A Media Watershed Dan Rather and the end of the liberal monopoly.

More bad news for the left. Their propaganda sources are becoming irrelavent! - Sailor


A Media Watershed Dan Rather and the end of the liberal monopoly.
Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
OpinionJournal.com

However the flap over CBS and those National Guard "memos" turns out, the past few weeks mark a milestone in U.S. media and politics. Along with the Swift Boat Veterans' ads, the widespread challenge to Dan Rather's reporting--to his credibility--means that the liberal media establishment has ceased to set the U.S. political agenda.

This is potentially a big cultural moment. For decades liberal media elites were able to define current debates by all kicking in the same direction, like the Rockettes. Now and then they can still pull this off, as when they all repeated the same Pentagon-promoted-torture line during the Abu Ghraib uproar. But the last month has widened cracks in that media monopoly that have been developing for some time.

Twenty years ago, those who sought a different point of view had few alternatives beyond The Wall Street Journal's editorial page and small magazines like National Review and The American Spectator. But in 1987 the Reagan Administration abolished the so-called Fairness Doctrine, whose main effect had been to stifle controversy on the airwaves by threatening stations with the obligation to provide equal time. The result was an explosion in political talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, who filled an unmet demand for right-leaning commentary.

Then, in 1996, Rupert Murdoch launched Fox News Channel, providing a "fair and balanced" alternative to CNN and the broadcast networks. By 2001 Fox had surpassed its competitors to become the top-rated cable news channel. And in the past few years, the "blogosphere" has allowed a million flowers to bloom. Anyone with a computer can start a Web log and become a pundit, and the smartest and most enterprising have developed loyal followings.

Thanks to these developments, the blue-state media elites no longer control America's political debate. Just in the past year, California voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger despite election-eve groping charges trumpeted in the Los Angeles Times. A public outcry prompted CBS to cancel a mendacious miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. And the mainstream media were dragged kicking and screaming into covering the Swift Boat Veterans' accusations against John Kerry. Even in South Dakota, bloggers and the Web have challenged the dominance that Tom Daschle's pals at the Argus Leader have long had on that state's political dialogue.

The current CBS "60 Minutes" imbroglio splendidly illustrates how the old political and media order has eroded. Democrats nominated Mr. Kerry in part because they thought his status as a Vietnam War hero would make him a formidable challenger--an assumption the liberal media echoed.

When that proved a miscalculation, Democrats talked about reviving the story about the President's National Guard service. Mr. Rather, a longtime Bush family antagonist and scourge of the political right, then broadcast the alleged memos from Mr. Bush's former commanding officer, and at least some of the old Rockettes (such as the Boston Globe) kicked in unison. Democrats released their own video on the subject, "Fortunate Son," not too long thereafter.

But then came the challenge to the memos' authenticity from the blogging world, which was quickly picked up by some mainstream media reporters (most aggressively ABC and the Washington Post). Soon enough the big story became not what Mr. Bush did during the war, but was Mr. Rather selling us more bull than a Texas ranch, as the CBS anchor might have put it on one of his newscasts.

Mr. Rather and his CBS bosses are sticking to their story, despite the growing evidence on the other side, leaving unanswered the biggest question of all: Who perpetrated this apparent fraud on CBS and the American voters? As journalists who sometimes go out on a limb ourselves, we'd have thought Mr. Rather's first recourse would not be to get mad but instead to double- and triple-check his sources.
That Mr. Rather isn't disclosing those sources, despite the damage to his reputation, raises the possibility that they are connected to the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign. If that is true, then Mr. Rather would be revealed not just as a dupe, but also as the willing vehicle for a political dirty trick. In any case, there's no question that CBS is feeling the heat--and that it felt it far more quickly and intensely than it would have 20 years ago.

None of this is to suggest that the liberal media are dead, much less that conservatives now dominate the press corps. The traditional media remain important if diminished; liberals are trying to make inroads into talk radio (Air America) and cable news (Al Gore's prospective network), and there is no shortage of left-wing bloggers.
All of which is to the good. The Rather episode shows that a competitive media marketplace serves the cause of truth, and does so with impressive speed. It also reminds us of the dangers of arrogance and complacency--temptations from which none of us, regardless of ideology, are immune.

The Republicans Did It!

Oh those rascally Republicans. When they are not creating global warming, killing kids, stealling elections and money from the poor, they are setting up poor Danny Rather. Damn they must be a busy bunch! When all else fails for the left, blame it on the GOP. - Sailor

The Republicans Did It! -->
Written by Barbara StockThursday, September 16, 2004

The Republicans Did It
or
Okay, the Documents Are Fake but We Stand by What’s in Them

As the final rugs are being pulled out from under CBS News and Dan Rather, the folks on the left have taken up a new chant: ''The Republicans did it!''

That's the mantra now being repeated on liberal blogs and loudly whispered by some high ranking Democrats. They were all ''taken in'' and fooled by the wizards on the right, who ''have a history with this kind of thing.''

Just a few days ago, Democrats were singing the praises of CBS and Mr. Rather, cheering their courage in the face of the mighty right-wing machine. Now, however, they are reeling from the overwhelming evidence that those highly-touted documents are not only forgeries, but obvious forgeries. How could a respected news organization, with a long history in America--the network of Walter Cronkite--be so easily fooled? Perhaps, they were so eager to ''get something'' on George Bush, that they just rushed in where only fools dare to tread.

Now being held up as insightful is MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who floats the idea that someone in the Bush camp might have produced the documents that ended up in the eager hands of the CBS News department. After all, didn’t these documents pass through the hands of the White House without a peep of complaint? Didn’t a White House spokesman come out later and state that they were forgeries? Haven’t dirty things like this been done in elections past? Not that Mr. Olbermann is in accusing the Bush people, mind you. No, he doesn’t want to do that. Olbermann states clearly that he has not one tiny shred of proof that Karl Rove was able to dupe America’s oldest television network. He just wants to plant the seed that frantic Democrats can grab on to as it grows--and grow it will. Count on it.

Within 24 hours of the Dan Rather report on ''60 Minutes,'' Terry McAuliffe was on the air blaming Karl Rove and Republicans for the documents. As the groundswell of complaints and suspicions were just on the rise, and CBS was standing firm that the documents were authentic, there was the head of the Democratic National Committee, on television writing them off as fake and taking it a step farther--blaming the evil right-wing conspiracy of carrying out the dastardly deed. How could Mr. McAuliffe be so sure, so soon, that the documents were forgeries? Is it possible that the left-wing-Clinton-bomb-thrower knew from the very beginning that these documents were frauds and wanted to be the first to throw the shadow of guilt on the White House?

If conspiracy theories are the theme of the day, isn’t it possible that the genesis of the documents is the Kerry/Clinton people? Kerry’s fury over the devastating effect the Swift Boat revelations have had on his Viet Nan war campaign foundation may have gotten the better of him. Kerry’s own documents have now come under the gun and are being investigated by the Navy for possible tampering. As the left-wing folks shriek that ''Karl Rove has a history…,'' perhaps they should make sure that Kerry hasn’t tampered with his own records before they make such accusations. Folks on the right can say, ''Kerry seems to have a history as well.''

In an astounding juggling of journalistic judgment, CBS officians have stated that while they ''continue to investigate the documents,'' it really doesn’t matter if the documents are bogus because Marian Carr Knox, who was Lt. Col. Jerry Killian’s secretary, says that while these documents are obvious forgeries, she is sure that is how Lt. Col. Killian felt. Try not to notice that Ms. Knox is a vocal anti-Bush woman who refers to the president as ''selected, not elected.'' For a woman of 86 years, her memories of a lowly lieutenant from 30 years ago are quite remarkable. To hear the Democrats talk, only the rich sons of the powerful were in the Texas Air National Guard, so why would Bush stand out in her mind?

Let’s recap. Ben Barnes, who claimed he got Bush into the Guard, is reversing his own sworn statement from 1999 and is a co-chair of the Kerry campaign. Ms. Knox is an avowed Bush-hater who waves her hand and says with ease the documents are frauds, but apparently as John Edwards channels dead babies, the elderly Ms. Knox can channel her dead boss and tell us his feelings on the matter. Hey, good enough for me!

Can anyone imagine what would happen if FOX News ran with a story like this against John Kerry? Teddy Kennedy and Jesse Jackson would be out in front of the FOX headquarters in New York City leading a group of angry torch-bearing, pitch-fork wielding rioters demanding Brit Hume’s head on a pike.

