Mainstream media "Rather" biased (sorry, can't help myself on this one)

[DrewKaree]

I like this guy's take on this...there's so much floating about on the internet about this, mainly due to the stellar underreporting by the mainstream (that's the three major networks, for those of you who view cable shows as "mainstream") media, and Rather's "objective" interview with an 80 year old lady who NOW has a crystal clear memory about memos she wrote (or didn't) 30 years ago.

This is going to be Linkfest²⁰⁰⁴ because there's too much for me to comment on, or I'd bloat it with witty commentary and rapier-like wit  

His follow up to the above story
------------------------------------
An example of things that would bring suspicion in someone who performed a simple investigation
-------------------------------------
here, in case you discount the blinking example as gimmickery
-------------------------------------
The "look down my nose at the little people" response.  The response, to me, shows how little they think of the American public.  Does Mr Moore work for these jokers?
--------------------------------------
Powerline, yet again...and the responses from readers are even more telling as this develops
---------------------------------------
so someone decides to talk to one of "the little people" who kicked all this off....shouldn't it be someone interested in getting the story right, like NBC or ABC?  I know CBS is having a hard enough time choking on this sausage to follow up with CREDIBLE evidence
---------------------------------------
Just in case you think I'M biased and Dan Rather IS NOT...I post for you this...The memo "proving" Bush was AWALL
----------------------------------------
Yeah, I know, the American Spectator's comments are bound to be biased....kind of a shame they don't reach as many people as ABC, CBS, or NBC do on a daily basis, otherwise that bias charge would have more credibility.  Ya see, they only get one shot to lie to ya during the time in which the Big Three can lie/distort/leave out pertinent information on whatever they wish to run
------------------------------------------
*heavy sigh*  the same, but different...this, the official CBS (leftist) party line
------------------------------------------
Lest my good state get dragged through the mud, here's the report on the AP's piece of crap story about the "evil Republican mob" and the treatment we gave the mention of Clinton during Bush's speech here.  UNbelieveable, unless you're willing to suspend belief that there is an overt bias in MAINSTREAM media.  This story was sent out as fact, taken down after it was reported on by such organizations as the BBC, and how many retractions were put forth with the same vigor as this slanted birdcage filler?  NONE!



I have a bias, true enough.  That's why you'll never see me writing for the N.Y. Times or on camera on 60 Minutes...that, and I've got a face made for radio.  It's pathetic that I'm at least honest enough to be up front about my bias while someone as "respected" as Dan Rather hides behind his "journalistic integrity".   They went after the Swift Boat Vets with a fine-toothed comb, something that was sorely lacking  in this case in their zeal to pin this on Bush, no matter the cost.  I also still have yet to hear the fact that Bush has released his records, while Kerry continues to stonewall on this subject.  

Where are the stories of Kerry wringing his hands at this media lynch mob?  He had no problem prancing before cameras begging Bush to join him in denouncing the Swifties.  Bush went a step further, saying all 527's are detrimental to the process, but because he didn't mention the Swifties specifically, it's reported as if he doesn't condemn ALL of these types of ads....and so now we have the "CBS Anchormen for Truth" and their "ads".  Good job disguising them as "news stories".

[Mameotron]

I'm not trying to get off the subject, but this reminds me of the New York Times reporter who supposedly interviewed (damn, what was her name) the Army Girl who was captured, wounded, & rescued in Iraq.

Sorry, I suck at remembering names.  I hope you figure out what I'm talking about.

Anyway, when it was discovered that this reporter made stuff up, didn't check his sources, he was fired.  Why should Dan Rather be any different?

[DrewKaree]

His insistence that he's "independent" and "just reports the facts as they are given to him".

It's his incredulity at the American public seeing a problem with his "while everything I reported is a fake, a fraud, a scam, we should still look at everything else in the memo and wonder about it's truth".  

He's SO biased he can't even see left...er...straight.  The guy helped out on a liberal politician's campaign and wants us to believe "he's just helping his daughter out".  How can he be believed when he won't even be honest with himself?

[Mameotron]

Oh, I get it, when he's breaking a news story he's an investigative journalist, but when the sh** hits the fan he's just a pretty face in front of the camera who just reads the papers they give him.

Yes, a shining example of someone wanting all the freedoms with none of the responsibilities.

[fredster]

The bias doesn't end there.

