Posted by Atrios
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that despite the Rovian maneuvers to discredit Hatfield's biography Fortunate Son, it's pretty likely that Bush did do his community service as some sort of consequence of being busted for cocaine. I don't think a 20something drug bust should disqualify anyone for anything, really, although obviously our currrent Bush-supported drug laws don't agree with me.
But, the incredible thing about the latest accusation regarding Bush's work with Project PULL in the early 70s isn't that according to people who worked with him it wasn't voluntary. I mean, come on, we know that it isn't exactly in the Bush family gene pool to do something like that. The incredible thing is that in addition to lying about why he was doing it, he lied about the importance of his involvement:
HOUSTON - Former employees of a now-defunct inner-city program here have disputed the role President Bush says he played working with troubled teens in 1973.
"I was working full-time for an inner-city poverty program known as Project PULL," he said in his 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep. "My friend John White... asked me to come help him run the program... . I was intrigued by John's offer... . Now I had a chance to help people."
Bush often has cited this work for the Professional United Leadership League as the source for his belief in compassionate conservatism.
Some former associates of White, who died in 1988, speaking on the record for the first time, say that Bush wasn't helping to run the program but was instead a volunteer, and that White hadn't asked Bush to come aboard. Instead, the associates said, White told them he agreed to take Bush on as a favor to Bush's father, who was honorary cochairman of the program at the time. They say White, a tight end for the Houston Oilers in the '60s, told them Bush had gotten into some kind of trouble, but White never gave them specifics.
While they question how he came to the group, they also praise his work and agree that he connected well with the youths.
"We didn't know what kind of trouble he'd been in, only that he'd done something that required him to put in the time," said Althia Turner, White's administrative assistant.
"He didn't help run the program. I was in charge of him and I wouldn't say I helped run the program, either," said David Anderson, a recreational director at PULL.
A White House spokesman, told about the interviews, denied that Bush had been in any trouble or that Bush's father, who was ambassador to the United Nations at the time, had arranged the job at PULL. He acknowledged that Bush wasn't paid for his work there.
"It was incorrect to say he was working there," spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He was doing volunteer service and getting paid by the Guard."
It's incredible that all signs point to his being a volunteer working off some community service time. Instead of just claiming to be a volunteer, he claimed he was asked to "help run the program."
Is there anything he won't lie about?
And, remember folks, it's not about the sex, it's about the lying...
...just a thought. I'm pretty surprised they got away with running this story so close to the election. I'm guessing the reporters may even have a bit more up their sleeves that makes this an even more solid story... Developing, as they say...
Posted by Atrios Surprise. And shame on our pathetic media for, as usual, thinking scary puppies are more important than the fact that the president who allowed 9/11 to happen then allowed the perpetrator of 9/11 to get away so he could have his war against a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 is now lying about it.
You'd think we'd have better memories about the events surrounding the "most important day ever" and the subsequent war.
WATKINS: Well, let's talk about what is happening right now.
The Bush campaign has rolled out its latest ad. And it may be the most powerful in its arsenal to date. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
NARRATOR: In an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on America, John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence operations by $6 billion, cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
WATKINS: Wow. Very strong and right on the mark.
The ads begin airing today in 14 states and on national cable. Bush aides say it was produced in the spring, but it was so effective in focus groups that they held it back until now. Good move.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: This is -- now, the guy who makes Bush's ads, Mark McKinnon, is a dear friend of mine. We went to college together. I love him.
Mark, you need to switch to decaf, bud.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: That's the dumbest ad.
(CROSSTALK)
WATKINS: That's a great ad. That's a great ad.
BEGALA: Those are puppies, Joe.
WATKINS: Americans care about being safe.
BEGALA: Ronald Reagan used a bear, a big threatening image, for the Soviet Union. These are puppies. What's next, Garfield the cat, Lassie?
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Oh, I'm afraid. These puppies are coming. The puppies are coming.
The "applause" after the end of the video clip was actually laughter.
Posted by Atrios
So, the Republicans have 3600 people signed up to do everything they can do discourage people from voting in Ohio.
We're going to need some citizen journalists to check out what's going on. Please, people in Cleveland make sure to travel around to various polling places and report in on what's happening on Nov. 2.
ASHEVILLE - U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor slightly trails challenger Patsy Keever in a poll released Friday.
The survey conducted by the Asheville Center for Social Research at UNC Asheville found that 41.2 percent of residents polled support Taylor, 43.5 percent would vote for Keever, and 15.3 percent were undecided.
The poll involved 493 residents of Buncombe, Henderson, Haywood and Transylvania counties contacted by telephone between Oct. 11 and 21. With a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, the two candidates are in a statistical tie, said Mark West, director of the center and a professor of mass communication at the university.
Posted by Atrios
The Brady Campaign says they have a source who says the NRA was behind it:
Dear StoptheNRA member:
Can it be true that the NRA is behind the Stolen Honor "documentary" attacking John Kerry to be aired in part or in its entirety by Sinclair Broadcasting?
We have received credible information from a source inside the NRA that the NRA is a significant funder of the Stolen Honor "documentary" which is scheduled to be aired on 62 stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting in late October. This "documentary" is the source of much controversy as it is a blatant political attack on a presidential candidate days before an election and is being aired by a broadcast company owned by supporters of President Bush. They are characterizing it as "news" and claiming not to be subject to election laws.
