Short of something catastrophic either way, the media will all read from the same talking points that say:
- John Kerry has found his voice and has lit a fire in his campaign
- He was Presidential gave the American public a clear option in this election
- The Bush campaign has to be worried because they have enjoyed great success the last 2 months beating John Kerry down without giving the public a good reason to vote for Bush. Now they must make that argument.
- Ladies and gentlemen, we have a horserace on our hands.
September 30th, 2004 8:21 pm
September 30th, 2004 1:16 pm
So the Kerry camp is already whining about the debates, trying to lay the foundation of excuses to refer to when their candidate gets squashed. It’s like that last guy that shows up for your golf foursome and before the first ball is hit, he starts talking about the sun being in his eyes, or his new clubs or that nagging pain in his lower back, trying to prepare the others for the drubbing he’s about to involve himself in. That guy always thinks the excuses will provide an out after the fact, but fails to realize offering excuses just doesn’t cover up the fact that he sucks.
Today, Kerry’s folks are out in full force crying about the sun in their eyes.
Advisers for the Democratic presidential candidate demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker’s time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting. The commission hosting the debates refused.
An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, according to several officials familiar with the meeting. Kerry’s team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with the candidate later in the day.
“We’ll do what we have to,” Kerry strategist Tad Devine said after his meeting with the commission
In typical Democrat fashion they’re getting all riled up over the stupid shit, and they’re making threats…against LIGHTS! Give me a break.
The beautiful thing is the Democrats’ love for what psychologists call “projection“. The act of projecting one’s own undesirable motivations and actions onto others. I’ve addressed this several times. Kerry’s team actually said:
“The Bush teams wants to debate about things like this to distract from the real issues”
Who’s debating about “things like this”??? It clearly says in the formal agreement between the parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates:
For each debate each candidate shall have cameramounted, timing lights corresponding to the timing system described in section 9(b) (vi) below positioned in his line of sight. For each debate additional timing lights, corresponding to the timing system described in section 9(b) (vi) below, shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers.
Again, Kerry’s team claims it’s the Bush team deflecting from issues, but let’s look at the facts:
1. The official agreement governing the rules of the debate says the lights shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers
2. It is KERRY’S CAMPAIGN demanding that the lights signaling when a speaker’s time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns
Damn, that sun got in my eyes again… FOOOOOOORRRRRRRRE
September 29th, 2004 1:58 pm
In my post on Wednesday, I mentioned the Democrats’ attempt to scare young voters by talking up some sinister Bush plot to reinstate the draft. In that post, I showed that the only push behind a draft is actually coming from the Democrats themselves. Well, now cBS has jumped on the campaign trail once again with the DNC, promoting their anti-Bush agenda.
Yesterday, on cBS Evening News, they ran a story called The Issues: Reviving The Draft dealing with an “average mom” and her fear for her children. This purpose behind this “journalism” is, according to cBS, is to “focus on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues and how a vote for one or the other candidate might affect average people’s lives.”
Just a couple of problems with the story.
First, the “average” mom they used, Beverly Cocco is a chapter head for a group called “People Against the Draft”. Her activist group claims that Bush’s foreign policy is leading us towards the re-instatement of the draft. The group claims to be non-partisan, but it links to extreme anti-Bush groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R., NION. What a nice collection of “average Americans”…..
Hat tip to Little Green Footballs, who points out this attribution of Beverly Cocco’s affiliation with PAD wasn’t even included in the broadcast version of the story, and has since been “added” to the transcript on the cBS website to cover up their “omission”.
The story goes on to say:
“The war on terror will continue,” says the president. “It’s going to take a while and no, we don’t need a draft.” But Beverly’s not buying it. She’s a Republican, but also a single-issue voter. Would she vote for a Democrat? “Absolutely,” she says. “I would vote for Howdy Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe.”
The reporter asks her is she would vote Democrat. An obvious tie into the underlying theme of the story that this whole draft issue is a secret Republican plot. The irony of the question, and her answer, is that as I pointed out Wednesday, the only legislation in Congress has been sponsored by DEMOCRATS… and ONLY Democrats!
Second, in a Bill Burkett-esque style, they’ve based their story on a thoroughly debunked spam email. Imagine a major media outlet running with a story based on spam. Does it get any better than that? The spam goes on to say the Bush administration is quietly pushing this legislation through Congress. But again, the only legislation in Congress has been sponsored by DEMOCRATS… and ONLY Democrats!
Then, the story continues,:
The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly. “I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call,” says Selective Service Director Jack Martin. This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up.
In a style reminiscant of Michael Moore, the story leads us to believe the head of the SSS is anxiously awaiting the notice to start picking kids up after school and shipping them overseas. To say nothing of the fact that the comments about “no more deferments and more people eligible” is quoting straight from the spam email.
The story fails to mention that the SSS’ own website says:
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces — either with a special skills or regular draft.
But why should we let facts get in the way of a good hit piece? And did the good folks at cBS add the quote from the Secretary of Defense… the man who oversees the SSS?
“I’m not supposed to get in politics, but it is absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstating the draft,” Rumsfeld said, his voice rising. “That is nonsense.”
Of course, the entire story is premised on a debunked spam message and failed DNC campaign aimed at scaring young voters. So of course, they’d ask Dan Rather to get it all started:
It’s no secret: The all- volunteer U.S. Military, especially the Army, Marines and many reserve units, are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what about bringing back the draft? A lot of Americans are worried about that. Where do the presidential candidates stand? CBS’s Richard Schlesinger tells you in the “Eye on America” election series, “What does it mean to you?”
So the story is supposed to “tell us where the Presidential candidates stand” so we can determine “what it means to us”…. But less than five seconds into the story, they tell us that, “Neither President Bush, nor Sen. John Kerry has said he will re-institute the draft. In fact they both say they won’t.”
So what does it mean to me? It means cBS is once again campaigning for the DNC and peddling complete bullshit.
September 28th, 2004 5:19 pm
Dude, seriously… stick to whiney-ass-massachusetts-liberal-elitism…
Cuz you’re looking like a huge dork with these ridiculous algore-esque photo ops.
September 28th, 2004 8:39 am
The Los Angeles Times, which has not endorsed a candidate for president since the 1972 election, may change its policy this year under new editorial/opinion editor Michael Kinsley.
“If it was up to me, I imagine we would do it,” Kinsley told E&P about the prospect of offering a presidential endorsement this year. “Every four years it gets discussed and it is under discussion.”
Kinsley, the former Slate and New Republic editor and longtime TV “Crossfire” commentator, took over the top editorial post June 15. Since then, he said the editorial board has considered bringing back the White House endorsement.
“There are pros and cons. The pro is that editorial pages are supposed to have opinions and this is the most important opinion going,” Kinsley said. “The con is that you have to deal with making the decision and there is a tradition we have had of not endorsing.”
Oh, I just can’t imagine who they might endorse. The suspense is killing me.
September 27th, 2004 2:51 pm
So I’m now convinced, thanks to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards’ campaign. I’m going to vote for the candidate that:
1. Will build a coalition with U.N. members to fight a war.
2. Volunteered for Vietnam service decades ago.
3. Will help more Americans own homes.
7. Will never find himself with numbers worse than Herbert Hoover.
8. Will actually release all of his military records.
10. Will not alienate allies.
Yep, that’s it. I’ve made up my mind. Have you?
September 26th, 2004 1:25 pm
There are a couple of books out discussing voter fraud and election irregularities. I highly recommend you read one or both.
If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat by Hugh Hewitt
Hat tip to Matt at Blogs For Bush who says, “While Democrats tend to approach elections with the goal of increasing voter turnout (even if it means illegal votes) while Republicans are inclined to make sure the voting process follows the letter of the law. The latter process often being smeared by Democrats as “disenfranchisement.”
As we saw in the 1960 election, fraud can change the outcome. A few key precincts in a few key states can turn the entire national election on its head. We saw again in 2000 what fraud can do. After working in conjunction with MSM, where a state was improperly called for the losing candidate even before polls closed in the state, the Democrats unleashed a fury of lawyers into a few Democrat-leaning precints to manipulate the results through chad-eating, recounting and lawsuits. Keep in mind the outcome of SEVEN recounts by various organizations, including some media. George W. Bush still won.
We’re seeing the groundwork being laid by the Democrats once again.
1. Talk of wholesale suppression of black vote (though the election hasn’t even happened yet) despite no evidence having ever been presented. The facts argued by proponents of this ridiculous notion is based on the purging of felons from voter rolls prior to an election, to insure those convicted of felonies (who aren’t allowed to vote) since the last election are removed from being able to vote. The Democrats argue this targets minorities, but they fail to recognize the statistics on who commits crimes and the simple fact that no matter what color a felon is, they’re not allowed to vote.
2. Talk of electronic voting machine failures. Although these same Democrats argued in 2000 that the antiquated balloting procedures allowed for corrupt counting of ballots, they’re now convinced that the high-tech voting they wanted then just isn’t a safe procedure now. It’s a great foundation, because if they lose, they have something else to blame this time. Yawn.
3. The Kerry-Edwards campaign is asking the Federal Election Commission for guidance on how it could raise money to cover any recount costs, including whether it could use a legal compliance fund it is tapping to pay campaign lawyers and finance other legal and accounting costs.
But while Democrats are trying to plant the seed in the American mind that the vote is tainted thus giving them validation for challenging any negative election results, the facts tell a very different story of just who’s trying to steal elections.
Ask yourself why Democrats enthusiastically support efforts to let convicted felons vote. Thus far only four states-New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts-grant prison inmates this privilege. In 1988, Michael Dukakis’s campaign had a massive voter turnout effort in Massachusetts’ prisons.
Ask yourself why Democrats rushed to enact the “Motor Voter” law, which set out to register those in welfare and other government offices where people come for government money. Although short of its goal, by one estimate, “Motor Voter” has added more than seven million people from the welfare rolls to the voter rolls.
Ask yourself why, prior to the 1996 election, (subpoenaed e-mails show) Vice President Gore’s office ran a major effort to register a million new American citizens during the months prior to election day. A congressional investigation afterward discovered that tens of thousands or more of these new citizens were sped through without meeting basic requirements and without background checks to determine if any were dangerous criminals in their nations of origin (many, it turned out, were).
Ask yourself why the Democrats pride themselves on being the party of “choice”, but have rallied around a national campaign to keep a third party candidate off the ballots.
Ask yourself why Democrats were outraged when a Democrat switched parties BEFORE an election but were overjoyed when Jim Jeffords disenfranchised voters, who had put him in office as a Republican, by switching parties and changing the balance of power in the entire Senate AFTER the election had occured.
Ask yourself why Democrats, faced with a candidate forced to drop out due to illegal activities and past the deadline to get replacement on the ballot, file a lawsuit to ignore the existing law in favor of them.
Ask yourself why Democrats pushed so hard for CFR so they could have foreign billionaries fund their campaigns and mud-slinging. If only CFR had been in place in the 1990s, the Clintons wouldn’t have had such a hard time re-routing so much money from the Chinese and Phillipines to their campaigns.
Ask yourself why Democrats filed suit in Missouri state court to ignore rules about poll closing times, allowing untold numbers of illegal votes to be cast. (To say nothing of the Democrat phone banking effort that commenced immediately after the court ordered the voting locations to remain open, in an apparent pre-planned, concerted effort)
Ask yourself why Democrats in 2000 filed a lawsuit in state court to have 25,000 absentee (mostly Republican) ballots thrown out and not counted.
Ask yourself why Democrats in 2000 filed a lawsuit after losing the election, to have the rules on counting ballots changed, in their favor.
Ask yourself why Democrats in California want to reduce the voting age to 14.
So ask yourself who’s really stealing democracy when you read about the party who falsely claims wholesale disenfranchisement for minorities, concern about voting machine failure (after demanding their existence) and requests federal money to hire lawyers to contest elections before they occur is the same party that wants to make it easier for children, convicted felons and illegal aliens to vote, while fighting like hell to throw out the ballots of our brave military and rushing to break the law to replace criminal candidates on the ballots, keep polls open for their telemarketers and switching political parties after voters have cast ballots and have no recourse.
September 25th, 2004 9:59 am
First, there was cBS, now there’s the L.A. Times. Anyone that still thinks the media doesn’t have a bias against Republicans, or more specifically President George W. Bush, simply doesn’t want to acknowledge the truth.
Yesterday, the L.A. Times ran a story about a poll that had John Kerry leading Bush by 15% in California:
California voters remain strongly in favor of ousting President Bush and replacing him with Sen. John F. Kerry … With the election less than six weeks away, the findings suggest that California is all but locked down.
But on August 26th, the same L.A. Times ran a story about a poll that had George W. Bush leading John Kerry by 16% in Arizona:
A poll taken for the Arizona Republic and released last week showed Bush ahead of Kerry, 54% to 38%. With 10 electoral votes, Arizona is one of the biggest prizes among swing states in the West.
The L.A. Times is showing their blatant disregard for journalistic neutrality and presenting their bias in their reporting. When referring to a 15% lead for Kerry in California (55-40), they call the state “locked down” and when referring to a 16% lead for Bush in Arizona (54-38), they call the state “in play”.
What will it take for you folks to finally admit the liberal bias in the mainstream media?
September 24th, 2004 1:27 pm
John Kerry “Plan for America” criticizes Bush, saying:
“After allowing bin Laden to escape from our grasp at Tora Bora, he diverted crucial resources from the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq. And his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations.”
But during a 1997 debate on CNN’s “Crossfire,” John Kerry made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Mr. King said the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians, we know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”
In addition to supporting the “Bush Doctrine” at one point in his flip-flopping life, he also said this, in front of Congress:
“Saddam Hussein had to be wrestled to the mat no matter what, even if the United Nations were lagging. If the UN didn’t get the clear, urgent message, then the United States was morally obligated to go it alone to see that Saddam Hussein was finished.”
So John Kerry’s “plan for America” includes criticism of President Bush launching a “pre-emptive, unilateral” attack on Iraq, when John Kerry has said, himself, on different occasions that America “reserves the right to act pre-emptively” and America is “morally obligated to go it alone”…
I think the “Plan for Confusion” is working… but not the way he’d like.
September 22nd, 2004 11:11 pm
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.
John Kerry Outlines Plan to Require Service for High School Students
Part of 100 days Plan to Enlist One Million Americans in National Service A Year On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
Mandatory draft for boys and girls (use the term “boys” and “girls” for emotional effect) (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163, to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada. The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public’s attention is on the elections. (so quiet, he’s having Democrats sponsor them)
The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. (the timeline added for full effect) The Congress has added $28 million to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for this military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Bush has ordered the Selective Service to report to him by March 31, 2005 on their readiness to implement the draft by June 2005. The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Please act on this: Tell everyone you know - parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents, friends, teachers Call and write to your U.S. Senator and your U.S. Representatives and ask them why they aren’t telling their constituents about these bills. (maybe because THEY’RE sponsoring them)