Before any Democrats reading these words start screaming, ''What about the Swift Boat lies?'' they should take pen in hand and make a list of what, exactly, the Swift Boat men have said that is a lie based on forged documents.

Anyone whose brain is functioning higher than brainstem level now knows these CBS documents are forgeries. The questions that remain are these: Did CBS investigate them properly considering the implications of the charges against a sitting president, and who gave CBS the documents, and where are the originals--if there even are originals. It is not hard to understand why the Democrats are frantic to implicate the White House. If these fake documents can be traced in any way to the Kerry camp, Kerry may as well go home and do some windsurfing because the election will be over. In truth, his campaign, which was already floundering, has gone straight into the tank since his widely publicized ''private'' phone call to Bill Clinton. Kerry seems to have lost a point in the polls for every Clintonite that he has allowed to join his campaign staff.

As the H.M.S. CBS rearranges its deckchairs, the news department is hoping no one has noticed the iceberg. Captain Rather will be going down with the ship and the Democrats on board are saying the amazing and extremely versatile Karl Rove is responsible for planting that iceberg. Karl Rove is truly an amazing man! When does he find the time? Isn’t he also running the country?


About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com//. Barbara receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.

Bloggers knew!

No longer can the left supress the truth or use the media to outright lie. Behold, the power of the bloggers! Note to Dan Rather, I blog in my cut-offs. Only girlie men like you wear PJs. - Sailor

Bloggers knew!
Kathleen Parker
September 15, 2004
townhall.com

The CBS mess variously known as "Forgerygate" or "Rathergate" is by any other name a seminal moment in the blogosphere that holds promise not only for revolutionizing journalism, but also perhaps for problem-solving on a global scale.

And why not?

Still in relative infancy, the blogosphere - that new galaxy within the journalism universe wherein citizen journalists known as bloggers (short for keepers of Web logs) chat among themselves through mutual links and commentary - has defined itself in large part as a vehicle for challenging the mainstream media (MSM).

Bloggers love fact-checking television and newspaper reporters and commentators, for instance, and have proved themselves both energetic and competent on both fronts.

They've been credited with challenges that led to the retirements of both Sen. Trent Lott as majority leader upon his waxing nostalgic for Strom Thurmond's good ol' Dixiecrat segregationist days and Howell Raines as editor of The New York Times following the Jason Blair debacle.

But the piece de resistance has occurred over the past several days as bloggers questioned the authenticity of documents CBS News presented allegedly proving that President George W. Bush received preferential treatment in the National Guard.

This is where most sensible people start nodding off, but the larger drama of the Blogosphere v. CBS is sufficiently compelling to stay awake. What happened is perhaps familiar by now:
The documents CBS presented supposedly came from the personal files of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, which Killian supposedly typed more than 30 years ago. Rather and 60 Minutes II vouched for the authenticity of the documents, one of which claimed that a Texas Air National Guard squadron commander was trying to "sugarcoat" Bush's record.

Cumulative evidence produced primarily by the blogosphere suggests that the documents are forgeries and that Rather and CBS were duped in a political hoax.

Through the weekend, Rather was still sticking by his guns despite the fact that many of CBS's sources for the story have distanced themselves, while other news organizations have produced reports lending credence to the hoax theory.

Both Killian's son and widow, for example, say they doubt the memos are real, as Killian rarely typed. One of the sources CBS said would corroborate the charges said he was misled by the network.

All these discussions with the Killians and others took place after the blogosphere had worked its magic, beginning when http://www.freerepublic.com/ suggested the documents might not be real.

Such was the spark that began the flame that grew into the wildfire that became the conflagration that threatens to consign journalistic credibility to history's ash heap.

Fueling the fire in the earliest stages were most notably Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) and Little Green Footballs (www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog), which ran the just-discovered memos through some simple tests to verify their authenticity.

Key to the unraveling of CBS's hyped documents, as bloggers pointed out, were the superscript 'th' and the Times New Roman font used in the alleged Killian memo, both of which seem to belong to a rather modern Microsoft Word default letter-writing program rather than a 1972-era typewriter.

Make that yet another victory for the nerds, but not nerds in pajamas , as former CBS executive Jonathan Klein said in an attempt to impugn bloggers.

"You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances (at '60 Minutes') and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing," said Klein.

The implication that bloggers are slacker dust bunnies has delighted bloggers, the best of whom are lawyers, professors, scientists, renegade journalists and techies of various sorts, such as the brothers Johnson (Charles and Michael) at "Little Green Footballs," whose years of experience in state-of-the-art graphics and Web design at the "pixel level" enabled them to quickly duplicate the CBS memos and demonstrate their likely origin on a very modern computer.

All of which brings me to my premise that the blogosphere isn't just a challenge to journalism in its currently stagnant state, but a potential boon to problem-solving of a higher order. The beauty of the blogosphere is that it is self-igniting, self-propelling and self-selecting, a sort of intellectual ecosystem wherein the best specimens from various disciplines descend from the ethers, converge on an issue and apply their unique talents.

Though virtually newborn, the blogosphere has blossomed exponentially in a matter of Earth-time seconds, from a few random voices to a mighty and diverse chorus of sometimes spectacular talent. Bloggers are the Big Bang of the Information Age.

It seems, therefore, not unreasonable to hope that as this new galaxy expands - with the best and brightest emerging as natural evolution commands - bloggers might apply their immense energy and collective intellect to solving an array of human problems.

Let's start with Iraq, shall we?

Let's face it, Jimmy Carter was a terrible president and is the dupe of the world's dictator class. As for Dan Rather, he is just a partisan, biased DNC shill. - Sailor

What Dan Rather and the Carter Center Need to Learn By Carroll Andrew Morse
Published 09/15/2004
Tech Central Station



>

Last week, independent analysis cast doubt on claims made by two prestigious information-gathering organizations. One incident you are probably familiar with. The community of bloggers presented credible evidence that documents used by CBS to support a news story about President Bush's national guard service were forgeries. The second instance, though potentially as important, received far less attention, at least in the English language media. Professors Roberto Rigobon of MIT and Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard University presented credible evidence that the results of the Venezuelan recall election, declared clean by the Carter Center, had been systematically altered.
Initial commentary on the CBS story has focused on the blogosphere versus big-media. An even wider underlying dynamic becomes apparent when the Bush documents and the Venezuelan recall are considered together. The story is not just about the output of bloggers; it is about the inputs that analysts are able to utilize. The analysis of Charles Johnson that cast doubt on the authenticity of the Bush documents was made possible by the existence of pdf-format document sharing. Professors Rigobon and Hausmann analyzed election returns at the polling center and machine levels. They compared the returns to results from exit polls and the signature gathering phase of the referendum, and found effects not consistent with a fair election. Their timely analysis was possible because of the Internet's ability to transfer large, quantitative data sets.

Until the Internet was established, the dissemination of primary information usually involved paper and ink -- commodities that cost money. It was economically impossible to provide everyone with every detail of every story. Editors were charged with making a trade-off. They had to decide which details were important enough to fit into the limited space they were allocated. Not all of the information could make the cut. In the Internet age, economic justifications for not releasing as much detail as possible are weaker. Very little production cost is involved is releasing primary source information in electronic format.

Given access to primary information, people like Rigobon, Hausmann and Johnson began to ask some detailed questions. They tried starting a conversation, not just in the blogosphere, but in a wider civicsphere -- a place where people can come together and share information and ideas, using any media format available. Unfortunately, big media and elite NGOs are not used to holding conversations. They had become too used to giving lectures instead. The Carter Center, attempting to declare any questions about the recall closed after a single, controversial audit, tried to stop the conservation before it started. CBS basically told the bloggers to shut up and go away.

Somewhere along the line, the elite gatherers of information had forgotten that their rationale for providing partial information was a practical one -- the limits related to the costs of publishing. They forgot that the ideal was giving out as much information as possible. They moved from an inability to report in maximal detail to an unwillingness to report in maximal detail.

CBS has set itself up for special scorn in this matter. The blogosphere's complaint is not just that they may be pursuing an anti-Bush agenda, the complaint is that they have abandoned basic reporting -- the core function of their organization -- in an attempt to manipulate the agenda. Reasonable and answerable questions, including provenance of the documents, the precise qualifications of their experts, and the criteria used to establish authenticity have gone unreported, have been sluggishly reported, or have been sloppily reported and debunked in just a few hours.

Ultimately, CBS fundamentally altered the nature of the editorial trade-off. Instead grudgingly adjusting the level of reported detail out of economic necessity, they willingly sacrificed the quality of their reporting in their attempt to manipulate the agenda.

Though not as egregious, the Carter Center also abandoned parts of its core mission -- carefully observing electoral processes -- in order to jump to a conclusion that the election was clean. Among other problems, Carter Center reports revealed gaps in their observation of ballot boxes for at least two days following the election, gaps that allow the possibility of fraud. This information was not mentioned in their most public declaration that the election was fair. How could an organization whose primary mission is electoral observation not include a mention of problems with the direct observation of ballot boxes in their highest-level analysis?

The deficiencies exhibited by CBS and the Carter Center are problematic not only for big media and elite NGOs. Left unaddressed, they are problems that will eventually feed back into the blogosphere. The rise of the blogosphere has been predicated on the existence of a reliable, common base of information that people can discuss -- a base of information that full-timers are still in the best position to provide. The blogosphere is most robust when it can draw upon the resources of media organizations with global reach that honestly vet sources and conduct comprehensive follow-up reporting. It depends on the boots on the ground that a Carter Center can provide to monitor elections in faraway lands. Without the work of an organization like the Carter Center, there might not be detailed election data from Venezuela to examine in the first place.

Fortunately, there is no reason the older information-gathering institutions cannot coexist with the blogosphere, if the older institutions are willing to relinquish their unfounded claims of exclusive ownership of particular phases of the information cycle. As data-dissemination technology continues to improve, more and more individuals outside of the ranks of professional journalists and full-time policy wonks will be able to contribute world-class expertise to the realm of analysis. The older institutions must not let institutional jealousies related to their loss of primacy with respect to analysis derail them from their core mission of accurate reporting. This kind of jealousy seems to have played a role in CBS's poor follow-up to questions about the Bush documents.

Likewise, the older institutions must also be willing to share the role of setting the public agenda. Good agendas come from efforts to answer good questions. The interplay within the blogosphere and between the blogosphere and more established information sources is an excellent mechanism for defining and refining issues. While the people of a country like Venezuela are asking reasonable, data-driven questions about their election, an organization like the Carter Center should not be telling them to move on unless they can provide complete answers to such questions.

The established institutions -- big media and elite NGOs -- can maintain their relevance if they accept that they are no longer the undisputed last word in our civic conversations. Whether they accept this or not, the need for solid and accurate reporting will continue to exist. The most successful information-gathering organizations will be those willing to take on a core mission of disseminating as much accurate, primary information as far as they can as fast as they can. The combination of blogosphere analysis and full-time reporting will enhance the quality and quantity of information that everyone receives, and that is a positive development for everyone.

The author is a TCS contributor.

Too Good to Check

More media bias is exposed by Jim Glassman. - Sailor


Too Good to Check
By James K. Glassman
Published 09/16/2004



Back in the dim past, when I was a pup reporter, a revered veteran passed along some advice: "Never over-report a good story." In other words, if you get a tip about a terrific tale, don't do too much research and interviewing. You might find out it's untrue, and you'll have to scrap it. Some stories, the veteran added, are just "too good to check."
I had a chuckle, but now, after 40 years in journalism -- as a reporter, editor, TV host, columnist and publisher -- I am not at all sure the veteran was joking. I have watched willful distortion become more and more common, in both print and broadcast.

It is not just laziness or psychosis or a lust for fame that causes distortion. Another reason for getting a story wrong is bias -- that is, journalists' own political leanings.

That may be the case in the latest brewing scandal -- the claim on CBS's "60 Minutes II" last week that memos from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian showed that, as a National Guard pilot, the George W. Bush refused to take a physical and benefited from favoritism.

But "it is not entirely certainly that they [the memos] are authentic," write Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, who raise questions about CBS's sources. In addition, Killian's widow and son, who were not cited in the CBS report, both suspect the memos are fake -- as do many experts who have examined them. These analyses, many of them quite sophisticated, first surfaced on the Internet, on such sites as powerlineblog.com and Little Green Footballs, where experts argued that it was highly unlikely that the memos were produced on a vintage-1973 typewriter and bore the marks of new technology. Blogger amateurs shame the media pros. Bravo.

That journalists lean left is undeniable, as studies back to 1964 have shown. Research by Freedom Forum, for example, found that 89 percent of Washington-based reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and only 7 percent for George H. W. Bush.

Today, the media and the public are even farther apart. A Pew Research Center study in May found that national journalists describe themselves as liberal over conservative by a ratio of five to one. Americans at large call themselves conservative over liberal by a ratio of three to two.

But journalists say that they put their personal beliefs aside as professionals. Most do, but it is clear that producers and editors who have a visceral hatred of, for example, George W. Bush, are more apt to think the worst of him, gravitate toward stories that reinforce their prejudices and conclude such tales are too good to check extensively.

One of the few academic studies that examine bias seriously was just released on Saturday by two of my colleagues, economists John Lott and Kevin Hassett, who are, respectively, resident scholar and director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

In the study -- "Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?" -- researchers looked at coverage of durable goods, GDP, retail sales and employment data by 389 newspapers and found that they "tend to give more positive coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans. Our results are highly significant."

For example, the unemployment rate under Bill Clinton averaged 5.2 percent, just three-tenths of a percentage point below the rate under George W. Bush. But newspapers gave Clinton positive headlines on unemployment 44 percent of the time; Bush, 23 percent.

My own experience is that compared with television networks, the newspapers and wire services are paragons of objectivity. As a result, I rarely watch the nightly news on TV.

Consider the CBS memos: On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that "another retired Air National Guard officer came forward to attack the network's credibility." Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges had been cited by Dan Rather as a key source in CBS's authentication of the documents. "It took a lot for him to speak the truth," Rather said. Another CBS executive called Hodges the network's "trump card."

But Hodges, contacted by the Post's Michael Dobbs, said that a CBS reporter merely "read him extracts from documents purportedly written by Killian." Hodges said he talked to Killian about Bush, "but he denied confirming the authenticity of the documents in any way." Hodges then told Dobbs, "Now that I have had a chance to see them, I think they are fake."

No one can accuse CBS of over-reporting this good story.

Kerry's disingenuous spin

Johnny, just sign Standard Form 180 and all your military records will be released. Stop the bullshit and sign the form! - Sailor

Kerry's disingenuous spin
Washington Times Editorial



In an effort to rescue his failing presidential campaign, John Kerry went on Don Imus' nationally syndicated radio show yesterday to hammer the Bush presidency and persuade the American people that he offers a credible alternative. Instead, by continuing to offer empty rhetoric on Iraq and disinformation about his failure to produce his military records, Mr. Kerry illustrated once again why his campaign continues spiralling downhill.
On Iraq, Mr. Kerry says he wants to bring all of the troops home by the end of his first term. He blamed President Bush for the refusal of France, Germany and others in Europe to support the war effort in Iraq. Mr. Kerry added that, if elected, he has a plan to deal with the continued refusal of European nations to live up to their promises to do more to help train Iraqi security forces. What is Mr. Kerry's grand plan? "I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community." Mr. Kerry didn't say what this summit meeting is supposed to achieve. But the implication is that Mr. Kerry will use his extraordinary persuasive powers (presumably in a more effective way than he is doing in his presidential campaign) to get the French, Germans and others to help.







The main problem with this is that there is virtually no chance that any of it will ever happen. Even if France, Germany et al. were interested in helping out with more troops, the Europeans don't have the military infrastructure right now to make much of a contribution. And why on earth would they want to, given the fact that Mr. Kerry (at least until the next focus-group results come in) says openly that he wants to pull out by the end of his first term? But, when one reads the full transcript of Mr. Kerry's Imus show interview, it becomes clear that Mr. Kerry's main interest isn't coming up with a coherent strategy to win in Iraq, but to bash the president. The Massachusetts Democrat, in a reprise of the sort of rhetoric he and his Vietnam Veterans Against the War pals used in the 1970s, taunted Mr. Bush during the interview: "What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed?"
In addition, Mr. Kerry attempted yesterday to falsely imply that the military is to blame for the media's failure to gain access to his full military records. Asked about a complaint by The Washington Post that the records are not being released, Mr. Kerry suggested that his campaign was "trying" to get them, but the military was standing in the way. This is a distortion that must not go unchallenged. With regard to his personnel records, Mr. Kerry has the authority to order their release. He has not. No amount of spin or parsing of words by the candidate or his surrogates will change the truth.

Randomness By Doc

Doc Farmer has some random thoughts. Just for the record, Doc, there is blue food. Well there are blue potatoes from Peru, which can be found around as blue potato chips. - Sailor

Random Ramblings
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004


~~o~~

• When are we going to finally hook up presidential candidates with lie detectors during the debates?
  
  
  
• Come to think of it, when are we going to finally hook up newscasters with lie detectors as well?
  
  
  
• Can we feed trees in such a way as to end up with red, white, and blue leaves in the autumn? I'd love to see such a patriotic forest.
  
  
  
• Why is there no blue food? I personally think it's a global conspiracy to keep the blue bandage business afloat. But that's just me.
  
  
  
• I was out of the country when ''Seinfeld'' was a big hit here in the States. I've seen it a few times in syndication since I got back. What the <> were you people thinking? That show's about as funny as a root canal.
  
  
  
• CBS was fined $550,000 in September for displaying Janet Jackson's boobie during the half-time show of the Super Bowl. In January. To the federal government, this is rapid response?
  
  
  
• How come only Post Office employees are allowed to officially ''go postal''? Have you seen stamp prices lately? I'd think that we would have a better excuse.
  
  
  
• Did the guy who came up with such menu names as ''Moon Over My Hammy" and the ''Super Bird'' and the ''Lumberjack's Slam'' actually get paid for that by Denny's?
  
  
  
• Do you realize that Jonny Quest is in his late 40s by now? Last I heard, he's an accountant in Teaneck, New Jersey. And Haji? He owns a chain of silicon chip manufacturing plants back in India. Why they had Bandit stuffed and mounted in the Cartoon Hall of Fame, I'll never understand.
  
  
  
• By the way, did you know that ''Race'' Bannon's real first name was Roger? You didn't? I did. Heaven knows why, but I remember goofy stuff like that.
  
  
  
• Why do ugly rich men always end up with young, sexy, beautiful women? Oh, wait, I forgot. It's the money, isn't it?
  
  
  
• Don't you wish that the talking heads on television, when interviewing somebody, would shut up long enough for the person to actually answer the question?
  
  
  
• How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? After all these years, you'd think some scholar with a Ph.D. would have obtained a $50 million government grant to examine this issue.
  
  
  
• I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'm getting more than a little grossed out by all the feminine hygiene products being hawked on television. Spelling out S.O.S. with tampons? Can they possibly get more vulgar? No. wait, this is television we're talking about--of course they can.
  
  
  
• Otis Spunkmeyer is the brand name of some rather large muffins. Don't you feel sorry for the guy who owns the company, though? I mean, it was bad enough that his parents were Mr. and Mrs. Spunkmeyer. So why did they feel it necessary to make things worse and name the poor schlub Otis?
  
  
  
• Those big rotating space stations we were promised back in 1968 still aren't there, nor are the moon bases. To whom do I write in order to complain? I feel gypped.
  
  
  
• While we're at it, can I call dibs on the monolith when they finally find it? I mean, what's Arthur C. Clarke going to do with it anyway?
  
  
  
• If I create the first handheld collimated energy weapon, can I also start the National Raygun Association?
  
  
  
• Can someone explain to me how anybody can find Oprah interesting? Maury's interesting, Jerry Springer's interesting, the cute chick who helped Anne Heche finally figure out that she's actually a heterosexual's interesting, but Oprah's just boring to me.
  
  
  
• Why doesn't the Republican National Committee just buy airtime and show the ''Kerry on Iraq'' documentary instead of sending it out DVD by DVD? It's got to be a lot cheaper to buy 10 minutes of airtime than to pump out 10 million fee DVD's (with postage, no less)!

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9702

9/11, PLUS THREE YEARS

9/11, PLUS THREE YEARS
New York Post Editorial


September 11, 2004 -- America, and New York City, today commorate a most horrific event.
At the three Ground Zeros — the World Trade Center site, the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania where passengers forced a hijacked airliner to crash short of its target — ceremonies will mark the third anniversary of 9/11.

The day that changed everything.

Indeed, this is now — by presidential proclamation — an annual day of remembrance, Patriot Day.

In Lower Manhattan, the rites will be all too familiar to those who have watched or taken part in previous years: moments of silence at the times of impact and collapse; the mournful recitation of the names of the 2,752 dead; readings by local elected officials.

At dusk, the Tribute in Light — two parallel beams of blue, flashed towards the heavens in eerie remembrance of the missing Twin Tower — will shine.

There's not much more that can be said now that hasn't been said before. The rhetoric may be achingly familiar — but so, then, is the continued pain of the surviving families of those who died in New York that day: passengers aboard the planes; workers in the World Trade Center, and the city's heroic police, firefighters and emergency workers.



Still, New York and the nation forge ahead.

After much delay, the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan is under way. (At the Pentagon — where rebuilding was not bogged down by petty bickering and politics — it's impossible to tell where the planes struck.)

The life of the nation, though indelibly changed, goes on.

As does the War on Terror — aimed at ensuring that America will never suffer another 9/11.

True, that battle has not proceeded the way many thought it might just three years ago. Osama bin Laden remains at large, though al Qaeda has been badly crippled and is no longer well situated to foment Islamic revolution throughout the world.

Afghanistan is rid of its pro-terrorist Taliban government, and the scourge of Saddam Hussein has been removed from the world, replaced by a nascent democracy.

Libya's longtime friend in terror, Moammar Khadafy, apparently has seen the light and renounced his terrorist connections.

And it is the War on Terror that's making the difference.

More than six decades ago, following another murderous attack that took thousands of American lives on a single day, another president of the United States told the nation that a long and difficult struggle was ahead — but that victory was inevitable.

"Always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us," said Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. . . . We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us."

Those words, aimed at a different enemy in a different time, apply just as much today.

The struggle continues, the end scarcely in sight.

But America will prevail.

Count on it.

CBS's Big Blunder?

Well, the left may have egg on their faces very soon. Seems the 60 Minutes piece the other night may have used false and fraudulent information. One expert on documents went as far as to say that there is a 90% certainty that the documents CBS displayed and reported on were faked. It also seems this Ben Barnes, not only is a big poodle supporter, having raised some half million dollars, but cannot even remember what year he took office. It is going to get even uglier as the left becomes more desperate. - Sailor

CBS'S BIG BLUNDER?

By JOHN PODHORETZ
New York Post



September 10, 2004 -- THE populist revolu tion against the so- called mainstream media continues. Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.
What the bloggers and their audiences did was call into profound question the authenticity of four documents proudly trumpeted by CBS News in a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

These were "previously unseen documents . . . obtained by '60 Minutes,' " the network bragged Wednesday night on its Web site. Their author, supposedly, was Bush's squadron commander, Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago.

They "include a memorandum from May 1972," CBS reports, "where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' " A document dated "18 August 1973" complains that Killian is being asked to "sugar coat" Bush's record. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," the document says.

Liberals went wild with glee about the story, especially after the onslaught on John Kerry's Vietnam record by his fellow Swift-boat veterans.

Kevin Drum, the most talented of the left-wing bloggers, wrote: "This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift-boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but . . . in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true."

Drum simply assumed that the documents were above-board. So did The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which put the story on its front page on Thursday.



They were doubtless swayed by the fact that CBS said " '60 Minutes' consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

Maybe "60 Minutes" should have tried another expert or two.

CBS made the four documents available in their original form on its Web site Wednesday night.

And by yesterday morning, they were being examined with a fine tooth comb.

The Minneapolis lawyers who run powerlineblog.com were on the case early. Two of the blog's readers directed their attention to a note left on an Internet bulletin board on the freerepublic.com Web site — the 47th posting on the topic there.

Post No. 47 pointed out that there was something off about these documents from the 1970s: The spacing between the letters and the words was proportional, and only a few IBM electric typewriters could achieve that effect back then.

From there it was off to the races. Once anyone who had had experience writing and typing in the 1970s began examining the documents, it was impossible not to see some weird anachronisms that suggested they had been crafted not on a 1970s typewriter, but using Microsoft Word.

Charles Johnson, who runs the wonderful littlegreenfootballs.com, simply typed one of the memos over using Microsoft Word's New Times Roman font and, lo and behold, the document came out exactly identical to the one on the CBS site, down to the letter spacing.

The documents contain such features as superscript lettering, which is done automatically by Microsoft Word, and curly quotation marks. A brief glance at a Web site called selectric.org, run by an amateur typewriter fanatic, reveals dozens of IBM electric typefaces — and none of them has curly quotation marks.

By 3 o'clock, the very careful and honest Jim Geraghty, who produces invaluable material every day on nationalreview.com's Kerry Spot, was saying flatly, "CBS had better have one heck of a defense for this."

Yeah, it had better. I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for "60 Minutes" to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.

The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."

The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.

From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it — why has "60 Minutes" exposed itself in this way?

We all know why. Its producers and others in the media think George Bush deserves to be beaten up now because of the beating administered to John Kerry in August. In some weird way, the editors and producers believe this is fairness at work.

Instead, they have unmasked themselves. Or rather, they have been unmasked by ordinary people who can see what they and their hired experts evidently could not.

E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

Good News, But We Can Do Better

Get ready for the onslaught from the kerry campaign, the DNC, Ramsey Clark's pal Krugman and of course the DNC/kerry propaganda machine, also known as the media, on how bad the economy is. They will distort, tell half truths, exaggerate and out right lie, to convince the American people that the economy sucks. Yes, we can and must do better, but will kerry's pie in the sky promises do better? - Sailor


Good News, But We Can Do Better
By James K. Glassman
Published
09/03/2004
Tech Central Station


Concluding a sensational convention in New York with a speech that emphasized unflinching strength, President Bush got more good news this morning. The Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate had dropped to 5.4 percent -- the lowest proportion of Americans out of work in three years.
By comparison, the unemployment rate in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for a second term was higher -- at 5.5 percent. The new U.S. unemployment rate is about half that of France and Germany.

The unemployment rate today is lower than the average during the 1990s, during the 1980s and during the 1970s.

Usually, in an election, it's the unemployment rate that has the most influence on voters, but, this time around, the media have been emphasizing a different number: job gains. Why? Well, most likely because those gains, in June and July, were anemic, embarrassing the president -- the guy whom the vast majority of journalists want to lose.

Month-to-month job gains, as reported by the statisticians, are practically meaningless. They are drastically adjusted for seasonality, and they are based on small samples. They pose as precise figures, written in a thin-point pen, but they are actually crude numbers, written in crayon.

Employment stats certainly mean something in the long term (when you add them up), but, in the short term, unemployment figures -- which are not free of their own drawbacks -- are more meaningful.

This is not an excuse for the president. In fact, the Labor Department announced that August payrolls rose 144,000 -- a good, solid increase, in line with estimates. Also, the jobs gain for July was revised upward, more than doubling to 73,000. Manufacturing employment in August increased by an admirable 22,000. Average hourly wages rose 0.3 percent.

Overall, the United States has added nearly 1.5 million new jobs since January. At that pace, about 2.5 million new jobs should be added by the end of the year. Already, more Americans are working today than ever in our history.

But, frankly, it's not good enough. As the website Economy.com put it, "This was a strong report, especially when revisions are taken into consideration. But it is not a stellar report."

How can we do better? Certainly not by raising taxes, as John Kerry urges. Kerry's tax increases would eliminate the bulk of the savings from the dividend and capital-gains cuts and would raise rates by more than 10 percent, not just on higher-income individuals but on the millions of small businesses that fuel the economy.

No, the best approach is the one outlined by President Bush last night: reform Social Security, which will increase savings and lower the cost of capital; simplify the Tax Code and make the tax cuts permanent to dampen risks for businesses and individual consumers and investors and boost spending and investment; and expand trade, both to lower the costs of goods coming into the U.S. and to make new markets for our own products.

This morning, in Moosic, Pa., the President responded to the nonsense being peddled by the Kerry campaign about our shipping jobs overseas. Bush said that, if we want to keep jobs at home and, in fact, add to them briskly, then, "This has got to be the best place in the world to do business."

In one way, the U.S. already is. We have the world's best consumer market -- which is the main reason that Japanese automakers, for example, locate plants here. But we make few efforts -- through tax cuts and other incentives -- to attract foreign businesses and keep jobs at home. Why do semiconductor plants, for example, locate abroad? Not because of cheap labor, which represents barely 5 percent of the cost of running a fab. But, in large part, because countries like Taiwan and China offer terrific tax incentives.

The jobs report did, indeed, offer good news to the president -- good enough, I would suspect, to defuse much of the talk about a lousy economy. (Americans themselves think they're doing pretty well; surveys show that they consider the state of their personal finances above-average.)

But we can do better.

Long on Specifics

To hear the kerry supporting media tell it, Dubya had nothing int terms of specifics in his acceptance speech. I wonder what speech they were reading,or, perhaps they wrote their stories before the speech was delivered. - Sailor


Long on Specifics
By Arnold Kling
Published
09/03/2004
Tech Central Station

"The biggest unanswered question about President Bush's reelection campaign has been whether he has a second-term economic and domestic agenda to match his commitment to fighting terrorists. He began to provide the answers here Thursday night with an acceptance speech long on ambitions but far shorter on the ways or the means to accomplish them." -- Dan Balz, front-page analysis in The Washington Post

The Media's Lapham (pre-determined story line) about President Bush's acceptance speech is that it was short on specifics with regard to domestic policy. On the contrary, if you read the speech, you will find it long on specifics. It is certainly more specific and less demagogic than Senator John Kerry's Nothing speech. What follows are President Bush's statements, and my reactions upon reading them.

'my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.'

On "restraining federal spending," he has a bad record and offered no specifics. This is a bad start, but the speech improves later on.

'To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.'

More generalities. At least he did not talk about energy "independence" as demagogically as Senator Kerry.

'I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.'

I can remember when the Democratic Party was the party of tax reform in the 1970's. More recently, in his book Hard Heads, Soft Hearts, Kerry adviser Alan Blinder praised the tax reform of 1986, passed during the Reagan Administration.

'we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges'

Another policy that Democrats should support. Now we are getting into specifics -- too bad they are about increased government spending.

'we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.'

More specifics, more spending, and, notwithstanding the earlier call for tax reform, more tax gimmicks.

'We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs.'

Another tax gimmick, and the health-care saving account idea. The goal of moving away from the Middle Man Mess is laudable, but I would have preferred a less wonkish approach.

'we will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care: In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.'

Very specific and very Un-wonkish! He takes Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel's idea and runs with it!!

'we must pass medical liability reform now!'

Over the trial lawyers' deceased corpses, of course. But certainly specific.

'we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time'

I do not know what this refers to, but it sounds specific.

'Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high.'

I think that the President was wrong to claim credit for this. Better would have been to say, "Contrary to what you are hearing from the Democrats about middle-class squeeze..."

'We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account'

A specific endorsement of the Ultimate Lockbox.

'By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma.'

Pell grants are like vouchers for college, so I can't argue with that specific. But overall, I am not a big fan of the Federalization of education under "No Child Left Behind."

'we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs.'

A constructive approach for improving the nation's public health statistics, which would raise our standing in the Health Care Olympics.

'Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online.'

This is only sort of true. I went to this page, and I found a list of spending proposals and programs that is so long it is scary. But not so much if you are looking for details about restraining Federal spending.

Overall, I am afraid that the President's concept of the "ownership society" owes more to David Brooks than it does to Stephen Bainbridge. But the mainstream media's characterization of the speech as short on specifics is 180 degrees wrong.