The NRA has made no secret of its disdain for election laws and using its resources to try and get around these laws and impact the election. The NRA has a history of trying to circumvent these laws by attempting to buy TV stations, expressing desires to broadcast from Mexico or even from a ship offshore in international waters. By allegedly funding this "documentary" and working with an existing pro-Bush broadcaster to air it, they are succeeding where they have failed in the past. They need to be stopped from making this end-run around our nation's election laws.
Consider this:
The Assistant General Counsel of the NRA, James H. Warner, appears in the "documentary" as someone who is highly critical of John Kerry. Is this just a coincidence?
We have been told by a source inside the NRA (whom we cannot identify to protect him and his family) that the NRA is a significant funder of Stolen Honor. The producers of Stolen Honor, Red, White and Blue Productions, a for-profit company, brag on their website that they have received funding from "individuals and entities nationwide" and are actively soliciting contributions. Since when do for-profit companies or news organizations solicit donations?
There is no reporting of contributors by Red, White and Blue Productions. No accountability. Nothing. Is this just an attempt by the producers to circumvent campaign finance laws and allow their supporters to hide their identities?
Sinclair Broadcasting and the NRA have shown their support for President Bush through endorsements and contributions. Is Red, White and Blue Productions acting as the go-between in order for the NRA to get its wish and use the airwaves to further its extreme political agenda?
All groups who are involved in broadcast activities that attempt to influence elections (including the so-called 527 organizations) must disclose their donors. Why does Red, White and Blue Productions think it is exempt from this requirement?
The Washington bureau chief and top reporter for Sinclair Broadcast Group was fired after he criticized the company's plans to produce a news program based on a "documentary" critical of John Kerry. After his firing he was "escorted out of the building." Are these people afraid the truth is going to come out?
These are questions that need to be asked and investigated. Our nation's campaign finance laws are there to make sure the rich and powerful do not take over our election process. We supported campaign finance reform and the NRA opposed it. They even lost their challenge to those laws in court. What lengths will they go to by-pass these laws?
Time is running short. The election is almost here.
How You Can Help:
1) Call the offices of Campaign Finance Reform sponsors Senators McCain (202-224-2235) and Senator Feingold (202-224-5323) and demand that the Senate investigate who is funding the "documentary" produced by Red, White and Blue Productions and to be aired in part by Sinclair Broadcasting.
2) Call Red White and Blue Productions at 717-213-4955 and demand they release the names of the individuals and entities contributing to the making of this "documentary."
3) Forward this e-mail to as many friends and relatives as you can. Time is running out.
4) Please click here to make a contribution to our efforts to get to the truth. Sensible gun laws need protection today.
Posted by Atrios
Well, the Bush administration is trying to scare as again, even as their DHS director and National Security Adviser are out campaigning.
It really is a shame that the Bush administration's key foreign policy initiative in 2001 was Operation Ignore. It's a shame that a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." prompted Bush to go on vacation. And, it's a shame that the Cheney terrorism task force, headed by Cheney, never met.
It's time for this country to remember just who it was who had a "September 10th mentality" on September 10th, and just which president it was who failed in his duty to protect this country.
Bush also expressed gratitude to Hispanic families that lost loved ones in the wars in Iraq, adding that they died for a noble cause. "I would tell them the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against those who caused the deaths on 9/11 is necessary," he said. "The most solemn duty of the president of the United States is to protect the American people. And the biggest danger we have is that a terrorist group obtains weapons that can cause more damage than a few planes."
Posted by Atrios
According to the caption running below CNN (which has become the BC04 network) Bush just said:
Knowing what I know today, I would have taken the same action in Iraq.
This is highly disturbing, though not surprising. Not one mistake, apparently. Everything that's happened is justified by the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and there's absolutely nothing he would have done differently.
As someone said in comments, the Bush "decapitation" policy should be renamed the Supervillain Doctrine. Bush thinks it's him against the Legion of Doom.
Posted by Atrios
Unlike Newt Gingrich, I'm not worried that the monthly "infections" women get should prevent them from serving in combat. However, one would like to think that changes like this would occur with the appropriate degree of thought and training:
The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.
Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources.
An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants.
Posted by Atrios
In Ohio people are being called and told to vote at the wrong precinct, which explains their SoS Blackwell's obsession with preventing people from using provisional ballots in the incorrect precinct.
Posted by Atrios
I know this won't ever get through to the increasingly cult-like Bush supporters, but this Washington Post article makes it very clear that Bush's approach to fighting terrorism is entirely wrong. Bush himself is apparently obsessed with crossing names off a list that's 3 years old, and is unable to comprehend anything other than his "decapitation" strategy, which seems to be an extension of the rest of the administration's belief that only "state run" terrorism is of concern. Kill the leaders, and problem solved!
Posted by Atrios
According to the Mitakides campaign:
The voter problems have already begun, and Republicans are apparently taking this race very seriously. Absentee ballots are being mailed with the wrong Congressional race on them… leaving my race out of the ballot. The ballots are being mailed to the City of Trotwood and is heavily Democratic and not being on the ballot here is devastating. Just as important, if these are irregular ballots, it will give Ken Blackwell a reason to throw them out… affecting Kerry’s race, too. We don’t know how many went out.
