against unilateral war without an imminent threat, and EVEN THEN, only as a last resort after all avenues are exhausted.
Please demonstrate the inconsistency, or repeat 500 times: I will not be duped again, I will not be duped again, I will not be duped again.
Incidentally, here is the transcript of the debate that statement came from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21551-2003Oct26¬Found=true
Please read it before trying to use that Weekly Standard article.
Hmm, that link didn't paste well. Try here
On a tangent, the attacks against Clark of recent days, especially a top-of-the-page hatchet job by Drudge has reinforced my belief that Wes Clark is the strongest candidate to go up against George Bush and save future generations from destitution and Osama bin Laden. Therefore, I just donated another $100 to the Clark campaign. I thank you for the inspiration. Feel free to do so yourself if you feel so inspired.
Grabes, don't impoverish yourself, you still have to pay off the Blumina!!!
The Blumina is paid off. I'm worried about it's replacement. But I'm more worried about 4 more years of skyrocketing deficits and lies.
look Grabes, you got him! he's using the diversionary tactic, bringing up the Blumina.
kinda like that whole Man on Mars thing.
look, over there! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's DistractedPublic!
Well, looks like CBS will not allow this ad to play during the superbowl.
Yes, sadly CBS says it is against their policy of not running any political ads. There is an upside however, as pointed out by Salon:
"I think MoveOn loves this," says Jones. "If they could get on the Super Bowl it would cost them God knows how much money. By having this kind of controversy, it doesn't cost them a dime and they get a lot of attention."
The Blumina might be considered irrelevant to this discussion if it didn't have a bong-shaped, "Vote Clark" bullhorn mounted on its roof!
Joe Lieberman seems to think The General is being inconsistent!!
"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.
He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."
As does VodkaPundit!
But, I forgot, you said this was another distortion!
Joe Lieberman looks all the more like a putz for believing it.
He wasn't inconsistant, so whether Joe Lieberman thinks he was is irrelevent.
I'm done with this game. Black is not white, up is not down.