In KY there was an AP report of a couple of election officials that were convicted of spiking the results of the local 2002 election.  They get through the whole story and omit one very important fact, the 2 subjects of the article were Activist Democrats.  Now how does that get ignored?

The AP is also after all of Bush's military records.  He has signed releases and stood up and said hand them all out over the last 5 years.  

But where are ALL of Kerry's records?  Where are the Military medical records? Nobody in the mainstream media is concerned about that?

Where are Kerry's attendance records for his Intelligence Committee Meetings?  Is it true he's missed 75% of the meetings?  I don't know for sure because there's no data.

But does even one of the mainstream media sue for that?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But where are ALL of Kerry's records?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

You just have to look. Btw, it's pretty much uncontested (outside of wingnut circles) that Kerry released everything he has needed to release. TONS more than Bush. So make of that what you will.

Where are Kerry's attendance records for his Intelligence Committee Meetings?  Is it true he's missed 75% of the meetings?

George Bush chose to specifically ignore the intelligence briefings offered to his staff by the Clinton administration during their transition period. And Bush apparently also ignored the PDB's that offered progressively urgent warnings about impending terrorist activity before 9/11. While I would prefer that Kerry had attended more meetings, Bush certainly does not have the advantage on this issue.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The saddest thing about this whole CBS flap is that even if you explain away the documents, there is STILL a gaping hole in GWB's record.

To me, the fact that the President of the United States can't find ONE person to stand up for him and prove his attendence tells me all I need to know.

Another thing I find hilarious, and this is definitely something all you freepers looking to bag on Dan Rather need to think about, is this little exchange between a reporter and Scott McClellan, White House Spokesperson:

Q: Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.

If the content of the memos is so aggregiously false, wouldn't the White House have questioned their authenticity before RELEASING THEM TO THE PUBLIC THEMSELVES??

To me, even if the documents are fake, their contents has been validated by the WH. George W. Bush disobeyed a direct order and neglected to take a physical. On top of that, he has a fraudulent honorable discharge that he wears like a freakin' badge of honor.


mrC

[gap]

Both of the candidates are lying scumbags that'd say or do anything to get elected.

Their morals and positions are directed solely by opinion polls.

Neither will put a dent in the coming $50,000,000,000,000+ train wreck that is our underfunded entitlements.

Pick your poison.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Both of the candidates are lying scumbags that'd say or do anything to get elected.

Their morals and positions are directed solely by opinion polls.

To some degree every politician is slave to public opinion. They'd be voted out of office if they continually worked against the public grain. That being said, I would imagine you are dissillusioned because you have only let yourself be informed by Swift Boat and MoveOn ads. Try investigating the records of both candidates yourself. I'm sure you'll find that there is absolutely NO COMPARISON between the two when it comes to failures, unethical behavior and outright misdeeds.

Neither will put a dent in the coming $50,000,000,000,000+ train wreck that is our underfunded entitlements.

I beg to differ. Clinton destroyed the deficit. Under Bush it has ballooned out of control. Would you rather that we allow it to continue or might it make sense to give someone else a chance (w/ a four year referendum)?

[fredster]

there is absolutely NO COMPARISON between the two when it comes to failures, unethical behavior and outright misdeeds.

Yes.  It's clear that Bush is the superior Candidate in any competition between the two.  

I agree with you on that.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

yeah. He's doing a hell of a job re: the War in Iraq. In fact, Chimpy is so modest about it, he won't even mention it any more. I guess that leaves it up to the generals and the press. All of which can't seem to find anything good going on....Hmmm...definitely superior. A superior misleader, a superior liar, and a superior failure!

Btw, the facts you provided are astounding. Almost too much to bear.

[tep0583]

Both of the candidates are lying scumbags that'd say or do anything to get elected.

Their morals and positions are directed solely by opinion polls.

Neither will put a dent in the coming $50,000,000,000,000+ train wreck that is our underfunded entitlements.

Pick your poison.

Boy, isn't that the truth.......

[tep0583]

I beg to differ. Clinton destroyed the deficit. Under Bush it has ballooned out of control. Would you rather that we allow it to continue or might it make sense to give someone else a chance (w/ a four year referendum)?

Yeah, ON PAPER.

I can destroy all manner of things, with a little creative accounting and a lot guessing about what the economy is going to be doing years from now.

And that still did nothing at all to address the train wreck that he was referring to. (although, to be honest, completely honest, neither party has been particularly effective in doing anythnig but prolonging the enevitable)

Oh, and was the "chimpy" quip REALLY nessessary? Calling names really doesn't tend to impress me all that much? I can call you a "big, fat, doodie-head all day, but I'm not proving anything.