The ballots are being sent with Jeff Hardenbrook’s name rather than Jane's; John Boehner is the Republican. Hardenbrook is a perennial candidate who PLANS not to raise money, and files paper FEC reports. He barely managed 29% of the vote last time. Of course, here in Ohio, we have the situation with Republican Attorney General Kenneth Blackwell seeking to disqualify any ballot cast at the wrong precinct; of course he would do the same with these, knocking out Kerry votes as well as Jane's.
Posted by Atrios
The latest Pew poll shows a big turnaround for Kerry among white Catholics. I really don't like Pew's focus on only "white" religious voters. I can think of a few reasons why they do it, but it nonetheless provides an incorrect picture of the sentiment of religious voters.
The other problem with these polls is that while the subgroup results are interesting, they truly do have margin of error problems. So, "big swings" may just be noise. The margin of error on the white Catholic subgroup is probably about +/- 7%, so one should never take them too seriously.
Delivers $9 million check from Sinclair to Bush, along with 150,000 signatures demanding halt of program
Sinclair Broadcast Constitutes Illegal In-Kind Contribution to Bush Campaign
WHO: StopSinclair.org, a Running For Change Political Action Committee campaign, leads both the online and grassroots charge against Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Joining forces with America Coming Together and democratic blogs, they are protesting Sinclair’s actions and making their position known to President Bush, Sinclair and its advertisers.
WHAT: StopSinclair.org supporters will protest Sinclair’s revised attack ad format: A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media, due to air Friday evening, by delivering to the White House 150,000 signatures demanding the halt of the hour-long attack ad along with a check symbolizing the $9,900,000 illegal in-kind contribution Sinclair is effectively making to the Bush campaign.
WHEN: 12:00 PM, Friday, October 22, 2004
WHERE: Lafayette Park at Intersection of 16th and H Street
WHY: Despite altering the program’s format, Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air excerpts from Stolen Honor, an anti-Kerry piece funded by conservative activists, during an hour-long so-called “news” segment entitled A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media is a partisan exploitation of public airwaves. StopSinclair.org is calling attention to the fact that Sinclair Broadcasting is directly contributing $9,900,000 to the Bush campaign by airing this Anti-Kerry advertisement.
You can also attend a protest at your local affiliate. Protests scheduled for 8pm.
WBFF 2000 W 41ST ST Baltimore MD 21211
WTTO 651 Beacon Pky W, Ste 105 Birmingham AL 35209
WUTV (Buffalo) 951 Whitehaven Rd. Grand Island NY 14072
KGAN 600 Old Marion Road, NE Cedar Rapids IA 54202
WICD 250 South Country Fair Drive Champaign IL 61812
WMMP 4301 Arco Lane Charleston SC 29418
WCHS 1301 Piedmont Road Charleston WV 25301
WSTR 5177 Fishwick Drive Cincinnati OH 45216
WSYX 1261 Dublin Road Columbus OH 43215
WKEF 1731 Soldiers Home Road Dayton OH 45418
KDSM 4023 Fleur Drive Des Moines IA 50231
WSMH G-3463 W. Pierson Road Flint MI 48504
WXLV (Greensboro) 3500 Myer Lee Dr. Winston-Salem NC 27101
WLOS 110 Technology Drive Greenville/Asheville NC 28803
KSMO 10 E. Cambridge Circle Dr. Kansas City KS 66103
KVWB 3830 S. Jones Blvd. Las Vegas NV 89103
WDKY 836 Euclid Avenue Lexington KY 40505
WMSN 7847 Big Sky Dr. Madison WI 53719
WVTV 4041 N. 35th Street Milwaukee WI 53216
KMWB 1640 Como Avenue Minneapolis MN 55108
WZTV 631 Mainstream Drive Nashville TN 37228
WTVZ 900 Granby Street Norfolk VA 23501
KOKH 1501 NE 85th St. Oklahoma City OK 73131
KBSI (Paducah) 806 Enterprise St. Cape Girardeau MO 63703
WEAR (Mobile) 4990 Mobile Hwy. Pensacola FL 32506
WYZZ (Peoria) 2714 E. Lincoln Street Bloomington IL 61704
WPGH 750 Ivory Avenue Pittsburgh PA 15214
WGME 1335 Washington Ave Portland ME 4103
WLFL 3012 Highwoods Blvd, Ste 101 Raleigh NC 27604
WRLH 1925 Westmoreland St. Richmond VA 23230
WUHF 360 East Avenue Rochester NY 14604
KOVR 2713 KOVR Drive Sacramento CA 95605
KDNL 1215 Cole Street St. Louis MO 63106
KABB 4335 NW Loop 410 San Antonio TX 78229
WGGB 1300 Liberty Street Springfield MA 01102-0040
WICS 2680 East Cook Street Springfield IL 62703
WSYT 1000 James Street Syracuse NY 13203
WTWC 8440 Deerlake Road Tallahassee FL 32312
WTTA Bay Television, Inc., 7622 Bald Cypress Place Tampa FL 33614
WEMT (Tri Cities) 3206 Hanover Rd., PO Box 3489 Johnson City TN 37602
Posted by Atrios
One would have to do a careful bit of research to be sure, but obviously I'm not the only one who has noticed that slight Bush leads in polls are called "leads" while slight or even bigger leads for Kerry are labelled "ties."
The annoying thing, though, is that most people writing these stories still don't appear to understand what the margin of error implies. For a poll with an X point margin of error, the difference between the two candidates has to be, approximately (there's a slightly more accurate formula but for numbers around 50% it's close enough), 2X before the difference between them is outside the margin of error.