Kerry's showing he just can't take the heat

As things go from bad to worse for the kerry campaign, the candidate melts down more each passing hour. His whole campaign is now centered on his 4 months in Vietnam. Just a thought here johnny boy, before you start railing about anyone receiving draft deferments, you had better consult with the lap dog that is runiing with you. While I was serving (Edwards and I are the same age) your boy was drinking beer and smoking weed at college. People that live in glass houses should never throw rocks. - Sailor


Kerry's showing he just can't take the heat
September 5, 2004
BY MARK STEYN CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


Both candidates gave speeches late on Thursday night. George W. Bush was more or less expected to. John Kerry didn't have to, but reported for duty even though nobody wanted him to. Unnerved by sagging numbers, he decided to start the post-Labor Day phase of the campaign three days before Labor Day. The way things are going, Democrats seem likely to be launching the post-election catastrophic-defeat vicious-recriminations phase of the campaign round about Sept. 12.
At any rate, less than 60 minutes after President Bush gave a sober, graceful, droll and moving address, Kerry decided to hit back. In the midnight hour, he climbed out of his political coffin, and before his thousands of aides could grab the garlic from Teresa's kitchen and start waving it at him, he found himself in front of an audience and started giving a speech. As in Vietnam, he was in no mood to take prisoners: ''I have five words for Americans,'' he thundered. ''This is your wake up call!''
Is that five words? Or is it six? Well, it's all very nuanced, according to whether you hyphenate the ''wake-up.'' Maybe he should have said, ''I have four words plus a common hyphenated expression for Americans.'' I'd suggest the rewrite to him personally, but I don't want him to stare huffily at me and drone, "How dare you attack my patriotism."
By about nine words into John Kerry's wake up call, I was sound asleep again. But this was what he told Ohio's brave band of chronic insomniacs:
''For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve.''
Oh, dear . . . growing drowsy again . . . losing the will to type . . . what's he saying now?
''Two tours of duty''
Ah, yes. As usual, he has four words for Americans: I served in Vietnam. Or five words if you spell it Viet Nam.
So we have one candidate running on a platform of ambitious reforms for an ''ownership society'' at home and a pledge to hunt down America's enemies abroad. And we have another candidate running on the platform that no one has the right to say anything mean about him.
And for this the senator broke the eminently civilized tradition that each candidate lets the other guy have his convention week to himself? Maybe they need to start scheduling those Kerry campaign shakeups twice a week.
There was an old joke back in the Cold War:
Proud American to Russian guy: ''In my country every one of us has the right to criticize our president.''
Russian guy: ''Same here. In my country every one of us has the right to criticize your president.''
That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance.
Several distinguished analysts have suggested that the best rationale for a Kerry presidency is that it would be a ''return to normalcy'' -- a quiet life after the epic pages of history George W. Bush has been writing these last three years. Even if a ''return to normalcy'' were an option, I doubt whether John Kerry would qualify. As we saw in those two Thursday speeches, Bush takes the war seriously but he doesn't take himself seriously -- self-deprecating jokes are obligatory these days, but try to imagine Kerry doing the equivalent of Bush's gags about mangled English and swaggering. The president is comfortable in his own skin, which is why he shrugs off the Hitler stuff. By contrast, Kerry doesn't take the war seriously because he's so busy taking himself seriously. If ''return to normalcy'' means four years of a grimly humorless, touchy, self-regarding Kerry presidency, I'll take the war.
That's surely why Kerry is running his kamikaze kandidacy on biography rather than any grand themes. Senator Kerrikaze is running for president because he thinks he should be president -- who needs a platform? One of the most revealing aspects of the campaign this last week were the interviews given by his various surrogates. Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman, went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and was asked about the swift boat veterans' ads, and he laughed and blustered and stalled and floundered. That sounded weird. This thing's been going on a month now, and the Kerry campaign still hasn't come up with a form of words to deflect questions about it. If they had an agreed spin, McAuliffe and Co. would be out using it. But the seared senator feels it's lese majeste even to question him. He can talk about Vietnam 24/7, but nobody else is allowed to bring it up.
Sorry, man, that's not the way it works. And if he thinks it does, he's even further removed from the realities of democratic politics than he was from the interior of Cambodia. Instead of those military records the swift boat vets are calling for, I'd be more interested in seeing his medical ones.
As for Bush, to be sure at one level his convention was a ''soft-focus infomercial,'' just as Kerry's was. But the infomercial came into sharp focus just often enough to clarify, piercingly, the differences between the parties. On opening night in Boston, the Democrats staged a tasteful, teary candlelight remembrance of those who died on 9/11. On opening night in New York, the Republicans put up one speaker after another -- John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Silver -- resolved that those thousands of innocents shall not have died in vain.
I remember a couple of days after Sept. 11 writing that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, the two conventions drew the same distinction. If you want passivity and wallowing in victim culture, the Dems will do. If you want to win this thing, Bush is the only guy running

All the bias that fits

Before I comment on the article I am posting, I want to wish Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from his pending open heart surgery. I had open heart surgery in 1999 for a different ailment and while I rarely agreed with Bill, I can certainly empathize. Good luck, Bill.

Now to the article. It has long annoyed me that churches supporting liberl causes and candidates get a free ride on the seperation of church and state issue the liberal media rags on about. Of course, seperation of church and state only matters to them when it is the Religious Right. Michelle Malkin takes apart the New York Times on this. - Sailor




All the bias that fits


By Michelle Malkin
Washington Times

Over the past two months, the New York Times has hammered Republicans for including conservative Christians in the American electoral process:

On June 18, David D. Kilpatrick's Page One story was headlined "Bush allies till fertile soil, among Baptists, for votes."

Page One on July 2 featured Mr. Kilpatrick's story headlined "Bush appeal to churches seeking help raises doubts."

On July 16, a Kilpatrick story headlined "Citing Falwell's endorsement of Bush, group challenges his tax-exempt status" appeared on Page A16.


On Aug. 9, Mr. Kilpatrick ran a story headlined "Churches see an election role and spread the word on Bush" on Page One.

The separation-of-church-and-state watchdogs have been barking rabidly at any sign of politicking or voter registration efforts by Republicans within shouting distance of a house of worship. On July 14, the Times published an editorial headlined "Onward GOP soldiers" on Page A22. The apoplectic editorial writers inveighed against the Bush-Cheney campaign for "buttonholing Christian churches nationwide to serve as virtual party precincts in the Republican drive to turn out voters in November." The editorial board complained further:
"Ministers are being pressed to create registration drives and speak out about 'all Christians needing to vote.' The Bush team's strategy disrespects religion as much as it does democratic ideals. Churchgoers are entitled to a little sanctuary from politicians."

None of this alleged concern about the supposedly undemocratic mixture of religion and politics was evident, however, in the Times' coverage of former President Bill Clinton's pulpit demagoguery at the far-left Riverside Church in New York City this past Sunday on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here's the lead for the front-page article in the Times' politics section on Monday:

"Former President Bill Clinton offered a hard-hitting attack against the Republican Party yesterday, telling worshippers gathered at Riverside Church that President Bush and the Republicans are distorting John Kerry's war record in Vietnam. 'Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments,' Mr. Clinton said. 'It is wrong to bear false witness.' "
Yup. Before a crowd of 1,500 worshippers in Upper Manhattan, Mr. Clinton slammed religious conservatives for their stance against same-sex "marriage" and abortion; attacked President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Teddy Kennedy); derided the Bush tax cuts; questioned the Republicans' "healthy forest" initiative; and ridiculed the expansive Medicare prescription drug benefit program passed with support of both parties.

Would a Times reporter have approvingly described a sermon by a conservative preacher taking the opposite stance on the pulpit as "hard-hitting"? Why didn't the reporter include the standard alarmist quote from secularist Barry Lynn questioning the tax-exempt status of the Riverside Church?

And, putting aside the unholy specter of an impeached president shamelessly invoking the Bible to condemn others for lying, where are all the Times' editorial writers — previously so concerned about protecting the church sanctuary from disrespectful partisan politics — now?

Mr. Clinton's strident Sunday morning visit to the Riverside Church wasn't just one spontaneous event, but part of a coordinated nationwide campaign called "Mobilization 2004." The church's pastor, Rev. James Forbes, has aligned with crockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore, socialist antiwar agitators Code Pink, and liberal Protestant churches bent on booting President Bush out of office. Mr. Forbes, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, has his hands in protest events all week during the Republican National Convention, pushing everything from increased federal spending on hunger and homelessness to single-payer health insurance.

Nevertheless, there have been no in-depth, Page One stories on how Kerry allies are "tilling fertile soil" among left-wing Protestants for votes. No editorials snidely titled "Onward Democrat soldiers." And no conspiratorial flow charts suggesting coordination between Mr. Forbes, the Clintons (Hillary attended the service after attacking Mr. Bush on the Sunday morning talk show circuit) and the Kerry campaign.