Liberating a country, with a loss of only 1000 lives is a feat that we'd thought laughably impossible, as recently as 20 years ago. (probably more recently) Yeah, the press can't find anything good going on, but then again, god news really doesn't sell, does it? I know a lot of prople who have reltives currently in Iraq. All of them report that the people of Iraq are  nearly universally friendly and suportive of coalition troops. None of them seem to think that moral is anything but high.

But hey, give Kerry a shot. God know why the DNC nominated a guy most of their own people can't stand, but it outta be pretty amusing. I can't wait to see what the guys who hate Bush's domestic policy say when Kerry's is so simular as to be nearly indistingushable. (that, by the way, is sentiment that I heard from Democrats, during the primaries)

[DrewKaree]

But where are ALL of Kerry's records?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

You just have to look. Btw, it's pretty much uncontested (outside of wingnut circles) that Kerry released everything he has needed to release.

You're unbelievably wrong.  

You state unequivocally that "it's pretty much uncontested".  You dismiss anyone outside of those who wish not to delve into Kerry's records as mainstream outlets have done with Bush as wingnut circles.  What's wrong with having an equal declaration of records and why is there such feigned indignation because "Kerry's a war hero and shouldn't have to explain himself...he put his life on the line for his country".  It's not uncontested, unless you are of the opinion that Dan Rather and his ilk are above reproach and aren't attempting to skew the opinion of anyone who would watch the crap they put out.

Posting a link to Kerry's official website for his campaign isn't the same as releasing his records.  On there, he obviously will give whatever will paint him in the best possible light, and won't be looking to post anything CLOSE to contradicting what he wants the American public to know.  Bush has signed the Form 180 or whatever the number it is giving up his privacy rights to all his military records.  John Kerry has done no such thing.  The records John Kerry shares are those that he WISHES to share, not a full disclosure as Bush has done.  You're comparing Apples to horseradish.

The AP is currently in legal battles with anyone they feel is blocking access to the records Bush gave up rights to have private.  Have you seen the case in which they name him as one of the people obstructing them?

Where are Kerry's attendance records for his Intelligence Committee Meetings?  Is it true he's missed 75% of the meetings?

George Bush chose to specifically ignore the intelligence briefings offered to his staff by the Clinton administration during their transition period. And Bush apparently also ignored the PDB's that offered progressively urgent warnings about impending terrorist activity before 9/11. While I would prefer that Kerry had attended more meetings, Bush certainly does not have the advantage on this issue.
mrC

It's 76-78%, depending on who you talk to, and since Kerry chooses to tell us that Bush lied to us, I will stick with the 78%, because Kerry lied to us about Bush lying to HIM!  I don't trust that he was there for the other 2% for that reason alone.

While you may prefer that Kerry had attended more meetings, the fact of the matter is that in all of the meetings that Kerry DID NOT GO TO, the things that Bush used to make his decisions were discussed in those meetings.  Kerry was never lied to, he chose to turn a blind eye to the information given, and instead chose to ignore those same warnings you clamor on about.  Kerry had access to all of the things you refer to, and if he EVER wanted them, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committe, it would have been quite simple for him to obtain the records.  

Oh, and again, just like his Service records, on the matter of his attendance records to the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, he WILL NOT RELEASE THOSE RECORDS.  

You're wrong, flat out wrong, about him releasing his records - of ANY kind....well, before I make that blanket statement, he may have released his 3rd grade report cards and school pictures, but only if they show him in an approving light.

Making something KNOWN about your records isn't the same as releasing access to the records to allow for an in-depth analysis of those records.  You know the difference between offering unfettered access and giving your point of view of the facts...that link to Kerry's site is simply misleading.  Link to the site that shows that Kerry signed the same forms Bush did to give up his privacy rights and allow unfettered access to his military records...it will probably take you the rest of your life....since that site doesn't exist.

Are you shining around for an anchor job on CBS?

The saddest thing about this whole CBS flap is that even if you explain away the documents, there is STILL a gaping hole in GWB's record.