I'm generally happy for reporters to put things in rough lay terms that people understand. That's more important than a statistics lesson with every article. But, there should be some consistency.
Edwards Statement on Bush Administration’s Political Activity
Muscatine, Iowa – Today, Senator John Edwards issued the following statement about all of the Bush Administration’s political activity this campaign season:
“There’s a problem when our troops are in harm’s way, fighting for a secure Iraq and our national security adviser is out on the stump campaigning instead of working.
“There’s a problem when the Vice President is warning of a nuclear attack and the Homeland Security Secretary who has declared that he is separate from politics spends the bulk of his time traveling battleground states.
“There’s a problem when there is a flu shot shortage and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is too busy advocating for George Bush instead of those who most need these shots.
“There’s a problem when the economy has lost 800,000 jobs and the Treasury Secretary is out on the stump calling these losses a myth instead of focusing on bringing them back.
“There’s a problem when the Chinese are playing fast and loose with our trade agreements and the Commerce Secretary is acting like it’s having no impact on our manufacturing companies here at home.
“But I know how to fix this problem – it’s called Election Day. On November 2, we’re going to cast the votes to put John Kerry into the White House and we’re going to nip this problem in the bud.”
No one expects Cabinet level folks to be entirely non-partisan of course, but putting Rice out there to campaign really is embarrassingly unseemly. I'm sure we're more, and not less, safe with her out of Washington, if truth be told. Still, all these little campaign trips tell us is that she's an incompetent hack.
In fact, I don't consider it farfetched to suppose that Bush and his team will do their best to gin up a foreign policy crisis of some kind in order to justify further military action in a second term.
I don't think they'll "gin up" something to justify further military action, I think they'll "fuck up" something which will inevitably require, or be seen to require, further military action. Likely candidate: trying to topple the current Iranian regime through whatever exciting means Michael Ledeen is currently working on.
Posted by Atrios
This is just weird. If you go to this WaPo link and click on the video for "the Ground War" you're treated to the sight of Peggy Noonan canvassing. Early on she's identified as one of a group of "Palm Beach residents" -- it's only right at the end that they briefly flash up "Republican Strategist."
But, anyway, there a few questions. Was it just a coincidence that this video crew happened upon La Noonan? Is really how La Noonan is spending the bulk of her time that she took off to help Bush get elected - canvassing? If not, why is she in the video?
Posted by Atrios The Bull Moose is right - the real story isn't that Bush told Pat Robertson there would be no, or more likely 'no significant,' casualties in the Iraq war. The real story is that they're calling him a liar, even though he's apparently telling the truth.
A majority, 51 percent, support the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terror. By 7 percentage points, they think he would protect the country better than Kerry. That is similar to the AP-Ipsos poll earlier in the month, but down from a 23-point advantage in March.
Voters are evenly split on who would do the best job on Iraq. They find the candidates equally honest and likable, but Bush is viewed as much more decisive.
By an 18-point margin, Kerry is seen as best suited to create jobs for workers.
Posted by Atrios
Has our country gotten so stupid that we now all believe that "democracy" equals "any system of government in which an outcome is determined by a majority or plurality of voters."
In any modern democracy there are limits on the degree to which the majority can, through the use of state power, impose their will on the minority. Are we all so stupid to have forgotten that? I swear every discussion of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially (but not only) the stuff originating from our president, is at the 6 year old level.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: "But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." - John Kerry, discussing the tactic of outsourcing the capture of Osama bin Laden to local warlords at the time. (Hat tip: Mickey.)
CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?
KING: Senator Kerry?
CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.
KING: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.
WASHINGTON - President Bush is turning Pennsylvania into his "Northern White House," visiting the battleground state as often as his home in Crawford, Texas.
The Republican, who dubbed his Texas ranch the "Western White House," will be making his 40th trip to Pennsylvania with visits to Downington and Hershey on Thursday. His 41st visit will bring him to Wilkes-Barre on Friday.
By comparison, Bush has visited his Crawford home 40 times since 2001, according to the White House travel office. He will be back in Texas on Saturday for his 41st visit since he was sworn into office in 2001.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Of course, the president never made such a comment."
...
Earlier in the day, Mike McCurry, adviser to the Kerry campaign, said: "We believe President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt here, but he needs to come forward and answer a very simple question — was Pat Robertson telling the truth when he said he didn't think there'd be any casualties or is Pat Robertson lying?"
Indeed. Mr. President, the people need to know. Is Pat Robertson a liar or not?
Hughes: Judy, I cannot imagine that that conversation would ever take place. I've never heard the president say anything of the sort.... So I can't imagine whether he misunderstood, or what happened. But I'm certain that the president did not say that remark.
Woodruff: So Pat Robertson is lying or wrong or something?
Hughes: Well, again, Judy, I don't know. Perhaps he misunderstood.... It just doesn't sound consistent with the facts as I knew them at the time.
Posted by Atrios
New poll numbers from the DSCC have Knowles in Alaska up 4 among "definite" or "likely" voters and Salazar in Colorado up 50-43 among definites and 49-43 among likely voters.
That's two pickups there. Add in a likely pickup in Oklahoma, and a good chance at a surprise pickup in Kentucky...
Posted by Atrios
Don't forget. If you're represented by a Republican in the House, they've almost definitely received dirty money from Tom DeLay. Find out how much here, call your Rep., and demand they return it.