The New York Times' sanctimonious reporters and editorialists loudly declaim the mixture of religion and politics whenever conservative Christians are involved. But when the religious left brings Democratic partisans to preach to the choir, the church/state separatists in the media are quieter than country church mice. The double standard echoes like a steel trap snapping in an empty cathedral.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Deserving victory

Now that both parties have concluded their conventions, it is plain to see that the dems, in an all out effort to win, have tossed their convictions aside. Debra Saunders takes a look at both parties. - Sailor




Deserving victory

Debra J. Saunders
Friday, September 3, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle

New York -- THE CONVENTIONAL talk about the Republican National Convention was that, like the Philadelphia convention in 2000, this would be a parade of moderates putting a kinder face on (what by implication is mean) conservatism. Instead the 2004 convention has been a parade of moderates and conservatives putting themselves on the line for President Bush because they believe that he is right about the most important issue before America today: The war on terrorism, which in this room includes the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

That sentiment was clear Thursday night when Gen. Tommy Franks endorsed George W. Bush for president because he doesn't believe "we should retreat into a defensive posture and hope that the terrorists don't attack us again."

Actor Ron Silver put it well when he told me he supports the GOP ticket because, "I'm a 9/11 person and not a Sept. 10 person." Silver has been a supporter of abortion rights but, he noted, "If we don't get this thing right, then the rest of it doesn't make much of a difference."

The difference between Boston and New York could not be starker.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq. Yet both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2002.

The same poll found that 19 percent of GOP voters and 3 percent of GOP delegates oppose the war. Those delegates are in harmony with Bush and Veep Dick Cheney, even if 51 percent of all voters polled oppose the war.

That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.

That's how fanatical their hatred is.

Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to lose an election for a cause they believe in. Bush knew when he began that the war in Iraq could cost him the election, but he did what he thought was best. And he still isn't flinching.

"He may lose this election. But the principle of how he conducts himself is more important than if he wins or loses the election," said California GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that Bush is not political -- he is political. He's president. I am arguing that the Democratic Party has become so political that it stands for absolutely nothing. Dems know it, so they nominate men who also stand for nothing -- but raw ambition.

Kerry won the nomination because many Democrats believed they had to pick a pro-war candidate in order to beat Bush. They were able to look at Kerry's vote against the Persian Gulf War and determine that he did not believe his 2002 Iraq vote and does not mean the pro-war statements he has made during the campaign.

Some of the very folks who bellow, "Bush lied," are crossing their fingers in the hope that Kerry lied.

"I don't think the Democrats have confidence in the American people," Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot noted. That's why the Democrats are "angry."

And many Democrats think that they're going to lose. A famous wartime poster had Winston Churchill's face looming over the words, "Deserve victory." You deserve victory when you believe in a cause so much that you are willing to take risks for it.

This year, the Democrats abandoned their principles, implying either that they don't trust the America people to appreciate their message, or that they don't trust their message. Democrats aren't willing to take risks, but they are willing to choose someone whom they want to mislead the public. For that alone, they deserve to lose, and I think they know it.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Kerry vs. Kerry

Here is the debate we have all waited for....kerry vs. kerry. Now it is up to you to decide the winner. - Sailor




Kerry vs. Kerry

By Duane D. Freese Published 09/02/2004

Tech Central Station

Tom Brokaw: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, this is Tom Brokaw, with Tim Russert. Tonight we will witness a most unusual political event. Tim, tell us what it is.


Tim Russert: Yes, Tom. Last week, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry challenged George W. Bush to a series of weekly debates on topics such as the War in Iraq, the Economy, Health Care, the Environment and their military service during the Vietnam conflict.



Brokaw: That in itself not so unusual …



Russert: Exactly, Tom. Nominees for president often demand such things from incumbents. That's why the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed -- to create a format that would take some of the politicking about debates and settle on a format.



Brokaw: So, in a way, Kerry is breaking with that agreement between the parties?



Russert: You're correct, Tom. But in truth, I think he had a larger purpose.



Brokaw: Which, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are here tonight.



Russert: That's right, Tom. Sen. Kerry's purpose was to open the door to weekly debates with himself. And that is what Kerry will try to do tonight. Tell us what he thinks -- based on specific statements he's made in the past -- in the first Kerry vs. Kerry presidential debate.



[CAMERA PANS TO A STAGE WITH A SINGLE PODIUM]



Brokaw: All right, Sen. Kerry. Are you ready for your first question?



Sen. Kerry: John Kerry, reporting for duty.



Brokaw: Good, good. You don't have to salute me. But your response brings up the first question. Do you think that military service, such as yours in Vietnam that you've raised during your campaign, is an important qualification to be president?



Kerry: Well, Tom, as you may recall, back in October of 1992, when Bill Clinton was running -- and he had no military experience, as you may remember -- I stood up on the Senate floor and said plainly: 'You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.'



Russert: That doesn't seem your position today, though, does it?



Kerry: Of course not. I've grown older and wiser, and I realized that my service provides me the kind of vital perspective on being a war-time president that wasn't needed when we'd just ended the Cold War. And it wasn't a partisan decision. No, not at all. I raised it during the primaries, too, noting that none of my Democratic opponents -- well, none other than Wesley Clark, and he dropped out pretty early -- had 'worn the uniform of our country' so they could withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.



Brokaw: But, sir, you chose one of those men as your running mate.



Kerry: Of course. But you should note that he won't be debating Mr. Bush.



Russert: But, sir, I recall when I had you on Meet the Press in early February, you said you didn't consider the war against terror a real war or President Bush to be a war president.



Kerry: Well, as I said then, and I recall it pretty exactly, 'The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It's a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they're trying to market to America.' As I pointed out then, 'It's basically a manhunt. You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they're planning, and you gotta be able to go get 'em before they get us.' And I'm just the one who will go get them.



Brokaw: So, why is your service experience so relevant, if it's just, as you put it, basically a manhunt?



Kerry: Because, as I put it so plainly, in late February. 'This war isn't just a manhunt -- a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.'



Russert: I think. … Well, war or manhunt, just for the record, did you favor going to war in Iraq?



Kerry: You have to understand, as I pointed out in the Presidential Candidate Debate on May 4, 2003, 'I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.'



Brokaw: So, you weren't an anti-war candidate, like Howard Dean, who ran against you, and opposed the war?



Kerry: No, no. Chris Matthews asked me point blank on his show Hardball in January: 'Are you one of the anti-war candidates?' And I said, 'I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely.'



Brokaw: Senator, your Iraq War vote and your subsequent rhetoric seem like they may be at odds. Could you clarify your position?



Kerry: I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Tom, as I did at a debate in Baltimore in September of last year: 'If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat.' That should clarify things.



Russert: Senator, what about in the reconstruction phase in Iraq? I recall that we discussed that on Meet the Press back in August of last year, and when I asked if we should reduce funding for the operation in Iraq, you said, 'No. I think we should increase it.' And when I asked by how much, you said, 'By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq.'



But then you voted against the $86.5 billion Iraq/Afghanistan reconstruction package.



Kerry: (smiles): ----



Russert: Well?



Kerry: Well, as I told Glen Johnson of the Boston Globe in March, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'



Brokaw: Maybe we should move on to some other issues. You have come out in this campaign favoring a health care plan like the one you have.



Kerry: To put it precisely, as I said at Mercy Medical last December, 'As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren't so lucky, and we need to change that. That's why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family's health care is just as important as any politician's in Washington.'



Brokaw: But I recall back in 1994, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and promised a health care plan like the one that existed for Senators, you told her that you thought the country could do better.



Kerry: Surely I did. I had a $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. Want to know why? As I told Hillary then, 'Because it was done in the dentist's office, rather than the hospital, they didn't cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital.'



Brokaw: So you want to have the same plan.



Kerry: Well, that would ensure we spend more for health care as long as we send people to the hospital …



Russert: But didn't you also say on Meet the Press back then that Ted Kennedy's and Hillary Clinton's pushing health care reform was a major cause for the Democratic Party's problems at the polls?



Kerry: Of course. They wanted a lot of complicated things. My message is simple -- send everybody to the hospital for dental care.



Brokaw: Moving on. You want to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich.



Kerry: Yes.



Russert: But in April of 2002, didn't you tell CNN's Tucker Carlson that you didn't favor repealing Bush's tax cuts?



Kerry: What I said was: 'We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn't take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it's simply not a ripe issue right now. And I'm not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.' Well, now it's 2004, I'm running for president, so we have different choices.



Brokaw: Well, we've run out of time for tonight. Next week, perhaps, we can have candidate Kerry debate himself on the Kyoto protocol -- once against and now for; NAFTA and trade with China, for once and now against, and gay marriage, for which he is against and for at the same time. Good night, Tim. Thank you, Sen. Kerry.