To me, the fact that the President of the United States can't find ONE person to stand up for him and prove his attendence tells me all I need to know.

again, he's signed off and given up his right to privacy over his record.  The burden of proof lies squarely with those who wish to bring up the topic.  You find a problem with him not finding "ONE person" to stand up for him...the people who the mainstream media are trotting out to slam him are proving his attendance.  The rest of the questions regarding his attendance...he got an early discharge while obtaining MORE than the required number of points for his full tour of duty in LESS time than was required, there are pilot logs to show he was serving...more things come out to prove his merit as further accusations fly...while in the zeal to discredit him, "by any means necessary" is becoming the status quo...but they just don't ever seem to fit what you want to believe about him.

If the content of the memos is so aggregiously false, wouldn't the White House have questioned their authenticity before RELEASING THEM TO THE PUBLIC THEMSELVES??

you can't have it both ways.  You can't bag on the administration that they were withholding documents and then when they send something out prematurely,  you say they shouldn't have sent them out.  It simply doesn't work that way....that's why Dan Rather is embroiled in the flap he is now.

To me, even if the documents are fake, their contents has been validated by the WH. George W. Bush disobeyed a direct order and neglected to take a physical.

it was in a memo, something a senile old lady who has magical powers of recollection acknowledged that wouldn't happen like that.

On top of that, he has a fraudulent honorable discharge that he wears like a freakin' badge of honor.

now you know how we feel about Kerry's bleedin' purple hearts.

[fredster]

MrC, Please.

I guess you just turn the channel when the President is on talking about Iraq. He's been talking about it, everybody is talking about it.

And I like this reasoning,

If the content of the memos is so aggregiously false, wouldn't the White House have questioned their authenticity before RELEASING THEM TO THE PUBLIC THEMSELVES??

Kerry didn't slam the Swift vets hard at first either, did he?

I personally don't care about Kerry or Bush's service.  I didn't believe the crap comming out of either camp. It's just politics as usual.  

I can't wait until the debates because we need to hear a lot more from both of them.  That's where the rubber is going to hit the road.  Then the clear distinction of who they are will stand out and we can debate on issues rather than inuendos.

Drew is spot on about the Kerry records. There's big questions about Kerry's attendance that has to be answered. I could care less about his detailed Military records.

What counts is what they did in Public Office.

And this:

Btw, the facts you provided are astounding. Almost too much to bear.

Looks like I'm at the same level of "facts" you are.  Chimpy, liar, and "fraudulent honorable discharge " are your facts?

The press would love to have the proof of that last one, it must have took you years to dig that up.  Do you have an 87 year old woman that's sure it's a fake? Wow. Call Dan now!

[Mameotron]

 On top of that, he has a fraudulent honorable discharge that he wears like a freakin' badge of honor.


mrC

On top of everything else John Kerry has done, he threw away his service medals and wears that like a freakin' badge of honor.

To me, that is exactly like burning the U.S. Flag.  You may have the right to express your opinion in such a crass manner, but that does not make you any less of a freeper or a Chimpy.

I can't say I am 100% behind the reasoning for Desert Shield / Desert Storm, but I can say that I will ALWAYS wear my National Defense Medal, Outstanding Unit Award, and Kuwaiti Liberation Medal as a freakin' badge of honor.

[monkeybomb]

This post is silly.  "THE MEDIA" is a sad cliche for people who can't see the difference between the USA today and the San Fransisco Chronicle.

Most Big TV news companies got too liberal and FOX blew the door off it from the other side.  The others have followed and the pendulum has swung.  RATINGS determine TV news NOT facts.

Ever been somewhere the news was.  Bet they got it all wrong.  At least they have every time I've been there.

Papers lay out ads first then fill text in around it.  Stories are written in reverse pyramid format cutting off stories around the ad.  Most people won't take a paper they don't agree with, thus ad revenue depends on agreeing with the subscribers and not the other way around.  Look at the difference between the LA times and The daily Oklahoman on any major story and you will see my point.

Your local TV news is designed to attract the "Walmart Woman" and no one else.  That quotes refers to a conversation with the assistant news director for a prominent Sacrament TV station.    He finally quit because children and dog stories take precedent over real news.

What this post tells me is that Drew is to the right of Dan Rather nothing more.  (As if we didn't know that)

[DrewKaree]

When the Big Three anchors attempt to put forth the image that they are the last bastions of "journalistic integrity", it makes a difference.  

Your statement re: Fox news is just as, if not more so, silly than me putting forth this post.  Perhaps you think every single American has cable, but the fact is, cable is the only outlet that offers an alternative, and it must be PAID FOR in order to get it.  When the only TV news choice available is over-the-air broadcasting, then it's foolish to think that there ISN'T a media bias.  