They're running it, and plenty of other nasty shit, against Lois Murphy. Please consider helping out. The NRCC ads are just shameless. Disgusting people.
Posted by Atrios
To help promote Media Matters' recent publication, Misstating the State of the Union, David Brock will accept some questions from readers. Please use this thread to submit questions (try to keep it on topic). I'll go through and pick some of the best few, and then he'll answer them and I'll post them up by the end of the week if all goes well.
Yes, I know, lots of conflicts of interest here, so sue me...
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
To some of us, homosexuality is an affliction, like alcoholism, and hellishly difficult to control. Why some folks can take or leave alcohol -- while others can enjoy it in moderation, and others cannot stop drinking without help and must swear off it for life or it will kill them -- remains a mystery of nature.
And where is the outrage? That liberal media strikes again...
DeLay owns the Republicans. Only five Republicans in the House haven't accepted his dirty money, and one of those was a Democrat until recently. The five are:
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb., Rep. Todd Platts, R-Penn., and Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La.
If you're represented by a Republican who isn't one of those 5, get ready to call them tomorrow and ask them to give DeLay's dirty money back.
Posted by Atrios
Whines, lies, backtracks, lashes out at critics, babbles about the 1st amendment which he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand, etc...
...stock down 3.54% today. Clearly some plunge protection team stepped in to try to boost the stock before the close.
HEMMER: Democrats also crying foul over the decision by Sinclair Broadcasting over a documentary attacking John Kerry on its stations just before the election. Question this morning: Is this news, or is it just propaganda?
Mark Hyman is the vice president for corporate relations for the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, and he is my guest now. And Mark, welcome. Good morning to you.
MARK HYMAN, SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP: Good morning, Bill. Thank you very much.
HEMMER: What's the motivation behind this airing now?
HYMAN: Well, this is definitely a newsworthy event. These Vietnam prisoners of war had suffered horrific abuse and unspeakable torture for many years. And they -- most of them maintained silence for 31 years and felt a need to respond to claims made by John Kerry.
They have only recently come forward and, as you may know, they've approached the broadcast networks who all said, "We're not interested in speaking to you folks." Nobody has earned a right to speak on the Vietnam experience more so than these men. There are a pair of Medal of Honor winners in this particular group. So, these folks have some standing.
Now, our goal here is to get John Kerry to sit down and talk with these guys, get a chance to tell them why he branded them as war criminals, why he accused them of committing wartime atrocities. These are questions...
Just to add, as we all know, Mark Hyman whose commentary is regularly forced on their affiliates is a liar. Kerry never branded them war criminals or accused them of committing wartime atrocities.
With Business Offer to Run 'Going Upriver,'
Critically Acclaimed Kerry Documentary
Seek to Balance Unprecedented Showing
of anti-Kerry 'Stolen Honor' on TV Chain
Deborah Rappaport, 'Going Upriver' Producers
Available at News Conference Today
Deborah Rappaport will discuss her offer to the Sinclair Broadcasting Group to purchase time to air the highly regarded film "Going Upriver; The Long War of John Kerry," as a balance to the broadcasting of an anti-John Kerry film, which Sinclair is planning to air on its 62 television stations.
Investors and philathropists Andrew and Deborah Rappaport of Redwood City, CA, have contacted the Baltimore-based chain, seeking to inject fair play into its plan to show a 42-minute film called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal."
Ms. Rappaport will be joined by the executive producers of "Going Upriver," Vincent Roberti and Bill Samuels on the conference call.
For further information on Going Upriver: www.goingupriver.com
Posted by Atrios
They're demanding an outside investigation of management activities, including demands for returning alleged insider trading proceeds from late '03, early '04, as well as putting private political agenda ahead of shareholder interest....
And, another portfolio management company has sent a demand letter, in anticipation of possible future action... Media Matters to underwrite costs, possible call for injunction...
...$100,000,000 in shareholder value wiped away since October 9...
Posted by Atrios
CNN just got totally busted pushing old poll numbers. They had a local reporter from Ohio on and they threw up the results of a Columbus Dispatch poll from October 4, which showed Bush over Kerry 51-44, and asked if "that's what you're [the reporter] is seeing now."
The guy gently said something like "Uh, no, that poll is several weeks old, the numbers have tightened considerably since then..."
The CNN anchor quickly brushed it off, "oh, uh, thanks for bringing that to our attention."
Political analyst for MSNBC's Hardball, Joe Trippi will be in Philadelphia
to campaign for Joe Hoeffel at a low dollar fundraiser. Here are the
details:
Where: Finnigan's Wake, The Quiet Man Room
3rd & Spring Garden Streets
Philadelphia, PA (215.574.9317)
Time: 6-8 PM
Date: Friday, October 22, 2004
Contribution: $100 (Give or Raise)
$ 35 (Students with valid ID)
Trippi will not only speak about the changing course of political campaigns
as was created in the Dean campaign, but he will be available to sign copies
of his book, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", if you have one.
Posted by Atrios
I keep bringing this up because there are two weeks left and I think it's important to anticipate any bullshit stunt they might come up with:
Atrios has a list of potential October Surprises that we might look for and I'm wondering if he may actually try the hail mary of a trip to Iraq. I had heard some rumblings elsewhere that he might try to put on some kind of a uniform again (hopefully sparing us the codpiece this time) and drop in on the troops.
