Daily Kos

View Story | 91 comments

  •  or better yet (4.00 / 2)

    Let's play "good forger" / "bad forger".

    The hypothetical forger was a good forger because he or she:

    • Forged two unique Killian signatures which passed scrutiny by an expert in handwriting analysis.
    • Avoided superscripts in 11 of the 13 instances where they could have been used, because they were pretty state-of-the-art and weren't common in 1972.
    • Knew that the baseline should wander, and made it happen: either by repeatedly copying it, or by loading it up into Photoshop and digitally modifying it.
    • Stayed close enough to the truth to make even President Bush and his wife wonder if they were real.

    The hypothetical forger was a bad forger because he or she:
    • Used Microsoft Word rather than a typewriter to create documents supposedly from 1972-3.
    • Didn't bother to switch to a fixed-width font and instead used Times New Roman.
    • Forgot to correct two superscripts inserted by Word's auto-superscripting feature, despite remembering to correct the other eleven.

    I mean, really, people... this is starting to read like one of those lists about the contradictory things you have to believe to be a Republican. Hmm. Actually, maybe that's why LGF is so ready to believe it! :-)

    The world won't get no better if we just let it be.

    by drewthaler on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:09:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It all makes sense (none / 0)

      When evaluated from the perspective of someone making a forgery that they want to pass as real initially, but to be revealed as a forgery after greater scrutiny (perhaps some of it directed by "neutral" blog trolls.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:12:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  as i said (none / 0)

        Strategically it just doesn't make a damn bit of sense. If you are a strategist for a candidate who has skeletons in the closet, do you say:

        • Let's dig up the muck about our candidate and and get it on the air big-time! and uh, then we'll then discredit it. or,

        • Let's just keep it quiet and slam anyone who tries to bring it up. If slamming doesn't work, just keep quiet and hope it dies.

        To be honest, the net effect is better in the second case, and that's been the GOP's strategy in other events in the campaign. You just don't want nasty stories about your past brought up regardless of whether they're true or not -- witness Kerry and the highly discredited Swift Boat lies which kept getting repeated anyway.

        That strategy has worked quite well for them; why get all risky and try something new in something as important as a Presidential election?

        I'm sorry, but the LGF romp was a lucky strike for Bush and Rove. You can see it in the way Bush reacted - they were clearly unsure and waiting to see how it would play out before saying anything. You can credit Rove with a lot of things, but not precognitive powers.

        The world won't get no better if we just let it be.

        by drewthaler on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:02:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 91 comments