You mainly deal with newspapers - next you'll be telling me that the AP, who put forth the completely ridiculous and slanted story about what happened in my hometown, is only picked up by papers such as the L.A. Times and that the Oklahoman wouldn't print or go with such a story.  

And you're foolish, plain foolish.  I purchase the local lefty rag here because I want to see what the other side has to say different from what I believe, and I know of MANY other people who do the same.  

You try to brush off the premise with your flawed logic, but I and many others are proof that you are, by and large, wrong.  

The difference is that a paper such as the SF Chronicle take their agenda further than others.  It's not a left and right issue, it's a left and further left issue.  

When the INTERNET has to break a story about the inaccuracy of a major media outlet's story, and in response, the major media outlet's response is to prance other equally biased people in front of the American public in an effort to bolster their case, then there is a bias that you are simply unwilling to admit.  It's the reason people are starting to find it worthwhile to pay for cable, so they can get at least another side, and then judge for themselves where the story exactly is, which is usually somewhere in the middle.  

Maybe you still think there's not a nationwide bias in reporting because the San Francisco Chronicle hasn't reported on the mainstream media bias....or they have, and in their opinion, it's definitely slanted to the right

Maybe you should do a little research on the internet...it'll be pretty easy to find the analysis, the stories of media polls where they SAY they have a bias...and maybe the numbers, the cold hard facts, can show you it isn't a concerted effort by just a few outlets.  IF you're willing to look for something that doesn't agree with your view.

[monkeybomb]

Go back and read the post. you missed...all of it

[fredster]

No he didn't MonkeyBomb, he got it and he elaborated it well.  I don't think you got his point.

We are finding out that maybe CBS was in colaboration with the Kerry Campaign.  It shows a little different point here.  It could be that the media is working with the political side they bend too.  

How far does this rabbit hole go?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I can't say I am 100% behind the reasoning for Desert Shield / Desert Storm, but I can say that I will ALWAYS wear my National Defense Medal, Outstanding Unit Award, and Kuwaiti Liberation Medal as a freakin' badge of honor.

However, if you were part of what you had decided was an unjust and immoral war, I wouldn't question your patriotism if you decided to throw them away either. It isn't like burning the flag just because you don't like it.

Personally, I think questioning authority is our patriotic duty. Otherwise, we might as well learn to goosestep.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What counts is what they did in Public Office.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!  ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---!!! If you were voting for anything other than clan loyalty, you certainly wouldn't be voting for Bush. He HAD no record before poppy got him the cushy job in Texas, he was a failed business man and baseball owner before that, quite possibily drunk until he was "saved" at 40. As president he has completely alienated us from the rest of the civilized world, ballooned the debt beyond unimaginable proportions, needlessly sacrificed our troops in a horribly useless quagmire in Iraq and lied about the reasons for doing it. Great f*cking record.

I'm to the point where I'd rather have George H.W. Bush running since he at least had some common sense, I disliked the guy, but he's light years better than his idiot son.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There's big questions about Kerry's attendance that has to be answered.

I'm sorry, but I'm supposed to take you seriously after saying something as thick-headedly hypocritical as this??? It's a joke right?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The burden of proof lies squarely with those who wish to bring up the topic.  

Drew,

I parsed your short novella above and this is the short of it...

Kerry's records = Burden of proof lies on Kerry to prove his attendence

Bush's records = Burden of proof lies on the rest of us to prove Bush's attendence.

And you talk about flawed logic. You are so disingenuous it hurts. I'm sure you'll explain all this away with, "You are wrong. wrong. wrong. I am right!" So whatever, you buy lefty rags so you know exactly what everybody thinks! You got me...I surrender, just like the latte drinking frenchies I so adore. *gak*

[MrBond]

Where are we supposed to get un-biased information today?  
Is there such a thing?

I too am looking forward to the debates.  They will point out what each man is instead of what the other guy isn't.  I want to know where each man stands and what they actually plan to do as president.  No matter on which side one stands though, one must admit that Bush has been far more open about his opinions, he has taken a stand on his beliefs, and he has followed through with what he says.  He seems far more genuine.  On the other hand, Kerry changed directions so many times I wouldn't be suprised if he started debating himself.  In all seriousness though, I would like to hear what both men want to do for the country, and how they plan to go about doing it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where are we supposed to get un-biased information today?  
Is there such a thing?