I wrote sometime back about the possibility of Bush parachuting into Baghdad on the eve of the election, but it was, you know, a joke. If he tries a stunt like that this time, I have a feeling that it will be remembered as the most desperate act an incumbent president has ever taken. The press corpse, unfortunately, would probably enjoy the theatre of the thing. They like nothing more than pretending that the lil' preznit is some kind of action hero.
They cannot be allowed at this point to go along with such a thing. If they have even the tiniest shred of self-respect left, they would have to reject such a blatant ploy. To that end, I might think of sending this hilarious link to various members of the press corpse to remind them of what dewy eyed little debutantes they were at the sight of Commander Codpiece in that oh-so-snug jumpsuit.
I'm not sure if the trip into Baghdad is the likeliest stunt, but the more I think about the more I think they'll try and pull something to make Bush look "heroic." I'm not sure what they would be. Brainstorm.
Now would be an excellent time to donate to the Hoeffel campaign. They're in reach.
I'd also like to compliment how the campaign is being run. There are a lot of young workers/volunteers in the campaign and from what I can tell they get treated really well. They aren't just being exploited and given all the shit work to do -- they get to do some more interesting work, and hopefully learning a few things. They do a lot of creative visibility events, such as parking the Joemobile RV outside the Vote for Change tour, and just generally seem to be having fine. Even if Hoeffel doesn't manage to win, he'll have left behind some good human capital (and, presumably, he'll be poised to take on Ricky Santorum in '06, although I don't know if that is his intention).
This could just be one good poll. But, 48-41...that's within reach.
Posted by Atrios
Picking up from below, with slight modification. How should Kerry and surrogates respond to those scenarios:
1) Capturing bin Laden, Zarqawi
2) Stunt trip to Iraq/Afghanistan
3) some sort of well-timed terror alert.
1)'s tough. Obviously it'd be a big win and I'm not sure what to say about it. 2) would suck all of the air out of the campaign just days before the election. 3) well, who knows, maybe this time they really mean it...
...boz has a response. I guess I'd be more worried about an Iraq trip if seniors weren't currently getting really really pissed off about their lack of flu shots. I suppose condition orange is inevitable - the question is will they throw out some bogus information to make it sound real.
Posted by Atrios
Discuss the possibility and impact of any of the following:
1) bin Laden's found in a freezer somewhere.
2) Flightsuit boy makes another "surprise" trip to the troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan
3) Massive Terra Alert. Code Red!
I think 1) is unlikely. They haven't been laying the groundwork for it. 2) would be very Rovian. "Bush is definitely going to win and he's not going to let the campaign get in the way of his duties as CiC blah blah blah. 3) Too creepy to consider, though I have been hearing rumors.
...basic consensus seems to be that 1)is unlikely. 2) is unlikely because Iraq's dangerous and would be a neutral. I agree with the former, but it would dominate the news cycle for a couple of precious days. 3) Some sort of terror alert plus specific threats to places Democrats tend to live.
Posted by Atrios
That's how Judy Woodruff went to commercial, promising new state poll number. The good news for both canddiates? Kerry's up in Oregon and up in New Hampshire.
Apologies. Apparently I can't read numbers off of a TV screen. The Oregon poll showed Bush up.
Washington, DC – Kerry-Edwards campaign Senior Advisor Joe Lockhart released the following statement today on the president’s speech in New Jersey, which the Bush campaign has billed as a “major address:”
“What the Bush campaign considers to be a major address provides a telling window into this President and his priorities: He considers a nasty, vitriolic attack line to constitute a significant address. What might have been new and significant would have been the President addressing a health care crisis that has forced New Jersey to hold a lottery to decide who should get flu shots. But no, that would involve being straight with the American public and taking responsibility for his Administration’s inaction.”
Bush II is behaving much as Bush I did when he started calling Clinton/Gore "bozo and the ozone man."
Posted by Atrios
It appears the grand anti-Bush coalition, which includes Democrats, Rockefeller Republicans, and sensible libertarians, has finally found its unifying theme.
Posted by Atrios
And, in related news, we're sending OPFOR, the unit responsible for training other troops, away from the National Training Center and to Iraq...
Posted by Atrios
According to an emailer, who signed it "An Afghanistan and Iraq Veteran For Truth," the Bush administration does have a cunning plan to avoid reinstituting the draft. Their plan is to extend allowed reservist mobilization to 5 years, up from the current 2. Obviously I can't confirm the information one way or the other, but there's reason to think the person is credible.
Posted by Atrios
My man Al is giving a speech tomorrow. You can be sure the usual suspects will dismiss it without watching it; be prepared for Krauthammer to offer yet another diagnosis. Al will always be a favorite of mine. He got robbed and he handled it with class - arguably, he shouldn't have, but for a man robbed of a great prize he did it with dignity. He bowed out of the race this year for the greater good -- and he was sadly correct in that decision. Most of the "myths" of the 2000 election are just that. Al came from way behind in early polling against Bush, with impeachment and a lot of bad press pulling him down. He won the popular vote against an unbelievably hostile media. His supporters - us - should still sleep badly at night knowing how badly we supported him (the campaign practically had to go dark in early summer because of lack of donations).
Al's about the most human of politicians I've ever seen. Imperfect as both man and politician, but if he were the perfect politician we wouldn't have a glimpse of the imperfections of Al the man.
I was honored to meet Al (shake hand, say hello) at a recent fundraiser for Hoeffel. He's the best president we never had, and shame on those of us who screwed him over in 2000.
I'm actually for the cable nets providing more live coverage of events. It's more interesting than watching Wolf Blitzer. But, you know, at this point in the election season a wee bit of balance is appropriate, as is post-speech chat which goes something like:
For the second time in as many weeks, George Bush lied to us and told us he was giving a major policy speech when, in fact, he was just giving us the same old bullshit.
I suppose it's possible that this is actually going to be an October "time to blow some more shit up!" Surprise speech, but I'm sure they can just put it on the Tivo and hit a quick rewind and broadcast if he actually says anything interesting...
Posted by Atrios
For reasons having nothing to do with my preferences for any particular team, please spare us. I cannot handle the thought of all the pundits spewing baseball metaphors until the election...
Posted by Atrios
Today on MTP, DeMint refused to actually say who should be punished (doctor, pregnant women) or what the punishment should be for being involved in an illegal abortion.
If one believes any voluntary termination of a pregnancy post-conception is "murder" then the answer is rather obvious -- both should be convicted of first degree murder. Those who believe this cannot stand by the more popularly palatable "rape and incest" exception, which is just ethical gobbledygook.
Republicans object to making "health" exceptions in laws attempting to restrict late term abortions. Somewhat justifiably they believe that it's a loophole big enough to drive a bus through. Perhaps it is, but it isn't a loophole so big that it would fail to reduce the instances of whatever procedure they're upset about this week. Instead they pass laws that have already been determined to be unconstitutional in order to keep the issue alive for yet another election season. Truly sick, really, given their professed beliefs.
I'm just about as close as one can be to being a pro-choice absolutist. But, decent people occasionally email me and wonder if there isn't some sort of honest compromise that can be found between pro-choice people and the more reasonable of the "pro-life" folk.
Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt, in her book The War on Choice, addressed this question rather simply. From memory, she said that, yes, there can be common ground -- finding ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But, since the anti-choice leadership (though not, of course, all anti-choice people) is by and large against contraception and education about contraception, this isn't much of an option either. Which "side" is being unreasonable?
But, more generally better access to contraception, better education, and, yes, wider availability of abortion clinics would clearly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of late term abortions.
Posted by Atrios
I have to admit that when I look over my CD collection I get a bit depressed. Frankly, there just aren't all that many CDs that I come back to again and again. Some of that's age -- I just don't get "into" music the same way I did as a teen. But, still, there has to be some more good music out there.
So, post your top 5 "still listen to frequently even though I've had them for years" CDs. Two categories: a broadly defined "rock" category and a "not entirely obvious" classical music category.
Ten years down the road or so, there will be pressure on Congress to allow people to borrow against their private accounts, or to withdraw them to buy a house, or to use them to meet unexpected medical expenses. Congress will bow to that pressure--it's their money, after all. And in the end a lot of people will hit 70 having drained their Social Security private account dry. The rest of us will then have to decide whether to let them starve on the street, or tax ourselves a second time to give them Social Security benefits. As Dick Schmalensee says, "You have to ask yourself not just, 'Is this good policy?' but 'Will this still be good policy after Congress does its worst to it?'"
This is of course true, but it is just one of many many many pitfalls, current or inevitable, with privatizing Social Security. I'm wonky enough to think about these things when I'm walking down the street, and this particular issue makes my brain hurt as problem after problem come to mind.
The point of Social Security is, after all, to guarantee an absolute minimum income for seniors no matter what bad luck befalls them or bad choices they've made. There's nothing magical about either the current benefit levels, aside from the fact that they aren't all that generous, or the precise levels of the payroll tax/income cap. We can add a mandatory investment account system without changing the existing rates/benefits at all if we want to. It isn't an either/or proposition.
But, the basic issue I keep returning to is -- how do you devise a loot-free system? How do you devise a system which, either in its initial form or after expected later congressional tinkering, can't be looted to a large degree by the fund managers? I can't come up with one. Then, we're back to the issue of what do we do about a bunch of destitute 70 year olds? And, that's why we have Social Security in the first place...
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
I think there is a civil war brewing, but it isn't really the war Bartlett imagines. There are too few sensible Republicans, and they've mostly thrown their reputations down the gutter these past 4 years. They lack the numbers, fortitude, and will to go up against the clowns in power.
There won't be a war between the crazies and the sensible people. What would cause the civil war to happen would be the massive leadership vacuum that would exist if both George Bush and Tom DeLay were somehow removed from power. The Republican party right now has no unifying ideology other than "tax cuts for rich are good" and "gay people such as Mary Cheney are bad." Loyalty to Bush on foreign policy and loyalty to DeLay (with input from Rove) on domestic policy is what binds them together. Remove them, and there will be quite the fight. But, I don't think removing just one would be enough.
Posted by Atrios
Matthew Yglesias writes something rather shrill, and had he written it 18 months ago would have probably aborted his budding career, and if he'd written it for The American Prospect it would now be known as a "left wing extremist hate organization."
It's a positive sign of how far we've come, that people can write perfectly reasonable, if shrill and possibly incorrect, things without igniting an epic shitstorm.
BEGALA: He's the president of the United States and he's reading a storybook to children?
HAYWORTH: And he swung into action.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: No, he didn't. He peed his pants and he hid in the side of a mountain. He was a total coward on 9/11, J.D.
I don't think Paul Begala would've gotten away with saying such a thing 18 months ago, either.
Of course, the rules of rhetoric for the Right, which were never particularly changed after 9/11, have also been relaxed somewhat. I think if I brought this campaign commercial back in time 18 months and showed it to the elite members of our punditocracy, telling them that BC04 will run it the days before the election, they too would have peed their pants. We've been building to this for some time. For better or for worse, things are mostly back to "normal"....
Posted by Atrios
DeMint on MTP this morning said (roughly) "I would not support any plan that raised taxes on any American" regarding his national sales tax plan.
So, he's managed to construct a radical overhaul of the entire tax system which is both revenue neutral and ensures that not a single American would pay higher taxes.
That's a neat trick. It's so neat that one wonders what the point is, if every single individual's total tax burden will remain precisely the same.
Posted by Atrios
Apparently, both campaigns are going to start running ads without necessarily releasing them or any information about them to the press. So, it would be quite a valuable service if people take note of new Bush ads in your area and make a transcript, especially if they're over the top in some way.
(I think I read this in the Note but I can't find it there now).
Posted by Atrios
I really have no idea if they matter, but Bush isn't getting many. Latest rundown from E&P:
Besides the Dallas paper, Bush won The Freelance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va., the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania and the New York Sun.
The Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal, which has backed Republicans since 1968, declared it would not endorse this year, given the choices.
...oh, one more thing, people objected to my criticism of the NYT editorial below. Part of it's because I didn't realize until this morning that I didn't write what I meant to write, which was that the editorial was 'written for a 5 year old,' not as I wrote 'by' one.
What drove me nuts about it is that while, yes, in many ways it is a strong condemnation of the Bush administration, it's written in this incredible annoying "lecturing the children" style which has been with us since Gail Collins took over. I actually like Gail Collins, but while her style worked when she was a bylined columnist, it doesn't work as the institutional voice of the Times.
Posted by Atrios
I dream of the day when, for our media, it isn't accepted truth that Social Security is in "crisis." Galbraith attempts to set them straight here, but of course no one will listen.
The privatization of Social Security envisioned by George Bush's cronies will be a complete disaster. They of course have never actually released a plan, but my guess is it will be even more of a nightmare than the assumed plan which gets thrown about.
Here's Kerry's statement on Social Security:
Senator John Kerry released the following statement today in response to reports that the president said he will “come out strong” for social security privatization should he be sworn in for a second term:
“Just yesterday, we found out that the president told his biggest and wealthiest donors about his big ‘January surprise.’ He’s going to ‘come out strong’ to fight for his plan to privatize Social Security. This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but it’s a disaster for America’s middle class. The president’s privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security will be broken.
“Once again, George Bush is out of touch. He just doesn’t get it. According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office, his risky plan will force benefit cuts for seniors of up to 45 percent – that’s up to $500 a month less for food, clothing, and the occasional gift for a grandchild.
“Even the president’s own economic advisors say his plan will blow a $2 trillion hole in Social Security. And guess who will pay for it? You will. America's seniors are already facing higher prescription drug costs, record high Medicare premiums, and higher gas costs. With family budgets being stretched to the limit, the last thing seniors need is the president's ‘January surprise.’ That's a surprise we can all live without.
“When I am president, I won’t cut Social Security benefits, and I won’t raise the retirement age. I will restore fiscal responsibility so we can reduce the deficit and strengthen Social Security.”
WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.
The slide said: "To Be Provided."
A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.
Making Bush both a "liar" and a "miserable failure."
But, in any case, I really am puzzled. I know that the intersection between Rumsfeld's desires and the Neocons' more generally involved, among other things, proving they could fight and win a war on the cheap. But, that's an excuse for crappy planning. It isn't an excuse for no planning. Even if they believed in rosy scenarios they should have had backup plans.
But, I'm sure Bush believes that American soldiers are greeted with rose petals everywhere they go...
Apparently the looting began early:
Within 48 hours of their arrival in Baghdad in April, some of Chalabi's men, including members of his personal bodyguard force, began taking cars, bank accounts and real estate, said a senior military officer who received reports of the events. It became evident almost as quickly that Chalabi and other exiles had a larger political following in the Pentagon than they did in Iraq. Intelligence officials now charge that Chalabi or some of his senior aides were paid agents of Iran's intelligence service, and that Chalabi or his security chief provided classified U.S. military information to Iran. Chalabi has denied the allegation.
Posted by Atrios
So, after being "bold" and coming out with such a strong endorsement for John Kerry, the cowards at the Inquirer cover their tracks by endorsing Arlen Specter.
The Inquirer believes Specter should get another six-year term. Preserving the legality of abortion plays no small part in this decision. Sometime in the next four years, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will very likely find himself in the pivotal role of scrutinizing at least one new Supreme Court nominee. Assuming that Republicans are in charge of the Senate, it would be better to have the chairman's seat filled by Specter, who says Roe v. Wade is "inviolate" as the law of the land. If Specter loses, next in line among Republicans to be chairman is Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who opposes abortion rights.
President Bush was in Pittsburgh...and said I’m looking forward to having Arlen Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee because he thinks I can help get his judges, justices confirmed.
and
voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist. I knew Justice Scalia was pro-life, I supported him. And Justice Kennedy. Remember Justice Clarence Thomas.
Disclaimer:
This is a personal web site. It is not a production of Media Matters for America (MMFA). Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of MMFA. Preferences for electoral candidates posted on this site have not been expressed using any MMFA resources.
.jpg)