Media 'Con Game': Predetermined Storylines

This might be interesting to participate in. - Sailor


Media 'Con Game': Predetermined Storylines
By Nick Schulz
Published
08/31/2004
Tech Central Station

NEW YORK -- Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham is being appropriately mocked for a major pre-GOP-convention boner. In the September issue of his magazine, which has been on newsstands for over a week, Lapham writes about the "Republican propaganda mill" and the GOP convention:

"The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal -- government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden's prayer -- and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn't stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?"

That's right, Lapham wrote about the GOP convention speeches before anyone even stepped to the podium. Lapham has apologized for what he's calling a "rhetorical invention," use of "poetic license," and a "mistake."

But the only "mistake" Lapham made is in revealing for all to see what has long been known by anyone who pays attention to the news: the major media routinely bring to their coverage of significant political events a predetermined storyline -- you might want to call it a "Lapham". Facts that undermine the storyline are ignored or explained away as aberrations to The Truth. For the editor of Harper's and other establishment press figures, it really makes no difference to them what will be said at Madison Square Garden because the Laphams are already set, loaded in the scribblers' word processors and television anchor tele-prompters and ready to go.

We at TCS have seen Laphams at work at a number of gatherings we've covered over the years. At the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg a couple of years ago, the predetermined storyline was that the United States was a menacing global economic hegemon that was exploiting the underdeveloped world and ruining the environment. Enlightened bureaucrats at the UN and intrepid eco-groups, the Lapham went, were all that stood athwart the Red, White, and Blue corporatist menace yelling 'stop'. Little did it matter to major newspapers or the BBC and CNN that leaders in the developing world made common cause with the US at that conference in pushing for freer trade, more economic development and growing economies.

At the recently concluded global AIDS conference in Bangkok, the storyline there advanced by activist groups and parroted by their friends in the press, was a familiar one. The US government, captive to Christian conservatives and American business interests, was undermining the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The truth was much simpler and more uplifting: the US, under President Bush's leadership, has taken charge in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The U.S. has committed more resources to treatment and prevention than all other donor countries and has insisted on quality drugs so resource-poor Africans get the treatments they need without making the AIDS epidemic worse.

Now we have another major political event, the GOP convention in Manhattan this week, and Lewis Lapham has already provided us with a predetermined media storyline: The GOP will advocate limited government and free markets even though doing so is "bizarre" and archaic."

My colleague and TCS host James K. Glassman recently highlighted two other Laphams in a convention preview. Glassman pointed out that the establishment media will portray "Republicans like yahoos and religious fanatics." But what about those high-profile Republicans who share some establishment media values? For example, convention speakers Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani are pro-choice. And John McCain buys into green dogma on global warming and favors restrictions on political speech. For these Republicans, the media will roll out another Lapham to round out the picture. As Glassman puts it, they'll be "portrayed in the media as weird anomalies." (As if on cue, NBC's Tom Brokaw included in his Sunday broadcast the Lapham that the GOP was engaged in a "con game" by having Schwarzenegger, McCain and Giuliani speak.)

In reality, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani do not feel they are in a party of troglodytes. They feel welcome in a party that emphasizes freedom, choice and responsibility. Yes, there are differences among Republicans over issues like abortion, but there's far more tolerance for dissenting views on controversial issues in the GOP than in the Democratic Party (remember former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey?). And as for supposed anomalies like "maverick" John McCain (with whom TCS has had deep differences on some issues) he embodies the GOP's insistence on peace through military strength and a robust, assertive American foreign policy.

To elite media outlets, facts won't get in the way of a good Lapham. But there's a way to fight back.

The tools of the Internet age enable an intelligent public that is tired of media spin to take an active role in uncovering the truth. To that end, we at TCS want you, our readers, to email us examples you discover of the establishment media trundling out their predetermined convention coverage storylines this week. When you come across Laphams in newspapers, magazines, on the Internet or on TV, alert us by sending an email to the following address:

presswatch@techcentralstation.com

We will collect your observations and publish the examples of Laphams later in the week. Have fun watching and reading about the convention -- and keeping an eye out for more of those "rhetorical inventions" from the press.

Kerry's Impossible Task

I have said over and over that kerry using Vietnam as the center piece of his campaign was a huge mistake. It is coming back to bite him in the ass. - Sailor


Kerry's Impossible Task

By Paul J. Cella Published 09/01/2004
Trch Central Station


The position taken by John Kerry vis-à-vis the Vietnam War is simply untenable; and he is not likely to find any satisfactory way to resolve it, because to do so would be to make himself comprehensively unpalatable to the American electorate.


As I see it, he can only really resolve it one of two ways. (1) He could boldly stand by his position of some thirty years ago, when he went before Congress as an eloquent antiwar voice; he could reassert the view he propounded then, which was the view of the antiwar movement in general: namely, that the United States military, during the war it conducted in Vietnam, became in essence a criminal organization, from top to bottom countenancing and even encouraging cruelty, plunder, atrocity and mayhem. Now I want to say, in all sincerity, that if it is true what the John Kerry and antiwar movement alleged; if it is true that the whole institution of the military was implicated in the most awful of crimes, that events such as the My Lai massacre were not evil anomalies, but quotidian features of the war effort -- policy, even, promulgated implicitly or surreptitiously by its commanders; if the war was waged not by mostly honorable officers, mostly honorable soldiers, and a few cowards, madmen and psychopaths, but rather by a throng of fiends; if, in short, the American military conducted itself in Vietnam not as the armed force of a civilized nation, but as the savage and sanguinary instrument of a barbarian tribe, then Senator Kerry should stand by his condemnation. Indeed, he should thunder it from the rooftops. Patriotism that gives succor to such wickedness is no virtue; it is vicious madness.



Alternatively, (2) Kerry could repudiate his previous statements root and branch as reckless, inflammatory, malicious imprudence; attribute it to a terrible fever that overtook him and parts of the country; and beg forgiveness from his fellow veterans and the American people whom he slandered so venomously. I, for one, would forgive him.



Clearly neither option is agreeable to Kerry the politician: The first profoundly alienates about seventy-five percent of the electorate, and the second profoundly alienates an integral part of his political base. So Kerry will opt for position three, which amounts to a very watered-down version of both positions at the same time. Yes, I stand by what I said, but no, the military did not really act dishonorably. Wrong war and the wrong time, etc, etc.



Of course it is true that politicians engage in such antics all the time: the studied ambiguity, the calculated contradiction, the muted incoherence -- all this is a regular feature of politics. Without it, politics would just be that much more boring.



But this is not minor issue. In fact it is a highly-charged issue that has never been put to rest. It is a wound inflicted on the body politic by the division between us as a people that erupted (or perhaps was merely revealed) in the 1960s and has never been treated by anything more than sophisticated band-aids since. Every once in a while the fragile scabbing (if you'll excuse the graphic medical imagery) cracks, and the wound bleeds again. It did several years ago, when another Senator Kerrey was the focus of media scrutiny. It does when major films about Vietnam are released. This is because, to be blunt, the Vietnam War divided this country unlike anything since the Civil War, or, as the Southerners say with more precision, the War Between the States. As with that bloody war of brother against brother, during the height of the Vietnam division, America was nearly rent into two people, and two countries*.



As I say, this wound has not yet been healed. It is difficult to see how it could be healed. Its resultant damage is considerable: It has enervated our nation profoundly, vitiated our constitutional consensus, filled many of us with bitterness and suspicion; it has cursed us with the special burden of rigidly ideological political parties, thus threatening to make power a prize to be captured and wielded without scruple; and it has permeated our politics with rancor.



I am of course not neutral on this whole huge question. I stand with those who think the antiwar movement of the 1960s was conceived in error and mischief, perpetrated in pretentious truculence, allied in its political tendency with injustice on a massive scale (namely International Communism), and finally recorded for history by men under the spell of fantasy. One need not defend Vietnam as a wise or noble war to recoil in horror from what the antiwar movement augured. In this judgment I believe I stand with the solid majority of American citizens, and against a faction not only of ineffaceable folly, but also of deep antipathy to the popular consensus. In short, the antiwar movement was hostile toward the deliberate sense of the community; it abhorred the settled judgment of American democracy.



As such, it puts a left-wing candidate for national office like John Kerry in a real bind: his base constituency cherishes, and will not allow him to repudiate, its roots in an unpopular faction. To get elected he must bridge this unbridgeable gap, a feat which, on so large an issue, may prove impossible.



The author is a TCS contributor. Find more of his writing here.