Sadly enough, probably not. After Rathergate and the Swift Vets, our media has proven themselves to be nothing more than billboards for partisan propaganda. Filter be damned. It's up to you to inform yourself using the candidates official positions, (from the horse's mouth, not surrogates) since that is the only thing that can be held to account, and making your decision from there.

I too am looking forward to the debates.  They will point out what each man is instead of what the other guy isn't.  I want to know where each man stands and what they actually plan to do as president.

Me too. Absolutely. I've made up my mind based on numerous issues and I obviously think Kerry is the man. I look forward to him showing the rest of the country what I've already come to know. If you're being honest about wanting to know where each man stands, then get yourself a head start and read through the powerful speech Kerry made today. He has outlined his stance and made a clear delineation between his desired goals and contrasted them with Bush's perceived failures.

(transcript) http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html
(Real Video) rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04092004_kerry.rm?mode=compact

No matter on which side one stands though, one must admit that Bush has been far more open about his opinions, he has taken a stand on his beliefs, and he has followed through with what he says.  He seems far more genuine.  On the other hand, Kerry changed directions so many times I wouldn't be suprised if he started debating himself.

For the most part these are pretty much, part-and-parcel, right wing talking points. If you are seriously being genuine about informing yourself, then you could do better than taking these charges at face value.

In all seriousness though, I would like to hear what both men want to do for the country, and how they plan to go about doing it.

You'd think after four years, you'd know where Bush was taking our country. Maybe you need to ask yourself why this isn't already more apparent and how an unknown Senator from Massachusetts has ended up neck-and-neck with the "9-11/War President".

mrC

[fredster]

MrC,

There's big questions about Kerry's attendance that has to be answered.

It's a fair Question. He hasn't opened his records for us to see.  Why? Can you find his records anywhere that we can't?

Bush's records = Burden of proof lies on the rest of us to prove Bush's attendence.

These records were released, along with his tax records and a lot of other information. This issue has been drudged up over and over since his Governor's days.  What are you looking for? Where you in the service?  I was in the Army, National Guard, and Reserves (twice).  I have 4 Honorable Discharges.  I am missing the records for my 1st Reverve stint and they can't find them.  Kansas City lost them or misplaced them.  I guess now I have been chosen by the vast right wing conspiracy to be president too!  Wow.

MrC, I guess you are not one of those "undecided" voters huh? I'm not either. I like Bush. I think he's commited to do what he thinks is Right for America.  I don't care if France doesn't like it either.  They still buy our products.  They still take our cash.

So, I guess we cancel each other out.  Bush/AntiBush matter colliding in a voting booth come next Nov.

As far as Kerry being "unknown", he's known.  What democrat other than Hillary is known all over the nation?  

Besides Bush, what Republican is?  (Well, maybe Guliani and Arnold).

After Bush wins this one, by at least 10% over Kerry, then we'll have to see who can come out on top next time.  We know it won't be Chaney.  

I am betting Guiliani Vs Hillary.  Guiliani by 20%. Another 16 years of Republican Leadership. (we can only hope).

I am kinda sorry Hillary didn't run.  I haven't had the pleasure of voting against a Clinton for a while now.  I sort of miss it.

[Mameotron]

Well we can all go to bed happy tonight, since Dan Rather went on the air and said, "I'm sorry."

What a load of crap.  They admit that their reporting may have been wrong because they didn't try to authenticate the documents.  Sheesh!

This reminds me of Clinton...  I did not have sex with that woman!!  Damn, now that you caught me, I guess I'll have to admit it.. but it really wasn't sex, it was just a hummer!! See, I didn't lie!!

[fredster]

That's right.  They fought against it for a week before they had so much evidence to the contrary they couldn't stonewall any more.

MrC - Bush's service timeline - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-10-bush-service-timeline_x.htm
Kerry's service timeline - http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service_timeline.html

I guess what's in question is the last two years.  Looks like he was pretty busy with politics and college.

Mr. Daschle looks like he is working for re-election using Bush, not Kerry, in his ads:
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/august/0831_daschle_bush.shtml

I wondered where he went.

[fredster]

USA today is USA Today Link coming clean on the Story too.


Edit by moderator: fixed URL

[DrewKaree]

from the horse's mouth, not surrogates) since that is the only thing that can be held to account, and making your decision from there.

For the most part these are pretty much, part-and-parcel, right wing talking points. If you are seriously being genuine about informing yourself, then you could do better than taking these charges at face value.

so clear this all up for us helmet-clad morons
horse's mouth, but can't possibly take what comes from it at face value....MrK(erry), is that you?  I saw the flip/flop and just figured....

I guess we can only trust what comes from YOUR horse's ... er... mouth, otherwise

I'm sure you'll explain all this away with, "You are wrong. wrong. wrong. I am right!"

because you certainly haven't given us any facts that we can view Kerry's records under the FOIA, you've only offered that my view, while able to be checked and determined to be factual (and I didn't have CBS' crack investigative journalists!) is a wing-nut viewpoint...wow....and to think, I missed that Supreme Court Case  "MrC v Drew" and the airtight argument of "nener nener boo boo".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bush's records = Burden of proof lies on the rest of us to prove Bush's attendence.

And you talk about flawed logic. You are so disingenuous it hurts.

yes, the burden is on your side, since it is fact that Bush signed his Form 180.  You speak of being disingenuous.  I am not talking about statistics or numbers that can be distorted by either side to fit a scenario they want shown.  I'm speaking of fact, plain and simple.  Did Bush sign the Disclosure form?  It's a simple yes/no answer.  The answer is yes.  This isn't open for debate, unless you wish to be disingenuous yourself, and continue to claim that "Kerry released everything he has needed to release. TONS more than Bush."  I'm not claiming I'm right and you're wrong, I'm giving you readily available FACTS that aren't open to interpretation.  The facts MAKE me right.  I don't have to "claim it", it's borne out

you just have to look

The mainstream press hasn't gone after Kerry's record with a fine-toothed comb because they CAN'T.  He won't sign the Form 180 disclosure, and the media could care less, as long as he keeps feeding them records that fit their predetermined storyline.  

I was looking for all the hard-hitting articles they wrote after having access to all his records, as they have Bush.  Lo and behold, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.  Your hatred of the man is blinding you to the difference between facts and opinion.  Give us the story where Kerry has signed his Form 180.  It should be all over the evening news, N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, SF Chronicle, etc, right?  

Since

it's pretty much uncontested (outside of wingnut circles)

that BUSH has filed the full disclosure and access to his records is available, your "Kerry has made accessible everything he has needed to release" doesn't add up to the lengths Bush has gone to make everything available.

Please.   Next you'll be telling us 2+2=5, and that we're all idiots for pointing out "IT'S 4 MAN, FOOOOUUUUUUUURRRRR!"

[fredster]

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!  !!!

I thought that was MrC's best point so far.  We will have to see just where Mr. Kerry stands.  We know where the President stands on the terrorist issues.

I'm interested to see where both parties are on healthcare also.  I liked Bush's Social Security plan last time and I hope we can get it worked out.

I'm not real hot on either party for healthcare.  I don't agree with higher taxes in almost (and I mean almost) any circumstance.  I don't believe that the government can regulate that much money

MrC, if you are sure that Kerry has released all the records we asked for, find his Attendance records for us.  I think that's important.  If Lugar was right, he missed 66% (down from other estimates of 75%) of his intelligence committee meetings.   Why don't we know if he has?  Did I just miss it somewhere?

I think that both Bush and Kerry should just have a press conference and talk about their Military records and say that's it, no more discussion.  Then we can focus on what's real and not a "gottcha" game with Swift Vets or MoveOn.org.

On Sept 30 we can discuss this again after we see them both side by side.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.
And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been."

...

"In June 1968, with his student deferment ready to expire when he graduated from Yale, Bush faced the draft, just like hundreds of thousands of other young Americans. The controversial Vietnam War was raging, and draftees often ended up in Vietnam

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I was looking for all the hard-hitting articles they wrote after having access to all his records, as they have Bush.  Lo and behold, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.

Exactly. Because we know Kerry served and Bush shirked. It's simple really. A vote for Bush is a vote for preferential treatment. Respect is earned, not demanded, as Bush so self-righteously continues to do.

You guys know in your gut that Bush is a coward and that he stepped in front of the line, sending some other poor sap to Vietnam in his place. I'm glad I don't have to defend that loser. Keep telling yourselves he's a stand-up guy, certainly sounds good, just doesn't hold water.

He won't sign the Form 180 disclosure, and the media could care less, as long as he keeps feeding them records that fit their predetermined storyline.  

"At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February."

"I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan said. "We have released all the records, and reporters were allowed to look at his medical records as well." - Wash. Times, August 18, 2004

Ouch. Hypocrisy hurts. Kerry released his records in the same way. Can any of you guys point me to Bush's Form 180 then? Didn't think so. This is fun!

mrC

[fredster]

Well, it also says in that article -

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I further say that you aren't voting for Kerry, you are just voting against Bush.  It's the "Anybody but Bush" thinking that drives the left into supporting Kerry.  

Just like everything else you've put forth, this is make believe. I'm voting for Kerry for one simple reason...he's the better man for the job. He's more articulate, more intelligent, more forthright and honest. I'm going to be proud to have him as president and I'm confident he'll serve our country, and the world, better than any Bush ever has. Watch the video of his speech in NY (I linked to it above)...I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING he had to say. I agree with his stance on Iraq, I'm intelligent enough to understand his (and Edwards') vote against the blank check pushed by the Bush administration, in fact, I think the rest of those in congress that did not question it are a disgrace. Kerry demanded accountability from the president after he voted for the AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE, IF NECESSARY, AFTER WEAPONS INSPECTIONS FAILED. However, as soon as Bush got the keys to the kingdom, he kicked out the inspectors and rushed into this horribly misguided war and let this whole nation down. I agree with Kerry's stance on funding health care, and I agree with rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, while lightening the load on middle-class people like me. So take your "anybody but Bush" and shove it. Kerry/Edwards '04: Stronger at home, respected in the world!!

This "they can't like Kerry" meme reeks of desperation and I'm not suprised to see you use it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh btw, prove that I haven't served. The burden lies on you. /sarcasm

[fredster]

Well, I don't think it's despiration.  It's a polling question.  

10. (Ask Bush supporters) Would you say that your vote is better described
as a vote for George W. Bush or a vote against John Kerry?
                                         For Bush      Against Kerry               (Not sure)
7-8 Sep 04                            82%              13                                   5
3-4 Aug 04                            82%              12                                  6

11. (Ask Kerry supporters) Would you say that your vote is better described
as a vote for John Kerry or a vote against George W. Bush?
                                            For Kerry    Against Bush             (Not sure)
7-8 Sep 04                              41%                51                             8
3-4 Aug 04                              53%                41                             6


The poll shows that while there is an increased support for Kerry, his support base is basically ralled against Bush.  51% say it's a vote against Bush.  Bush's support is for the man, not against the opponent.

I did see Mr. Kerry's speech.  I saw Bush's speech to the UN and read the text to both.  They are both politicians.  Bush is saying the same thing he has said since 9/11.  Kerry has modified his positions several times and tuned his rethoric to match the climate.  

And I can prove you didn't serve with a couple of questions.  What form are you issued on the day you leave the service and what are your instructions?  Would you say that the problem with the prison in Iraq was systemic with the military in general? What is the result of putting 150 sailors on a submarine for 6 months?


Didn't you get a tax break too?  I did. I'm by far not in the top 1%, not even close.   As I recall, we keep getting tax breaks.  

[mrhowell]

I'm voting for Kerry for one simple reason...he's the better man for the job. He's more articulate, more intelligent, more forthright and honest.



That is classic.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Only poll I care about is the one that we all go to on November 2nd. Sure there are people that are holding their nose to vote for Kerry, as they would for probably any politician.

Bush is saying the same thing he has said since 9/11.  Kerry has modified his positions several times and tuned his rethoric to match the climate.  

Then this points out the fundamental difference between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters. We believe the climate has changed since 9/11, and definitely since the failed policy of pre-emptive warfare in Iraq, and we want a president that can take us in a more intelligent direction and offer more positive results. We want a president that can adjust to any situation by evaluating the reality of said climate and making informed policy decisions. We feel that changing your mind isn't always a sign of weakness, but of wisdom. Bush supporters feel everything is fine, that we are headed in the right direction, and that Bush's stubborn refusal to re-evaluate the world stage is a sign of sheer moral fortitude, not willful denial. They seem to feel it's a positive attribute to stick to your guns even after you've shot yourself in the foot.

We want change, you want more of the same. The country decides how good a job Bush has done in November, since this election was always going to be more of a referendum on him as opposed to an affirmation of Kerry. Not because Kerry's supporters don't like him, but because Bush and his party have controlled the judicial, legislative and executive branches of this country for the last four years.

What good has Bush actually accomplished with all that power?

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That is classic.

So is your weak republican reply.