In Saturday's (Oct. 2, 2004) Poughkeepsie Journal, the letters to the editor page was devoted to a “representative sampling” of letters received Friday after Thursday night's debate. At least two of the letters were obviously composed using a template provided by the Democrat National Committee before the debate.
On the DNC website, you'll see (if they haven't removed it) in the right column, “Click here for a sample letter to the editor.” If you do as instructed, you'll find this:
In the first presidential debate, I was hoping to hear two things.
First, I wanted to hear John Kerry lay out his plans for Iraq and for winning the war on terror. I wasn't disappointed. Kerry staked out a strong plan to bring peace to Iraq and to refocus our efforts to fight terrorists around the world.
Second, I wanted to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq, but he refused. While his own intelligence services, military advisers, Republican colleagues, and even his Secretary of State have said that Iraq is in chaos, Bush still presents a version of Iraq seen through rose-colored glasses.
This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction.
Now examine the letter to the editor written by Debra Feiner-Coddington of Millbrook:
I was delighted to see John Kerry clearly lay out his plans for Iraq and for winning the war on terror. It was exhilarating.
I wanted to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq, but he simply did not, and he seemed confused by the facts. President Bush presented a most unrealistic version of Iraq seen through his rose-colored glasses.
John Kerry clearly was the leader in the debate. He is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; we must go in a new direction. Kerry and Edwards are clearly the correct choice for our new direction.
Debra Feiner-Coddington, Millbrook
Ms. Feiner-Coddington clearly started with the DNC template and merely changed a few words here, and added some there. I've highlighted the sentences and phrases which are word for word from the template. But hers wasn't the only “boilerplate” letter. Let's look at the DNC letter again:
In the first presidential debate, I was hoping to hear two things.
First, I wanted to hear John Kerry lay out his plans for Iraq and for winning the war on terror. I wasn't disappointed. Kerry staked out a strong plan to bring peace to Iraq and to refocus our efforts to fight terrorists around the world.
Second, I wanted to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq, but he refused. While his own intelligence services, military advisers, Republican colleagues, and even his Secretary of State have said that Iraq is in chaos, Bush still presents a version of Iraq seen through rose-colored glasses.
This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction.
Now here's a submission from Diane and Debbie Pineiro-Zucker of Woodstock:
In the first presidential debate, we expected to hear two things. John Kerry delivered.
We wanted to hear Kerry lay out his plans for Iraq and for winning the war on terror. We were not disappointed. He presented a plan for peace and stability around the world.
We wanted to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq. True to form, he refused. The president continues to ignore his own intelligence services, military advisers, Republican colleagues, and even his secretary of state.
We can trust John Kerry as a leader who would tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush had his chance. It's time for a new president.
Diane and Debbie Pineiro-Zucker, Woodstock
In addition to the many elements which were identical or similar to the DNC sample, the two letters contain sentences and phrases identical to each other! Even if we assume that the Journal editor was unaware of the DNC effort to flood newspapers with letters, I think it's fair to point out that the similarities in the two letters published should have alerted him. In case you didn't notice them, they're underlined.
Taking the Journal at its word that these letters were a “representative sampling,” can we assume that there were other letters which they didn't print which were similarly constructed from the DNC template? How many identical sentences, paragraphs and phrases must the Journal editor see before figuring out that he's been snookered?
© 2004, Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective