JC Media Watch

Another McNews?

2004-11-19T09:45:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure this is the best way to reach out to "Red State" voters, but it looks like the Washington Post is considering turning itself into another USA Today.

In an effort to win new readers, Downie said Post reporters will be required to write shorter stories. The paper's design and copy editors will be given more authority to make room for more photographs and graphics.

Yes, this is what we need. One of the nation's most respected newspapers publishing shorter stories and more pictures. No... we don't need more reporting, we need more pictures of the world's largest pound cake or the world's biggest ball of twine.

Nice....

2004-11-19T09:31:00.000-06:00

Its not just political cartoonists and columnists that are going after Condoleezza Rice in a thinly disguised racial manner, now its radio talk show hosts.

Radio talk show host John Sylvester on WTDY-AM in Madison has drawn criticism for calling Rice an "Aunt Jemima".

In his defense Sylvester said:

that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

This isn't the first time Sylvester has used racially charged language to describe members of Bush's cabinet.

Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" a
contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.

I can only imagine the outcry if a conservative talk show host had made similar comments concerning an African American member of a Democratic cabinet.

Oh, wait a minute, didn't Rush Limbaugh get in a little trouble a couple of years back for making some not too PC comments when describing the reasons behind the popularity of a certain black quarterback?

A Disgrace

2004-11-17T15:09:00.000-06:00

I can only image what the reaction would be if Oliphant, Doonesbury, and Danziger were conservatives poking fun at a Democrat African-American Secretary of State.

The UK Mirror, however, wins the award for the most blatantly racist commentary of the year:

IF THERE were a monkey in the White House - and many reckon there is - then his trainer would be the world's most powerful person.

Unbelievable.

The Hill Takes on Exit Pollsters

2004-11-17T08:51:00.000-06:00

Dr. David Hill, of The Hill, just ravages the polling firm in charge of this year's exit polls:

But let’s be clear on one point. Despite Mitofsky’s great reputation, it is becoming clearer every election that he’s not very good at what he purports to do well: namely, running exit-polling operations.

Ouch!

This Is A Great Line

2004-11-17T08:20:00.000-06:00

From Jay Leno:

"I haven't seen this many secretaries running from the Oval Office since Clinton was in there!"

Former-Celebrity Idiot Alert

2004-11-17T08:05:00.000-06:00

Former-Celebrity Linda Ronstadt on the Presidential election results:

"People don't realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves," she says. Of Iraq in particular, she adds, "I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don't know anything about the Iraqis, but they're angry and frustrated in their own lives. It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."

Hey Linda, who is Saddam in your analogy? The Kaiser?

One little suggestion to Linda: Given the fact that you lost your Vegas gig and (from what I can tell) not many people are banging down your door with new offers, you may want to tone down the political rants. Let's face it, the left already has one heavy-set loon and I'm not sure that there are any current openings over at Air America. As a result, you may not want to risk pissing off any of the handful of your remaining fans.

And remember what Michael Jordan used to say: "Republicans buy sneakers too!"

O'Reilly Loses His Mind

2004-11-16T13:49:00.000-06:00

I always thought that O'Reilly was a little insane but now I have confirmation that he has full-blown lost it. On last night's O'Reilly Factor, "the humble correspondent" provided the following recommendation to President Bush for a replacement for Colin Powell as the next Secretary of State:

And now I'm going to be controversial. Now, I know the word is Condoleezza Rice will get the job. And she is absolutely brilliant and very loyal to President Bush, but I would replace Secretary Powell with Bill Clinton.Yikes! The former president probably wouldn't take the job, but if he did, countries like France, Germany, and Spain would like the move, perhaps cooperate more with America. Add Canada and Indonesia to that group as well.

Beyond the fact that having Bill Clinton back on the national stage again would be a great source of entertainment and fodder, Clinton would be an unmitigated disaster as SOS. I mean, wasn't the fact that the State Department wasn't on the same page with the Administration on most foreign policy matters (particularly Iraq) a major problem for Bush during his first term? How would putting Clinton (and his massive ego) at State alleviate that problem? The answer: it wouldn't. But when has the obvious stopped O'Reilly from making an ass out of himself.

Has 60 Minutes Been Caught Again?

2004-11-16T08:18:00.000-06:00

A couple of University of Alabama professors think so. They accuse 60 Minutes, and lead reporter Ed Bradley, off "sloppiness" and including "numerous errors and misleading information" in their report.

Impact quote:

In the wake of "Memogate", "60 Minutes" has done it again. Sunday’s report on the killing of Emmett Till was an example of slipshod and misleading journalism. The producers have few excuses in this case. They did it with their eyes open. They were warned not just once but several times that their forthcoming report might contain inaccuracies. In a rush to air the story, however, they plowed ahead, instead of following the first rule of journalism: getting their facts straight.

Sound familiar?

Not Welcome in Norman

2004-11-16T07:43:00.000-06:00

Apparently, Sooner fans were not very nice hosts to a certain retiring network news anchor this weekend.

I guess when you get booed louder in Norman, Oklahoma than the Nebraska football team then its probably time to hang it up.

This Week's Dick Cheney Award Goes To...

2004-11-15T08:42:00.000-06:00

To the member of the media that shows the most balls over the past week...

Our friend Keith Olbermann over at MSNBC.

After a week of peddling Internet generated voter fraud conspiracy theories, Olbermann has the gumption to complain about himself being the subject of Internet generated conspiracy theories!

Now that does take some balls!

On a related note, Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review lets Keith have it in yesterday's column.

First An Apology, Now...

2004-11-12T17:39:00.000-06:00

A firing! CBS has apparently axed the producer that made the decision to cut away from the end of CSI: New York in order to air a special report on the death of Yaser Arafat.

Is it just me or is CBS's reaction bordering on overkill?

Putting Dowd on the Couch

2004-11-12T08:15:00.001-06:00

Vaughn Ververs just eviscerates NYT columnist Maureen Dowd in today's National Journal (it is subscription only unfortunately).

After complementing Dowd on her work over the past 8 years (equally slamming both the Clinton and Bush administrations), Ververs laments that Dowd may have run out of things to say, and worse yet, destroyed her reputation by joining the talking head masses and taking her act to TV.

Impact quote:

For years, Dowd was able to maintain a air of mystery because she was one of the
very few political commentators who refused to ply her trade on television like
the riffraff. Her above-the-fray approach seemed refreshing and principled until
she broke character and started showing up to discuss the presidential election
-- and her recent book. It was then we realized the bigger reason for her reclusiveness.
Don Imus, whose show has hosted Dowd on many occasions (mostly by phone) has warned Dowd to stay off the airwaves. His reasoning is, as we understand it, that she is too good, too elevated to sink to the level of the Dick Morrises of the world. She should have stuck to the advice of her friend, because the fact is that she's distracting at best and a disaster at worst.
Add to that her seeming inability to look into a camera and her obvious unease, and it's easy to see why she stayed away from the small screen for so long.

Impact quote II:

But without a new target in the White House (and how many more Bush-on-the couch columns can there be), where will she take her act for the next four years? One thing is for sure. It won't -- or shouldn't -- be on television.

Ververs is right on the money here. Dowd's TV appearances (mostly on NBC) have been outright disasters. She has no personality at all - at least none that comes across on TV. Instead, she comes across as a whinny, insecure loser with nothing to say. That's a mighty big fall for a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist.

Memo to Keith

2004-11-11T22:17:00.000-06:00

If the NY Times thinks your full of crap, you may want to rethink your position.

A quote that Olbermann should really take heed of:

"I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true," said David Wade, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, "but blogging it doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past."

In fairness, it appears that Olbermann has switched vote count theories yet again (I think this makes this his fourth theory to date) and now is focusing on the potential recounts in Ohio and New Hampshire. The recounts could be a very real possibility but the chances that a recount could actually change the results of the Presidential election are so remote that the White Sox have a better chance to win the World Series next year than the recount does of changing the final result.

Olbermann Bloviates Tonight....

2004-11-11T19:03:00.000-06:00

Again, nothing new. But boy, he sure sounds earnest.

Honestly, beyond the basic fact (that we all concede) that our elections are not perfect and should be improved, what new news has he broken? In a word: nothing.

Now Joe Trippi is on bragging about the importance of bloggers. Interesting, I don't recall either Olbermann or Trippi extolling the virtues of bloggers when they ripped apart Dan Rather and 60 Minutes. Amazing how one's opinion changes when the tables are turned.

Now "B" Actors Are "Losing It" Over the Election

2004-11-11T15:00:00.000-06:00

Maybe Al Gore could recommend a therapist.

How Fast...

2004-11-11T14:53:00.000-06:00

will 2008 Democratic candidates for President run away from this film? Do you think any of them will be caught dead at the premier?

Honesty, for Republicans, Michael Moore is a gift that keeps on giving. I love this quote:

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

Yep, keep it going Mike. The red states will keep on getting redder.

One request to Mike: Can you lose the Spartan hat? Thanks in advance.

CBS Apologizes...

2004-11-11T14:40:00.000-06:00

For interrupting last night's broadcast of CSI New York in order to air a special report about the death of Yasser Arafat.

That's nice, but one wonders whether they should be apologizing for not airing a fireworks celebration in honor of the death of one of the worst terrorists this world has ever seen.

At the risk of sounding like a "Red Stater" - I hope God is settling the score right now.

FCC Decency Rules Taken To an Extreme

2004-11-11T11:12:00.000-06:00

Some ABC affiliates chose not to air tonight's network broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan" fearing that it might run afoul of FCC regs.

An example of FCC decency standards run amok?

MSM Jumps On Board The Conspiracy Train...

2004-11-11T09:35:00.000-06:00

But not in the way that Conspiracy-boy Keith would like.

From the Washington Post this morning... Basically Keith is full of it.

Blogger Keith Is On A Roll...

2004-11-11T08:23:00.000-06:00

Another day, another insightful rant from MSNBC's resident conspiracy theorist Keith Olbermann.

Today's subject (along with the possibility of a recount in both Ohio and New Hampshire which I hope to get to later) is the admittedly strange decision taken by the Warren County (Ohio) Board of Elections to close the vote counting process from the media due to apparent "security concerns."

I must concede that the decision of the Warren County BOE is rather strange and not really supported by the facts, but the real question is: what were they hiding? Was this a case of a heavily Democratic county that suddenly witnessed a surge of Republican voting? Was this a case of a Republican County that suddenly witnessed a surge in Bush support without a corresponding rise in Kerry support? The answers to these questions are "no" and "no".

Warren County is located in heavily Republican southern Ohio. In this year's election (according to the Ohio Secretary of State's election web site) the county went to Bush 66,523 to 25,399. In 2000, the county went to Bush 48,318 to 19,142.

Now, you might notice that there was a significant increase in raw votes between 2000 and 2004. But a quick comparison of the percentage increases in the votes for Bush (38%) and Kerry/Gore (33%) reveal roughly comparable increases in support for the two candidates. Really, what we are talking about here is an increase of about a 12,000 vote advantage for Bush. And in an election in which the candidates for both parties enjoyed an increase of about 20% in raw vote support state wide between 2000 and 2004, the results in Warren County don't really look that strange.

Also, consider this. Its not like the two parties didn't have representation in the county building while the vote count was going on. Each County Board of Elections is about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans and as of yet (unless I am missing something) I have not heard one word from a Democrat on the Warren County Board of Elections objecting to the vote count.

Once again, this looks to be another example of Olbermann taking a small story and blowing it way out of proportion. It also appears to be another example of Olbermann's short attention span. Yesterday it was voting problems in Cleveland (which was subsequently explained). Now its the strange occurrences in Warren County.

To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd on SNL: "Olbermann seems to switch from one conspiracy theory to another with the frequency of a cheap ham radio."

Keith Finds No Support...

2004-11-10T18:39:00.000-06:00

From the Kerry campaign! This from Kerry's lead election attorney:

''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.
''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."

At least Olbermann has the support of the left-wing nuts.

Keith Strikes Again

2004-11-10T14:12:00.000-06:00

Olbermann just can't get enough of this. On his blog he writes the following:

With news this morning that the computerized balloting in North Carolina is so thoroughly messed up that all state-wide voting may be thrown out and a second election day scheduled, the story continues.

Interesting... but let's check the Charlotte Observer. This is what Olbermann is referring to.

More than 4,500 votes irretrievably lost in coastal Carteret County could trigger a new statewide election if the official margin of victory in two Council of State races is close enough, state election officials said Monday.

It appears that Olbermann has a problem with reading comprehension. The proposed re-election would only be for the contested Council of State races NOT all the state races (Senate, Congress etc.).

Clearly this is not a good situation and one that hopefully is the exception and not rule. But let's not over-hype this. The NC case is not an example of whole-sale voter fraud and certainly not an example of the kind of voter fraud that would impact the outcome of the presidential election.

Please keep it going Keith, you are a gift that keeps on giving.

NPR Lovers Take Heart...

2004-11-10T13:38:00.000-06:00

There is now a blog for you....

http://ilovenpr.blogspot.com/

I am hoping that this will be the site that I can go to for updates on Yasser Arafat's health and the upcoming reorganization of the great PLO.

OK... Now Its Official...

2004-11-10T10:55:00.000-06:00

Keith Olbermann is a partisan nut. His latest blog entry, while conceeding that the vast majority of his argument has been refuted, continues to contend that the Ohio election was "a mess" and concludes that the results in Ohio can't be trusted.

Example: Olbermann's response to the news that the Cleveland voter reporting glitch question had been resolved:

The punch, of course, is the explanation that the 29 more-votes-than voters precincts in greater Cleveland appear to have been caused by the addition of Absentee Ballots. The total difference between registered voters and votes (93,000) might be explained by that process, but it does little for one's confidence in the whole result from Ohio.

Huh? The discrepancy has been explained Keith. How on earth does a glitch in vote "reporting" have anything to do with vote "counting"? If pressed, I doubt that Olbermann could explain it with a straight face.

But wait... there's more from the wacky world of Keith:

The problem is, the rubber clown immediately bounces back with the report that
officials in Youngstown managed to catch a slight glitch in their voting there: a total drawn from all the precincts that initially showed negative 25,000,000 million votes cast.

Again, huh? I know reading is a skill, but I think that even the dimmest among us could catch the key word in the above sentence: "CATCH". Yes Keith, election officials caught the problem and corrected it. And guess what? With no impact on the final results.

Look, I have no problem with a complete investigation into vote reporting, counting or casting irregularities. They should and, no doubt, will be looked into. What I do have a problem with is a host of a cable news show checking his objectivity at the door and embarking on a clearly partisan crusade to cast doubt on the legitimacy of last Tuesday's elections. If he has some solid evidence of fraud, lets hear it. If not, I would appreciate it if Olbermann would stop pretending he was Oliver Stone. After all, Halloween was two weeks ago.

ABC News Takes a Crack...

2004-11-10T10:25:00.000-06:00

At the voter fraud conspiracy theories. ABC pretty much debunks them all.

Impact quote concerning the vote reporting problems in Cuyahoga county:

In the battleground state of Ohio, where conspiracy theories abound, a Web site for Cuyahoga County seemed to show more votes than voters in some precincts.
The county's Web site was confusing — it lumped several precincts' absentee ballots together and then counted them several times, for each precinct. But those were glitches in vote-reporting — not vote-counting. The "phantom" voters who mysteriously appeared and voted for Bush in the county — which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry — did not exist other than in the imagination of Democrats upset about Kerry's loss.

This afternoon, the Web site that first raised the questions about the Cuyahoga votes took it all back. "OK," wrote the Webmeister at "Americans 4 America," "finally had a chance to figure this out. I apologize for any anxiety that went along with these numbers. It seems that data is useless without knowing how counties arrived at the
numbers and this was a particularly tricky process."

First Yasser, Now BBC...

2004-11-10T10:06:00.000-06:00

What's next? Cuts at National Palestinian Radio?

Looks like the BBC will be undergoing 50% cut in head count. Maybe this is a preemptive cut as one of their biggest sources of funding (Yasser Arafat) may not be around much longer. The good news for BBC staffers that have been let go: I hear Al Jazeera is hiring!

Another Zell Dual?

2004-11-10T08:54:00.000-06:00

Move over Chris Matthews, you have company on the Zell Miller dual list. The out-of-his-mind Democratic Senator is now taking on the mope that is Maureen Dowd.

I love this line:

"The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those columns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're idiots and telling them that they're stupid."

That's a Mighty Short Limb Your Standing On Keith...

2004-11-10T07:47:00.000-06:00

Either MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has a head start on the "story of the century" or (as I suspect) he's on another one of his self aggrandizing ego trips.

Both on his sometimes funny daily "Countdown" show on MSNBC and his "Blog", Olbermann has been peddling the theory that the election, especially in Ohio and Florida, was somehow stolen by the Republicans. Olbermann bases his theory on the fact that results in several counties in the two states show Republican support that is much greater than the numbers of registered Republicans in area and, in a couple of cases, vote total irregularities that resulted in more cast votes in a particular county than actual registered voters.

Many of Olbermann's cited examples have been explained through an examination of voting trends in particular counties - Yale Free Press does a good job ripping apart Keith's Florida theory - and I have no doubt the rest of his examples will receive a similar fate. That really isn't the issue here. The real question I have is what is the point of Olbermann's show in the first place?

Is his "Countdown" show supposed to a light-hearted look at the news? Kind of a more serious version of the "Daily Show? If so, he has a long way to go to match Jon Stewart. Or, as I suspect is probably the case in Olbermann's mind, is the show a vehicle for the host to show off his hard news talents?

It is my suspicion that Olbermann fashions himself as a future Brian Williams, a hard-news anchor with a future in network news, and he is searching "high and low" for that one great story that will make his career. At this point in time he is pinning his hopes on the "stolen election" story and it looks like he is going to run with it down to the bitter end. He has already dedicated significant portions of his last two shows to this issue, complete with bringing in guests (like Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford) to help explain to the audience just how important this issue is to the future of the country and he promises to continue to do so throughout the week.

Well, good luck Keith. You are going to need it. If, as I suspect, this story blows up in your face, you will be viewed by NBC more as the next John McEnroe or Dennis Miller (and no doubt assigned to the death valley that is CNBC) than the next Tom Brokaw. In end, Keith may wish he never left his ESPN gig.

UPDATE: Salon, not your typical right-wing rag, does a pretty good job putting to rest Olbermann's "stolen election" theory. We'll see what Keith reports on tonight. I hear he is going to look into how a state the size of Utah can contain only 25% Democrats!

I'm Back

2004-11-10T07:44:00.000-06:00

Back from Ohio and out from under the mountain of work that was waiting for me. Regular blogging will resume shortly.

In the Heart of Ohio

2004-10-30T23:45:00.000-05:00

You may be wondering why the blogging has been sporadic over the last couple of days, especially in light of the election in the next couple of days. Its not due to a lack of interest. Rather, I have taken advantage of a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to be involved in the making of a documentary on the election in Ohio.

I am currently on the ground in the key battleground state helping film parts of the documentary from a "Republican" perspective. It has been an amazing experience so far: from going to the Kerry/Springsteen rally on Thursday, to the Bush rally on Friday (and actually getting White House press credentials) to interviewing four US Congressmen on Saturday.

As a result of the rather hectic shooting schedule, blogging will remain sporadic until I get back sometime Wednesday night.

In case you are interested in more information on the film, I have included a news story that appeared in today's LA Times that provides more information on the project.

Lights, camera, action at the polls; Producer Jim St ern's new documentary will detail how Ohio voters cast their ballots in this presidential election.

John Horn Times Staff Writer

The Los Angeles Times

Many filmmakers made movies they hoped would sway the 2004 presidential election. Now a producer is putting together a documentary about the voting itself.

Jim St ern, whose movie credits include the basketball documentary "The Year of the Yao" and upcoming dramas "Proof" and "Hotel Rwanda," has dispatched six different camera crews to precincts across Ohio. The goal of his film, tentatively titled "Ohio: An American Vote," is to detail how the state's nearly 8 million voters cast their ballots.

"I think this movie is going to offer a view of whether the ends justify the means, if the means get out of hand," Stern said. "You are seeing the most polarized and pressure-laden tinderbox I have ever seen."

St ern, a supporter of Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry, said he didn't plan on making and financing the film until a week ago. It was then he read about Republican efforts to challenge the legitimacy of Ohio voters by placing thousands of monitors inside polling places.

"I called [producing partner] Adam [Del Deo] and said, 'Do you want to make a movie in the next two days?' " St ern said. Within a week, St ern's production company, Endgame Entertainment, had hired half a dozen filmmaking teams.

By Friday afternoon, Del Deo was in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio, interviewing a husband-and-wife couple who will split votes between President Bush and Kerry. Other "An American Vote" teams were filming stories about students at Ohio State University who support Bush, the chatter at a Columbus lunch counter, an Ohio Bush rally featuring California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a registered voter who received a letter saying he was ineligible to vote. They will shoot footage until a president is named.

"We will be locking onto certain compelling stories," said Del Deo, who also describes himself as a Kerry supporter.

It's easy to see why Ohio has the potential to make a great movie. The two candidates and the media have spent more time and money there than in any other state besides Florida.

On top of that, Ohio, with its 20 electoral college votes, has been the site of numerous voting disputes. No Republican has been elected president without winning the state, and polling shows a dead heat between Bush and Kerry.

Republicans have charged that tens of thousands of voter registrations are fraudulent, carrying wrong addresses and fictitious names, and have asked county election boards to disqualify them. A federal judge blocked some hearings on the matter before election day, allowing many of the disputed registered voters to cast ballots.

In a separate ruling, provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct will not be counted.
Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has issued a ruling in a separate dispute regarding poll watchers that could create hordes of people challenging whether registered voters can be given ballots.

There could be as many as 3,600 Republican challengers at polling places, and Democrats complain the Republicans are targeting largely African American precincts, which could vote heavily for Kerry. The U.S. Department of Justice said this week it will send monitors to ensure voters' civil rights are not violated.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader also has been excluded from Ohio ballots.

Most movies made about the candidates, such as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," have criticized Bush. There have been a handful of films that are critical of Kerry, including "Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die."

"We don't want to narrowly define the documentary yet," said St ern, who hopes he can show the film in theaters in the next several months. "But the crucible of democracy is one man, one vote. We want to be there and see what happens."

And You Think Al Gore Is Nuts?

2004-10-30T19:50:00.000-05:00

Check out Walter Cronkite, who thinks that Karl Rove is somehow behind the Bin Laden tape.

On Larry King last night, Cronkite made the following statement:

Somewhat smiling, Cronkite said he is "inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

I was standing about five feet from Rove at a Bush campaign event on Friday and he did have a big smile on his face. Now I know why: he's devious plan worked!

Still No Answers

2004-10-29T13:10:00.000-05:00

While an Army unit destroyed tons of ammunition, etc. at the site in question, the Major leading the project was unable to say that the "missing" explosives were among the stuff that was destroyed. Furthermore, it appears the destruction occurred on April 13, whereas the news crew apparently filmed the explosives in question on April 18. All of this raises more questions than those that were answered:

1. Were the explosives in question destroyed on April 13th?
2. Was the facility under guard after April 13th? (I'll answer this one, we had too few troops on the ground to do it.)
3. Why did the Iraqi interim government claim the explosives were looted?
4. Why did it take the Pentagon so long to produce the Major?
5. Why is it that the Bush campaign has absolutely no clue what happened and looks like the Jon Lovitz "That's the Ticket" guy with each explanation it has put out for public consumption?

Will the media actually get to the bottom of all this? Probably not. Does the media care? Probably not. The bigger story to the media, unfortunately, is now the politics surrounding the story.

Because We Have An Open Mind Here

2004-10-29T10:53:00.000-05:00

Were the "missing" explosives moved by US forces? Drudge is telling us that there will be a report out soon that it was. If so, why has it taken so long for it to come out and why didn't Bush & Co. have an idea what happened to it?

When will JC Media Watch Apologize?

2004-10-29T10:14:00.000-05:00

Who are the lemmings now? It appears the MSM has the story, see story here and video here. It appears that the Bush/Blogosphere/JC Media Watch Lemmings owe everyone an apology..... Bush & Co. are making Clinton look like George Washington!

Remember, the truth will set you free!

(Edited for grammer.)

Drudge: ABC Holding on an al Qaeda Terror Tape

2004-10-27T13:01:00.000-05:00

Drudge is reporting that ABC is sitting on the proported terror tape. ABC, which got the tape from a source in Pakistan, strongly denies that it is "holding" the story.

I tend to believe ABC. If this tape is legit, they would be sitting on a huge story.

Update: ABC has turned over the tape to the FBI and CIA. Claims it was "holding" the tape until it could be authenticated.

"Obviously, it would be beyond irresponsible to broadcast this tape without first authenticating it." - ABC News vice president Jeffrey Schneider

Now those are some high journalistic standards. Too bad the NYT, CBS and the rest of the M&M Lemmings don't adhere to these standards.

Fair and Balanced - BBC Style

2004-10-26T20:30:00.000-05:00

Check out how the BBC views "fair and balanced" election night coverage:

BBC World, the BBC's global commercial service, has unveiled details of its US election coverage. The 24-hour news and information channel will provide analysis over the next two weeks, with live election night coverage fronted by David Dimbleby. BBC World will also broadcast a special edition of 'Question Time' featuring film-maker and author Michael Moore, columnist Richard Littlejohn and former Bill Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal.Other discussion programmes feature guests such as Madeleine Albright, George Soros and former CIA director James Woolsey.

Who on this distinguished panel would be considered the "conservative"?

While JC Media Watch Spins the Bush Line...

2004-10-26T15:38:00.000-05:00

It seems that even "fair and balanced" GOP stooges Fox News were reporting on April 4, 2003 that these explosives were discovered in the facility in question by our armed forces!

Read it, set down the Bush Kool-Aid and stop making excuses for this incompetent Administration.

The questions remain: a) who was guarding this facility after April 4, 2003 and b) how was this stuff stolen?

Lemmings indeed....

M&M Lemmings Debunked... Again

2004-10-26T14:30:00.000-05:00

According to the "Marshall/Moore Lemmings" the 380 tons of explosives could have been taken by a highly sophisticated gang of terrorists some time between April 5th and April 10th, 2003. The guys at Captain's Quarters shed some light on this "theory":

If I were a guerilla "looter" and I was planning such an operation from a military standpoint, here's what the task would require:
Assumptions:
-Each "looter" could haul comfortably about 25 pounds per trip to a truck. (of course after 12 hours that would require superhuman endurance)
-I'd allow 5 minutes per round trip to the truck
-Work day 12 hours
-assume security breaks down 1 week after war starts (that allows 2 weeks before the US troops arrive)
-each pickup truck can carry about 1/4 ton of explosives (I did a quick calculation based upon the dimensions and weight of a block of C-4 and the dimensions of an average small pickup) and it takes 15 minutes to either load or unload the truck.
-the secure hiding place for 380 tons of explosives is 30 minutes away.
Calculations:
-380 tons / [((12hrs/dayX60min/hr) / (5 min per load)) X (25 lbs per load) X 14 days] = 15 loaders X 2 = 30 loaders/unloaders
-30 loaders/unloaders times 200% for breaks, rest, inefficiency, etc. = 60 loaders and unloaders.
-380 tons / [(12hrs/day / 1 hr/round trip,load,unload) X (.25 tons per trip) X 14 days] = 10 trucks and drivers X 1.5 (contingency) = 15 trucks and drivers.
-4 trucks + 10-15 men to supply water, food and other logistical requirements
Total = 19-20 trucks, 90 men working continuously for two weeks to "loot" facility.
Bottom line this operation would take the resources of AN ENTIRE COMPANY (approx. 100 men) OVER TWO WEEKS, good Intel to know exactly where the "right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching huge steel doors and concrete of an ASP.And all of this would have to be done in an area with numerous intel overflights that would be looking for exactly this kind of activity in the combat zone, and not get noticed at all.

It Would Be One Hell of An Operation For a Looter!

2004-10-26T13:55:00.000-05:00

A reader of the Kerry Spot provides an interesting perspective on what it would take for a "band of looters" to run off with the RDX and HMX in question:

Impact quote:

A key point is that this is not dense stuff, where you can get a lot of weight into a small vehicle. If this was really in its raw form, it is white powder, like cornstarch or a light powdered sugar (NOT granulated sugar). Blow on it and it flies in the breeze- the stories I've seen haven't said much about what form it was in, but you would want it to be relatively raw so you could form it into main charges for artillery, etc. They don't pour granules into shells, it is mixed with binders and melted sonit will take a shape. You can't be a nice terrorist, happen by, stick some in your pocket, and run away while the US Army isn't looking- it isn't "plastic" (like, say, comp C4, which is a plastic matrix impregnated with HE, thus has a lot of filler to make it shapeable). The kinds of trucks you would need to haul it are like grain hoppers, and lots of them. You can't stack it on pallets. That is why the nonsense about vandals running off with the stuff is just that nonsense.

Yes, I can see it now.... a gang of looters (who just happen to be terrorists) find a large stash of raw RDX and HMX in a building filled with conventional (and far easier to move) weapons (either between the time the 101st and another US military unit enters the area or after the 101st secures the area) and runs off, locates 40 or so "grain hoppers", returns to the building and takes off with the RDX and HMX. Yep, sounds plausible to me. But then again I just watched Fahrenheit 911, so anything is believable after watching that piece of propaganda.

And Another Thing...

2004-10-26T13:24:00.000-05:00

Even if you are willing to believe that the US Army willingly allowed powerful explosives to be "looted" right out from under their noses, The Belmont Club does a fairly good job putting the whole thing in the proper perspective.

Impact quote:

The withdrawal of enemy resources into safe havens was the subject of Belmont Club's War Plan Orange. In this context, the loss of 380 tons of RDX is similar to worrying about a toothache after being diagnosed with AIDS and Ebola. Some 600,000 tons of explosive are said to have been dispersed throughout Iraq prior to the conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The loss of the RDX is serious, but in the overall scheme of things, one of the least worries. But it provides indirect confirmation of the preemptive dispersal of war materiel by the Saddam regime while the US was trying to negotiate UN permission to topple him for six months, compounded by Turkey's refusal to allow the 4ID to attack south into the Sunni Triangle.

Debunking The Talking Points...

2004-10-26T13:07:00.000-05:00

The goof that is Josh Marshall gets debunked by his own post. The dufus posts an interview with the NBC producer that was with the 101st at the time they entered al Qaqaa.

Relevant point:

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

So, how are those "looters" supposed to get into the facility exactly if the roads were cut off? I guess, we will just have to wait for the Michael Moore/Josh Marshall lemmings to spin a yarn about that one now won't we.

And The Plot Gets Thicker...

2004-10-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

Drudge is reporting that CBS' 60 Minutes planned on running a story about the "missing explosives" on Sunday night, only 24 hours before the election. Apparently, they scrapped the idea after the NYT beat them to the repackaged story.

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing
explosives story.The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60
MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... ". The tip
was received last Wednesday."

I guess CBS' line of thinking is: "if you can't nail the President the first time with a dubious story, try, try again."

Not so fast, my friend...

2004-10-26T10:05:00.000-05:00

Is the media and JC Media Watch being spun by the administration in connection with the loss of all those explosives in Iraq? After all, didn't our friends in the Iraqi interim government originally claim to the IEAE the explosives were looted in April, 2003 due to a lack of security? In addition, the LA Times notes

...Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons.

"You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night," said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad.

Not so fast my friend, indeed...

NBC News: NYT "Explosives" Articles is BS

2004-10-25T23:03:00.000-05:00

NBC News is reporting tonight that the central premise of the New York Times story concerning the missing HMX and RDX is severely flawed. Apparently, NBC News has was embedded with the 101st Airborne when the weapons site in question was found and the explosives were already missing when they got there.

Impact quote from Drudge:

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives
were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to inform readers how the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing when troops first arrived.

The TIMES left the impression the weapons site had been looted since Iraq
has been under US control.

Who is doing the reporting for the NYT? Michael Moore?

It is clear to everyone now that, with a week to go until the elections, both the NYT and the Washington Post are pulling out all the stops to set up John Kerry's daily talking points. Yesterday with the NYT "explosives" story - which they are following up on in today's edition with a front page piece, and today with the Post story about how the administration will be asking for $70 billion more for Iraq in January. Interesting how all these scoops fall into the laps of these fine papers the week before the election, isn't it?

If True It Would Have Been a Heck of a Story...

2004-10-25T16:29:00.000-05:00

Today's Washington Post contained the following "correction" to a story that appeared about a week ago on the goings on at a Republican barbeque during the last Presidential debate.

In the Oct. 17 Sunday Source, the "Gatherings" story described a Republican barbecue held to watch a presidential debate. The item reported "the possibly unprecedented occurrence of a young woman in a cowboy hat pretending to make out with a poster of Dick Cheney." The item should have explained that the woman was asked to pose with the vice president's picture by the photographer working for The Washington Post. The woman also did not pretend to "make out" with the picture; at the photographer's suggestion, she pretended to blow a kiss at it. The item should have explained that the party was hosted in response to a request from The Post, which discussed the decorations and recipes with the host and agreed to reimburse the cost of recipe ingredients.

Given the depth and scope of this "correction", you have to wonder what part of the original story was actually true?

I will leave that up to you.

Evading Iraq?

2004-10-24T14:14:00.000-05:00

Is John Kerry looking to evade tough questions on how he would handle Iraq?

Washington Post reporter/author Bob Woodward thinks so. In today's Post Woodward writes:

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."

In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

The Guardian Strikes Again

2004-10-23T14:35:00.000-05:00

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse at the London Guardian... it does. Now it looks as of they are calling for Bush's assassination if he wins re-election.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

What's next? The Guardian putting a "contract" out on Bush's life? It looks like they have come pretty close already.

What's In The Water At MSNBC?

2004-10-23T08:39:00.000-05:00

First it was Chris Matthews ( who went bizerk on Michelle Malkin, challenged Zell Miller to a dual and berated Ben Ginsberg on live television over a point that turned out to be inaccurate), now its Lawrence O'Donnell's turn to "lose it" on MSNBC.

In case you missed last night's Scarborough Country, you missed yet another melt-down by a left-leaning MSNBC political analyst. During the show, which was guest hosted by Pat Buchanan, O'Donnell was debating Swift Boat head John O'Neill over the impact the Swift Boat ads are having on the upcoming election. To say that O'Donnell wasn't satisfied with O'Neill's answers would be an understatement. To be fair to O'Neill, it would be hard to characterize O'Donnell as being unsatisfied with O'Neill's answers because that would assume that O'Donnell gave O'Neill enough time to answer a question.

Instead of quietly sitting back and listening to O'Neill's response to a rather pointed question by Buchanan, O'Donnell started to yell "LIAR" and "CREEP" over and over like a guy with Tourette syndrome on speed. It was really an unbelievable experience. Check out the video yourself here.

Like Matthews, O'Donnell is starting to amass a strong resume to support his "Liberal Loon of the Year" candidacy.

Last week, once again on Scarborough Country, O'Donnell let loose on George Bush and the role of faith in his Presidency.

O'DONNELL: George Bush's God is a very strange God. This is a God who wants everyone to be free. That's a very, very peculiarly frustrated God. That is a God that has been apparently frustrated for centuries in George Bush's imagination.
BUCHANAN: Ever since the Garden of Eden.
O'DONNELL: Well, this is also a God who gives the gift of freedom. He says that's a gift from the almighty, that the Afghan people got this gift from the almighty this year. What was George Bush's God doing to those people up to now? You see, that's the problem with this. For very simpleminded religious people, that stuff works.

Don't look for O'Donnell to chair John Kerry's Evangelical outreach program anytime soon.

Then there was O'Donnell's appearance on the 10/1/04 McLaughlin Group:

MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what they feel.

MR. BLANKLEY: I don't --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me finish.

MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care what they feel about the truth of this war. If John Kerry thinks this war is a mistake and if the United States of America elects him president, the troops are going to have to live with that. And they know better than anyone else whether it was a mistake or not.

MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief should not undermine the troops

MR. O'DONNELL: He's not undermining anything.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want to make a point here?

MR. BUCHANAN: He'd demoralize them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, the human..

MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized. They have to go to war and be prepared --
MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief does care.

MR. O'DONNELL: -- to live with the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it's right or wrong.

O'Donnell can forget about getting a job at the Defense Department in a future Kerry administration. At the rate he's going O'Donnell better hope that his on-air antics impress the guys at MSNBC, because he's well on his way toward insulting virtually every voting block in the US electorate.

Stolen Honor Airs Tonight

2004-10-22T17:20:00.000-05:00

Sinclair broadcasts its program centered around "Stolen Honor" tonight. A station listing can be found here.

The Guardian Raises The White Flag

2004-10-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

The London Guardian has called a halt to its pro-Kerry letter writing campaign after receiving a less than warm reception from the plan's intended audience. Apparently, not everyone in Clark County, Ohio (the target of the Guardian's plan to flood the area with letters from Guardian readers urging them to vote for Kerry) was too happy with the advice from across the pond. In fact, it sounds like it was doing more harm than good.

There had been mounting evidence that urging foreigners to send anti-Bush letters to Clark County - an isolated slice of the rural mid-West - was only hurting Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.
One senior local politician, speaking off the record to avoid offending his neighbours,
said: "They picked the wrong county for many reasons. One is, we're very parochial. When people talk about The Guardian of London, they think you mean London, Ohio, which is in the next-door county. Another is, we have some issues with literacy round here."
Mr Katz acknowledged that an ever-growing number of Democrats, among them Sharon Manitta, the spokesman in Britain for Democrats Abroad, tried warning The Guardian: "This will certainly garner more votes for George Bush."

Somehow, I don't see the Kerry campaign approving of this stunt but the way she's been going lately, it does sound like something Teresa might dream up.

Darn! The O'Reilly Fun Might Be Over...

2004-10-22T14:26:00.000-05:00

Before it ever began.

Drudge and Celebrity Justice are reporting that the two sides in the O'Reilly sexual harassment suit are talking settlement. This will, no doubt, come as a disappointment to those of us that were looking forward to a "steamy" trial complete with audio tapes of O'Reilly talking about showers, luffas and vibrators.

Let's face it, with the Peterson trial about to go to the jury, celebrity trial junkies are desperately looking for a "fix" to tide them over until the M.J. trial starts next year.

Unexpected Review

2004-10-21T16:50:00.000-05:00

Maybe Sinclair wasn't just interested in politics when it decided to run the anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor". According to the New York Times, the film is "must see TV":

"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

The Numbers Game

2004-10-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

Why is there seemingly such a difference between polling results from different organizations? Turns out its not just due to "party identification." Apparently, some polling organizations are using different "screens" this year to determine "likely voters". This phenomenon was highlighted in yesterday's Harris poll results which showed Bush +8 using the traditional "likely voter" screen but +2 using the new definition.

Gary Daley does a great job explaining the various polling strategies and why they may behind the wide variances in the polls.

I Missed a Whopper!

2004-10-20T22:50:00.000-05:00

In my utter amazement at Jimmy Carter characterizing the US Revolution as "unnecessary" on "Hardball" earlier this week (see comment below), I missed what perhaps was the former President's biggest whopper:

"Well, one parallel (with the Iraq War) is that the Revolutionary War more than any other war until recently has been the most bloody war we've fought."

Huh? Did I miss something in history class?

A few facts that may have escaped the former President:

US Combat Deaths by War: Revolutionary War: 4,435; War of 1812: 2,260; Civil War (including both sides): 184,594; World War I: 53,513; World War II: 292,131; Korea: 33,651; Vietnam: 47,369; Iraq (currently a little over 1,000).

Not even close Mr. President. You are off by half even if you are comparing it to the War of 1812.

For more, check out Powerline where they have done a pretty good job fisking Carter's Hardball appearance.

Misleading "Endorsement"

2004-10-20T21:00:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press ran a rather misleading story today with the following headline: "Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran."

Now if this were true, this would be a rather remarkable story. A leader of one the countries that makes up Bush's "Axle of Evil" endorsing Bush for re-election! One problem... the headline is highly misleading. No where in the story does Hassan Rowhani, head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, actually "endorse" Bush for anything.

The closest he comes is the following quote:

We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television
in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a
history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights
issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

Problem with the AP report is that it excluded a rather critical quote from the Rowhani interview that appeared in a Turkish Press story:

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

That last quote kind "waters-down" the "endorsement" angle that the AP was kind trying to push doesn't?

Are Alternate Covers Available in Other Regions of the Country?

2004-10-20T19:56:00.000-05:00

I would imagine not. Somehow I just can't see the Village Voice coming out with a seperate "Kerry as Frankenstein" edition geared to its conservative audience in the south.

Well Yes, Peter, We Do

2004-10-20T10:41:00.000-05:00

ABC News anchor Peter Jennings made this astonishing admission while appearing on a Kansas City TV newscast:

"I'm a little concerned about this notion everybody wants us to be objective," Jennings said.
Jennings said that everyone -- even journalists -- have points of view through which they filter their perception of the news. It could be race, sex or income. But, he said, reporters are ideally trained to be as objective as possible.
"And when we don't think we can be fully objective, to be fair," the anchorman said.

I understand what he was trying to get at, but he must realize how comments like this will be twisted by partisans on both sides to back up their claims that "the press is out to get them." Is he really this clueless?

I'll Take "Unnecessary Wars" For $500 Alex

2004-10-19T18:43:00.000-05:00

Answer: This war is considered by former President Jimmy Carter to be the first "unnecessary" war in US history.

Question: What is the Revolution?

Yep. That's how the former President feels about it. Carter made these comments on last night's Hardball show. Amazing how Chris Matthews can illicit bizarre comments out of people without even trying. Just goes to show you, I blind squirrel can find a nut every once in while.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about this is going to cause some trouble with people but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we've fought. I think another
parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial's really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way. I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who quite different from them at the time.

I know the guy is getting old and considers himself more of an "egg-head" than a politician at this point in his life, but seriously, some of the things that been coming out his mouth recently blow my mind. First his "blessing" of the Venezuelan election without even looking at any of the returns and now this. Come on Jimmy, its getting kind of sad to think that history might start to view your brother Billy as being the "sane" one in the family.

Right-Wing Blogosphere: Get a Clue

2004-10-19T17:18:00.000-05:00

The leader of the right-wing blogosphere, Instapundit, approvingly links to and quotes from an interview with an "Economics Nobelist," who advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis on economic policy, bashing John Kerry's plan to "roll back" Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and wonders why this expert's comments have not received more attention. Now, I can understand the pros and cons on both sides of this issue, but what really struck me was Instapundit's failure to note a representation by the Economics Nobelist that reveals how out of touch with reality the Bush Administration, its supporters and, apparently, certain right-wing members of the blogosphere, can be when it comes to the economy:

"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."

Just chew on that all you techies whose jobs have been outsourced to India, all you day laborers, all you chronically unemployed middle managers. What is your problem? Don't you know "it's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household?" It must be true! Instapundit cited it approvingly! If it is so easy for households to earn over $200,000, then why, according to the 2000 US Census I could find, see page 3, do only 2.9% of all American households earn over $200,000 per year? And John Kerry is clueless?

Hubris, indeed.

Contrary To Popular Belief...

2004-10-19T17:06:00.000-05:00

Sinclair will not be airing the anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor" in its entirety.

Are they bowing to public pressure? Perhaps. But in fairness the company has always maintained that it planed to create an entire show around the film.

Something else we may never know: what the ratings of the show would have been if nobody made a big deal about it in the beginning. My guess is that it they would have been much lower.

Its amazing how these protest groups never learn: by protesting loudly they shine a light on the issue that they are protesting against, thereby giving the issue far more attention than it would have it they had said nothing. Seems rather counter-productive, but these protest groups seem to fall into the same trap every time.

A Rethinking of Their Position At the Note?

2004-10-18T20:28:00.000-05:00

One week after an internal ABC memo authored by ABC "The Note" editor Mark Halperin, which appeared to claim that the Bush campaign was relying on deliberate misstatements and misrepresentations to a much greater degree than the Kerry campaign, was leaked to the press, Halperin and the folks at The Note appear to have changed their tune.

In their column today, The Note rips the Kerry campaign and makes the following the statement along the way:

"The president's campaign continues to try to win by distorting, taking things out of context, and making purposeful misstatements about Kerry's record and statements. Kerry's campaign is now doing many of the same things. Both campaigns should expect equally aggressive reporting on misrepresentations.

Of course, it's up to the president and Senator Kerry to defend themselves. But with all of these allegations flying on both sides of the fence, it goes without saying that the stakes are very high for the country and the campaigns and the media's responsibilities are quite grave for these last two weeks.
The press has the responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest. That's why unbiased vigilance is required every day, the rest of the way, for both sides. Further, the press cannot be afraid to point out when one campaign is more aggressively misrepresenting the facts than the other, even when charges of "unbalanced press coverage" come flying in from partisan observers."

What a difference a week makes, huh?

Another Example of Anti-Semitism in the European Press

2004-10-18T20:10:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs has posted a story that provides yet another example of how pervasive anti-semitism really is in the European press. Apparently, the head of Radio France Internationale (the French equivalent of the BCC), Alain Menargues, was forced to resign after making the following statement on a right-wing Catholic radio station:

“I was very shocked by the wall. Read Leviticus in the Torah. What is it about? Separation between pure and impure. To pray, a Jew must be pure and whatever comes in the way of this purity must be separated. Where was the first ghetto? It was in Venice. And who built it? It was the Jews themselves in order to be separated from the rest. After that, Europe put them in ghettos.”

Unfortunately, this was not the first time Menargues has made inflammatory remarks relating to Jews and/or Israel. Just last month he made the following comment:

“You say Israel is a democratic state? Let me also say Israel is a racist state”.

Anyone that thinks that these kind of comments are isolated incidents in Europe (or France in particular) are kidding themselves. Anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe to the point where ideas like those cited above not necessarily out of the mainstream in the European media. The level of anti-semitism in Europe is one of the great under-reported stories of the past decade.

At Least You Know Where He Stands...

2004-10-18T19:19:00.000-05:00

That's about the best you can say for MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan's rather back-handed "endorsement" of President Bush for reelection.

Impact quote:

If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.

Not the kind of "endorsement" that you will find in Bush campaign literature anytime soon.

The Reason Why Democrats Expect a Huge Turnout!

2004-10-18T08:39:00.000-05:00

ABC News is reporting that more Republicans than Democrats (by a 56% to 47% margin) report that they are "very satisfied" with their sex lives. Maybe this is why Democrats are so conflident that they will be able to turn their people out in greater numbers on election day. Democrats will have nothing to do, while Republicans will be too busy to get out of bed!

The NYT Offers More Than Just Endorsements

2004-10-17T23:08:00.000-05:00

Did the New York Times run a story in its Sunday magazine that contains a made-up quote?

The Bush campaign thinks so.

The Kerry campaign has a launched a series of TV ads this weekend centered upon an alleged statement by the President (that appeared in a NYT Sunday magazine article) indicating that he plans to go all out in a second term to "privatize" Social Security. The Bush campaign claims the quote was "made up." Blogger Wizbang makes a compelling case that they may be right.

Is Jon Stewart Losing It?

2004-10-17T20:26:00.000-05:00

Or is it just a publicity stunt?

Drudge has published part of a transcript from Daily Show host Jon Stewart's most recent appearance on CNN's Crossfire. According to Drudge, CNN producers are busy trying to "clean up" Stewart's performance on the show, which has been described as "belligerent."

Apparently, Stewart got into a rather heated exchange with Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson. An example of one of Stewart/Carlson's exchanges:

During the live program, Stewart slammed host Tucker Carlson: "You're as big a
dick on your show as you are on any show."

Drudge leads his story with the news that Daily Show ratings have dipped 7% in September, despite heavy promotion from Stewart in support of his recently published book.

Not sure if Stewart's antics were a lame attempt at self promotion or whether he thought he was being "entertaining" but I'm sure his "act" (whatever the motivation) didn't go down well with CBS executives who have been rumored to be looking at Stewart to replace David Letterman if/when the talk show host decides to retire.

Just How Credible Are Snap Polls?

2004-10-15T19:39:00.000-05:00

Much has been made in the MSM over the past couple of days about a few post-debate "snap-polls" that showed (in one case) John Kerry the clear winner of the third debate. This may well end up being true, but one only has to go back to the first Bush/Gore debate of 2000 for an example of where the post-debate "snap polls" got it wrong.

From an October 5, 2000 Reuters story on the aftermath of the first Bush/Gore debate:

Several snap polls after the debate found most people thought Mr. Gore had won
the contest, their first of three this month.
CBS had Mr. Gore winning 56% to 42%; USA Today/CNN put him at 48% to 41%, while at ABC he was 42% to 39%.
Newspapers also gave him the edge. The Los Angeles Times said he was a "forceful presidential debater" who strived to "show himself a man of principle and conviction," while The Washington Post noted he successfully argued the "case against Bush ... without seeming overbearing."
The New York Times reported Mr. Gore "seemed determined to keep a pleasant demeanor [and] often appeared calm."

History will show that this analysis (especially that of the NYT) to be horribly wrong. Gore's heaving sighing and "rolling of the eyes" quickly became the story of the debate not Gore's stronger debating skills. My guess is that if you asked those polled in 2000 just 24-hours after the debate, when the focus on Gore's antics was the most intense, and after these people had a chance to discuss the debate with family, friends and neighbors, their choice on who won or lost may have been different. Is history repeating itself in 2004? Was Kerry's "Mary Comment" something that he will live to regret? Only time will tell, but it would be wise for those who have been celebrating Kerry's debate victory in the "snap poll" to wait until this "Mary issue" plays itself out.

Nice Try ABC...

2004-10-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

Other than ardent Kerry supports and those out there that are naive enough to believe that the MSM is actually "fair and balanced", looks like not too many people were impressed with Nightline's shill piece on Kerry's Vietnam record. Justoneminute has a good take on this.

I am on record saying that I could give a crap about either Kerry or Bush's Vietnam record. I think the issue has absolutely ZERO relevance to the issues facing the country today. What I think is interesting is how partisans on BOTH sides are falling over themselves to frame the issue in the best possible light to their candidate. What is even more amazing is how easy it has been for the partisans to lure the MSM into the issue to do their bidding. First it was CBS, next it was Sinclair Broadcasting and now its ABC. Look, these networks have every right to broadcast whatever they want to, regardless of how stupid it might be. And we, as a public, have every right to call them on it. Amazing how partisans on both sides don't seem to understand this fact.

Welcome to the Spin Zone

2004-10-15T10:13:00.000-05:00

I was holding off commenting on the Bill O'Reilly situation until I had a chance to read through BOTH complaints in the case and watch some of O'Reilly's accuser's (Andrea Mackris) performances on the morning shows. Some initial thoughts.

Mackris and her lawyer both faired poorly on the morning shows. They were both particularly bad on the Today Show where a clearly nervous Mackris (she was being interviewed by Lester Holt after all!) had her somewhat slimy lawyer respond to virtually every question. I'm not sure she helped her case much by appearing on these shows as she appeared both nervous and shifty when responding to direct questions.

If what Mackris claims in her complaint turns out to be true, $60 million seems to be a bit excessive. She did, after all, return to work at Fox AFTER many of the alleged incidents took place. Apparently she sent an email to a friend just weeks before she filed the case telling the friend how much she loved working for Fox. She wasn't fired or demoted nor does she allege that any of this alleged activity occurred during the course of her employment (the calls were made after hours). All of this raises the question of why $60 million in damages. Look, I understand the legal process, you need to come in high when you ask for damages with the intention of settling for much less. But $60 million? For this alleged activity? By asking for that much it kind of plays into the hands of O'Reilly when he argues that it is nothing more than a "shake-down."

The insertion of President Bush and the Republican party in the complaint was completely unnecessary and counter-productive. They (Mackris and her lawyers) must have known how O'Reilly was going to play this and adding Bush to their complaint only gives O'Reilly more ammunition. Now O'Reilly can play this as not only a personal smear but a political one. Maybe it is, but it would have been better for the plaintiff to let the charges speak for themselves and keep the politics out of it.

O'Reilly's extortion complaint was nothing more than a PR stunt and a good one at that. By being first out of the gate with his own law suit he was able (at least to some extent) to paint his accuser as a money seeking ingrate. The suit itself has no merit but at least he was able to go on the offensive at the start before having to play damage control.
After reading through Mackris' complaint I am convinced that she has an audio tape of at least some of the alleged "calls." A couple of the calls are described in such detail that she either has a great memory, a great imagination or she taped the conversations. I am going with the latter. If, as I suspect this is the case, O'Reilly is dead meat.
Finally, I am struck by the fact that O'Reilly hasn't yet explicitly DENIED that the alleged events took place. I know he has probably been told by his lawyers not to talk about details of the case. But that didn't stop O'Reilly from leading his Wednesday show with the story. During his "Talking Points Memo" segment he made the following statement:

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly... thanks for watching us tonight... we are living in treacherous times. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. Just about every famous person I know has been threatened and worked over by somebody. Fame makes you a target... it is something that has to be taken seriously. As I've mentioned before, I have received many threats over the years... everything from death letters to some guy running around the country offering people $25 thousand to signaffidavits accusing me of whatever. The lawyers here at Fox News have been great in dealing with these situations... but there comes a time when enough's enough.... and so this morning I had to file a lawsuit against some people who are demanding $60 million, or they will "punish me and Fox News." $60 million. I really can't say anything else. I don't want to waste your time with this... the justice system has the case, we'll see what happens. But in the end, this is all about hurting me and the Fox News Channel. And that's the memo.

Notice not one DENIAL? Notice how he didn't use even a generic throw-away denial like "the allegations are false" or "the claims are not true."? When given a second chance the next day on the "Regis and Kelley Show" O'Reilly again failed to deny the underlying charges. This is his right and he is fully entitled to not say anything. But in today's 24-hour electronic media age the silence on his part can be more than deafening, it could lead people to believe that the charges are true.

Finally, if proven true the charges against O'Reilly could be fatal blow to a guy that has made a fortune over the last decade being a moralistic blow-hard. Much of his popularity has been built on his self-professed "common-man" moralism. Now many of us see through this shtick but the fact remains that for millions of viewers every night O'Reilly remains the "voice of the common man" or a guy that is "looking out for you." If these charges turn out to be true (or maybe even substantially true) O'Reilly's facade will have been pierced. He will have been exposed as nothing more than a slimy middle-aged guy that uses his position and power to take advantage of a female subordinate. I am not naive enough to think for one moment that he can't come back from all this. After all, there are still millions of people out there that still think that OJ didn't do it or think that Michael Jackson should be up for the "Babysitter of the Year" award. O'Reilly will probably still have legions of loyal fans, but his reign as "King of Cable News" may be over.

And People Complain About Sinclair...

2004-10-14T13:43:00.000-05:00

Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to air the anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor" is surely a controversial one. The right-leaning company has a history of supporting Republican candidates and President Bush in particular. But Sinclair's political broadcasting bias pails in comparison to what you will find over at the Sundance Channel.

Just a short sample of what you might find on the Robert Redford led channel:

The Al Franken Show: The three people that listen to this moron now have a place to watch as they listen.
UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, directed by Robert Greenwald - Filmmaker Robert Greenwald, creator of the 2000 election expose Unprecedented, considers the Bush administration's case for the Iraq War and finds among the alarmist rhetoric little supporting evidence to back it up. Revealing news clips and interviews with intelligence veterans - including Scott Ritter, Clare Short and Joseph Wilson - make the case that the Bush administration misled the world with dubious statements, empty innuendoes and unchallenged untruths. "A devastating analysis" - Senator Edward Kennedy. TVPG (AC) Stereo
NATIONAL ANTHEM: INSIDE THE VOTE FOR CHANGE CONCERT TOUR - Albert Maysles and D.A. Pennebaker have long been considered two of America's most influential documentary filmmakers. In the early 60s, Maysles and Pennebaker were part of documentary movement called direct cinema, which used the new technology of portable cameras to capture life as it unfolded. This technique proved essential in capturing America's burgeoning counter culture, especially as it related to music. In 1967, D.A. Pennebaker shadowed a relatively unknown folk singer by the name of Bob Dylan during a three week concert tour of England for his documentary DON'T LOOK BACK. Three years later, in GIMME SHELTER, Albert Maysles and his late brother David captured the violent reality of the Rolling Stones ill-fated concert at Altamont Speedway. In the tradition of these legendary works, Maysles and Pennebaker unite to take America's social pulse with a new documentary project, "National Anthem: Inside the Vote for Change Concert Tour." This film marks their first collaboration in forty years. Conceived by a loose coalition of musicians six months ago, "Vote for Change" is a multi-city, multi-artist swing-state tour taking place in early October. The "National Anthem" special captures this pivotal moment in US history through informal footage of musicians (including Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews Band, Dixie Chicks, and R.E.M) and their audiences in intimate moments from the tour. The documentary will be followed by a live broadcast of the final "Vote for Change" concert in Washington D.C.
UNPRECEDENTED: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONdirected by Richard Ray Perez and Joan Sekler - As the pundits said repeatedly on election night 2000, "It all comes down to Florida." However, as documented in this film by Joan Sekler and Richard Ray Perez, incompetence and petty corruption were altering the final tally from the moment the Sunshine State's polls opened. Citing a suspicious pattern of irregularities, injustices and purges of African Americans from the voter records, the filmmakers present a provocative piece of advocacy journalism that -- contrary to suggestions to "just get over it" -- prompts outrage. TVG CCAP/Stereo

These were just some of the more blatantly one-sided films/shows that will be airing on the network over the next couple days. Yes, its cable but this channel lineup actually makes Fox News look "fair and balanced."

Please Note: To those that have a difficulty gaining a grip on the facts.... The Sundance Channel is its own cable channel and thus doesn't have to "force" anyone to do anything because it owns the outlet that it is using to show these programs. This is much like.... Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns the stations that will be airing the anti-Kerry piece. Thus, Sinclair really isn't "forcing" its stations to carry the film anymore than Sundance is "forcing" its programming department to run the anti-Bush films. To claim otherwise is an exaggeration (something Kerry supporters should know something about). The only difference between the two is that Sinclair broadcasts "over the air" and thus falls under FCC regulation.

Whether Sinclair falls under FCC regulations really isn't the issue here. Its all about what Sinclair is going to show. Liberals are upset that the film paints Kerry in an unfavorable light (much like Conservatives were upset about Fahrenheit 911) and want the government to step in and stop the airing of the program. Apparently, to some people 1st Amendment rights only guarantee thoughts and opinions that go in one direction. The Sundance Channel airing one anti-Bush film after another is a fine exercise in 1st Amendment rights. But if a right-leaning broadcasting network dares to air an anti-Kerry program (along with giving Kerry time to respond), all hell breaks out. If the shoe were on the other foot you can bet the Conservatives would be acting in a like matter. That doesn't make any of this right its just a fact of life in today's political climate.

Please Note II: I am going to try to explain this very carefully for those out there that are either too partisan to understand or too stupid to comprehend simple facts. Sinclair Broadcasting "owns" all the channels that will be airing "Stolen Honor." As such, Sinclair is NOT forcing their "affiliates" to do anything. This would be in contrast to the major networks (like ABC, NBC or CBS) which actually own very few of its "affiliates" (mostly in major markets). Thus if ABC required that all of its affiliates show a particular program they would, in fact, be FORCING the affiliates that they DO NOT OWN to run the show. That is in clear contrast to the situation at Sinclair.

JC Media Watch 1, Partisan Talking Point Spin 0.

Back From the "Where Are You Now File"

2004-10-14T08:45:00.000-05:00

As bad as MSNBC's coverage has been so far this election season, the least you can say for them is that they are consistent. They are consistently worse every time out. The good news for MSNBC, however, is that they finally may have hit bottom. That's the best thing one can say about their inexplicable decision to put "comedian" (and I use this term loosely) Kathy Griffin on the air last night during their post debate coverage.

Griffin was billed as a comedian that, presumably, was going to provided some light-hearted, off-beat analysis of the just concluded debate. Instead she went on for what seemed like a 5 minute rant about how hypocritical it was for Republicans to be "outraged" by John Kerry's reference to Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. I'm not exactly sure that was what MSNBC wanted when they put Griffin on the air but the fact that she wasn't on the panel when the network came back from commercial break gives you some clue to the answer to that question. In the end it was yet another complete disaster for a network that doesn't need to give what few viewers that they have any more reasons to switch the channel.

Beyond Griffin's rant, the bigger question is why was she on the show at all? Has MSNBC turned its political coverage into Fox's (which never misses an opportunity to provide viewers with camera shots of its "stars" enjoying whatever sporting event the network is covering) baseball coverage? This assumes of course that Griffin actually has something to promote and that, in turn, assumes that she has found another gig on TV. Somehow I find this hard to believe (despite her excellent work in "Suddenly Susan" and "Beethoven's 5th").

Instead, I think MSNBC was unwittingly duped into providing Griffin with an "on-air" audition for Al Frankin's fledgling Air America radio network. Griffin's performance last night no doubt made a strong impression. I am confident that her effort earned her a place on the radio network's roster of out of work comedians desperately looking for something to do. I hear the mid-night to 5am time slot is open. Good luck Kathy!

The Sinclair Standard

2004-10-14T08:23:00.000-05:00

The recent announcement by Sinclair Broadcasting that it has decided to air the anti-Kerry "documentary" Stolen Honor during the week before the election has sent the MSM into a tizzy. The very thought of a broadcasting network of using the "public airwaves" to push it's political agenda is just shocking and worse un-American.

I can see their point to some degree. I mean, can you imagine what the "right" would say if it was revealed that a major network broadcasted a story (that it had worked on for five years) suggesting that a sitting President up for re-election had lied repeatedly about his prior military service and that the story was based on clearly forged documents? Or what would happen if a publicly funded network decided to air a biographical fluff piece on a Presidential candidate disguised as broadcast journalism the night before the last of three Presidential debates? Oh wait... that did happen. Check that.

If anyone doesn't think that the all out war that is currently going on between "right" and "left" media outlets in this country isn't one of the great unreported stories of this election season, they are missing something huge.

Stories You May Have Missed III

2004-10-12T08:58:00.000-05:00

File this under "You Could See This Coming". A week after right-leaning bloggers went nuts over the idea that John Kerry may have used a "cheat sheet" during the first debate in Miami, now the left-leaning bloggers are running wild over the idea that Bush was "wired" for sound during the second debate.

My take is that both stories are equally ridiculous. Richard Roeper ( himself no fan of Bush) has it right in today's Chicago Sun-Times when he writes:

It's come to this. The Bush-bashers are getting just as crazy with the conspiracy theories as the Bill and Hillary haters.
For a certain percentage of Bush-bashers, it's just not intellectually or emotionally satisfying to believe the president is incompetent, arrogant, small-minded. Darker forces must be at work!

These debate conspiracy theorists are really missing the point. Debates don't really have winners or losers. What they do have are results that either help or hurt each candidate. After the first debate there can be no question that Kerry help himself with his performance by looking and sounding "presidential". After the second debate, its probably also fair to conclude that Bush helped himself by looking awake and performing better than he did in the first debate.

Conclusions about who "won" a debate are essentially meaningless unless the debate "winner" can claim to have actually helped himself as a result of his "win." Take for example the aftermath of the first Bush/Gore debate in 2000. initial polls taken after the debate showed Gore the "winner" 48%-40%. But could anyone really argue that Gore "gained" anything from that debate? What people are going to remember from that debate isn't the debate points that Gore scored but rather his behavior on stage and the fact that Bush didn't come across as "as big a dope" as many of this critics claimed he was. Gore's campaign never truly recovered from that first debate and Bush was able grab a "lead" up to just before election day (until a little thing about a DUI hit the press.)

In the end, its not about debate points (which is conceivably why a candidate would be "wired" or use a cheat sheet) its about how the candidates get their points across and perform in front of the camera. No outside help in the world could have helped Bush during the first debate, unless of course, it was in the form of Karl Rover jumping on stage to yell in the President's ear: "WAKE UP!"

Stories You May Have Missed II

2004-10-12T08:36:00.000-05:00

Remember the old adage: "with friends like these who needs enemies"? John Kerry must be thinking that after reading this Sunday's story in the New York Times Magazine by Matt Bai. What conceivably was intended to be a fluff piece on Kerry's foreign policy credentials and philosophy has instead started a mini firestorm among right-leaning bloggers and given the Bush campaign an unintended Christmas present.

Impact quote:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

I have no idea whether Kerry intended for his thoughts to come out the way they did. Maybe he was being as inarticulate when describing his strategy toward preventing terror as he was when he tried to rationalize his vote on the $87 billion. Maybe this is how he really feels. Who knows? Either way, the impact could be as damaging as the $87 billion statement. The Bush campaign has already started to trot out its surrogates to attack Kerry on this issue (you should read former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani's response) and has unveiled a series of TV/Radio ads that center on the comment.

At the end of all this Kerry might be left muttering to himself: "I thought the Times was on my side!"

News You May Have Missed I

2004-10-12T08:18:00.000-05:00

Beyond the Afghan elections there were a couple of other news stories from this past weekend that somehow (shock!) escaped the notice of most of the MSM. The first such story is the victory by Iraq coalition partner John Howard in the Australian elections. You can only imagine the headlines in the US if Howard had lost to the ant-war Labor Party. Is there any question in anyone's mind that the US media would have covered the results of the Australian election as some sort of harbinger of things to come in November? Instead, with Howard's victory, we get stone silence.

Former National Review editor John O'Sullivan has an interesting take on the impact of the Australian elections in today's NY Post. O'Sullivan may take things a bit far in terms of the impact on US elections, but there can be no question that Howard's victory this weekend was greeted by sighs of relief at the White House.

Impact quote:

The result for America and the world is reassuring. Australia will continue to be led by a courageous and far-sighted friend of America. He will be a leader in the movement towards a more efficient and prosperous global economy, a leader in the resistance towards rule by unaccountable transnational elites in the U.N. and NGOs and a leader in the fight against Islamist terrorism.

Al Qaeda has received a serious setback, Kofi Annan a rebuke, France and Germany a disappointment and the media elites a slap in the face so stinging that outside Australia Howard's victory has been a non-story.

Spinning The News?

2004-10-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

This weekend the first democratic elections were held in Afghanistan in generations. You would think that an event of this magnitude, especially since the idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East has become such a central issue in the Presidential campaign, would result in some fairly positive media play. Add in the fact that the Taliban, which had vowed to wreck havoc on the elections, were a non-factor and you have something close to a modern miracle. But that's not quiet how the press played it. Most of the reporting that I came across (admittedly mostly radio coverage) reported a rather negative version of the story. Instead of reporting on the fact the elections came off without a major terrorist incident, the media played up the fact that most of the fringe Presidential candidates (that had almost no hope of winning) were threatening to boycott the final results due to a voting irregularity stemming from the use of erasable ink with voting ballots.

Even after the UN monitoring team in Afghanistan preliminarily "certified" the voting process, the US media still failed to report on the story from a positive angle. Why? Who knows. But it will be interesting to see how the media covers the Afghan elections when the results are certified in a couple of weeks.

On a side note, I came across this rather humorous entry in the National Review concerning this very topic:

WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE about Afghan elections is "Afghan Election Disputed"
So, first elections in 3 millennia of tribal warfare and that is the headline.
Wonder what the Post headline would have been on July 5, 1776? City Hall bell cracked in Declaration celebration?

Different Polls Different Leaders

2004-10-11T09:51:00.000-05:00

Now that we are getting closer to election day, several polling organizations have started to publish daily tracking polls. These polls are basically the cumulative results of three days worth of polling. Rasmussen has been been publishing its tracking poll for months, but just this past week Zogby and ABC News/Washington Post have started to publish the results of their tracking polls. The results of which, couldn't be more different.

The Zogby poll currently has Kerry up 3, while the ABC/WP poll has Bush up 4 and the Rasmussen poll has Bush up 5. Which poll do you believe? If you ask partisans, they would no doubt argue the merits of whichever poll favored their candidate. In reality, however, its impossible to tell. Polling this year, more than any other year that I can remember, has been all over the place. Depending on your point of view, you could probably find a poll to back you up.
Maybe its the larger number of published polls or maybe its bias but, in my mind at least, I think it has more to do with polling methods.

This year for the first time, many polling organizations have stopped using party identification as a qualifier for polling illegibility. In the past, almost all polling organizations looked to balance their polling results by including responses from a mix of respondents that claimed party affiliation that closely mirrored the party affiliation of those that voted in the previous elections. In other words, in the 2000 election, if exit polls showed that 39% of those voting identified themselves as Democrats and 32% as Republicans, the pollsters would attempt to make sure that polls during the 2004 election cycle would reflect this balance. While many organizations still use this method (I believe Rasmussen, ABC News, and CBS still do), other pollsters (most notably Gallup and Newsweek) do not.

Organizations that have stopped using party identification as a qualifier claim that party identification is no longer relevant because its has become less and less of a factor in voting trends over the past few election cycles and that party identification is an artificial and arbitrary qualifier that might not reflect the view of the voting public. I tend to discount the former but I can buy the latter argument. Just because 39% of the electorate in 2000 identified themselves as Democrat does not mean that 39% of the 2004 electorate will. Thus, I can see their point. But given the polarized nature of this election (at least as far as partisans go), not using party identification as a limiter could and has lead to widely differing results.

Take, for example, the Gallup polls released right after the Republican convention (you remember, the ones that the DNC charged were biased due to the fact that Mr. Gallup - who no longer runs the company - is an evangelical Christian) that showed Bush up 11-14 points. A look at the poll's "internals" revealed that the polling sample consisted of a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. More recent Gallup polls that have shown a closer race or a Kerry lead have consisted of a respondent mix of more Democrats than Republicans. Thus, if you believe as I do, that almost 100% of those that identify themselves as either Republicans or Democrats will vote for the corresponding Presidential candidate, polls that do not take into account party identification will be inherently skewed.

I am not saying that polls, such as Gallup or Newsweek, that don't use party identification as a limiting factor are unreliable, I am just making the point that in order to understand what drives the results of a particular poll you need to analyze the "internals" of each poll. In the end, Gallup may be right, this election could come down to which party can get their people out to the polls on election day. In this case party identification WILL matter. As far as these polls refecting the "mood" of the electorate at any particular point in time, however, I'm not sure how useful they are.

As an aside, if you haven't checked out RealClearPolitics.com before, you should. It is the best site I have found on the web that tracks poll numbers not only at the national level but also at the state level. The site consolidates poll results and provides a national "average" as well as offering a electoral map based on state by state poll results.

The Note Is Noted

2004-10-10T13:55:00.000-05:00

By now you probably have already heard about the internal ABC memo that was leaked to and ultimately published by Drudge. At first glance it appears to be a rather damning memo by Mark Halperin and depending how you view the MSM, further evidence of its inherent bias. I tend to view the memo as rather illuminating. At least the publication of the memo allows the public to view ABC's coverage with a more critical eye and place it in the proper context. I wonder if Fox News would be so kind to reveal its editorial tendencies?

The Argument

2004-10-08T10:59:00.000-05:00

Kausfiles has it right on this one. Bush makes this argument tonight he wins big, if not, and he continues to make inarticulate arguments to support the war he will lose. (hat tip to JC Media Watch Watch)

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future? (It wouldn't necessarily make the Iraq war prudent, but it would make Americans feel more comfortable about it than what Bush has been telling them.)

Update on Matthews Strikes Again

2004-10-08T08:28:00.001-05:00

From Fox News' Special Report last night came this little nugget concerning the Matthews' incident that I wrote about yesterday.

Matthews cites Dick Cheney from "Meet the Press" last September, when he said:
"If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Right after that, however, Cheney was asked if he meant that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Cheney replied, "I was careful not to say that. ... The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it's a global operation." Matthews never mentioned the followup question or the answer.

Good to see that Matthews didn't over-react for no apparent reason. In fairness, Fox has it only partially right on this one. Yes, Matthews' over-reaction was uncalled for but much of the blame should lie with MSNBC's "Truth Squad" which put the incomplete clip on the air in he first place. I thought the first part of the quote was vague and not necessarily a total contradiction of Cheney's debate claim but for NBC not to air the second part of the quote is unacceptable.

I didn't see all of Matthews' show last night so I don't know if he publicly apologized to Ben Ginsberg for berating him on the air for no reason. I did notice, however, that Ginsberg was sitting at the Hardball "panel" table so maybe they made nice off the air.

The WMD Spin

2004-10-07T09:22:00.000-05:00

Interesting take this morning from the guys at the Kerry Spot on the WMD spin that we will no doubt be hearing over the next couple of days. My take on it is that the "spin" we will be hearing from both sides completely misses the point. The issue really isn't whether Saddam had WMDs. Nor is it whether he had the intention to reconstitute his WMD program. The real issue is, now that we have deposed Saddam, are we going to be successful in rebuilding the country into a working democracy? Look, to quote a friend of mine, "what's done is done", we invaded Iraq, we deposed an awful dictator and now we are working (and in many cases fighting) to rebuild a country that was ravaged by years of war and corruption. This is should be what the argument is about: how do we win the peace. Hopefully both Bush and Kerry will deal with this topic in more detail over the coming weeks. As a country we need to and we need to develop a strategy for success. All this other stuff partisans on both sides are yelling about is nothing but unhelpful noise.

Matthews Strikes Again

2004-10-06T21:12:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I think I should rename this blog "The Chris Matthews Watch". Every time I watch the guy he gives me more material to work with. Last night was no different.

About an hour into his post debate analysis show Matthews' found himself laying into Republican "correspondent" Ben Ginsberg for what seemed like 10 minutes (in actuality it was probably 2 very uncomfortable minutes). Matthews was trying to ask Ginsberg about Cheney's claim during the debate that he never linked Saddam with 9/11. Cheney's debate statement appeared to contradict with an earlier statement of his that was aired minutes after the debate by MSNBC Truth Squad reporter Brian Williams (to be fair the statement wasn't a direct contradiction but that is for another time and another blog). Ginsberg, who is not a reporter but rather an out of work election lawyer (he was fired by the GOP after it was revealed that he dispensed some free legal advise to the Swift Boat guys) clearly didn't want to touch Matthews' question but Matthews kept at him asking him repeatedly how Cheney could have forgotten about his earlier statements. It got to the point where the obviously frustrated Matthews was actually yelling at the guy.

Now lets assume for a moment that Ginsberg isn't psychic and can't read Cheney's mind. If you make that rather safe assumption how on earth could Matthews expect Ginsberg to answer this question? Perhaps it was worth asking once on the chance that Ginsberg might have an opinion. But Matthews knew that, given Ginsberg's background, that he was never going to provide the kind of answer Matthews was looking for - unless, of course, Ginsberg never plans to work for the GOP again. The whole thing was ridiculous. Matthews knows the political game and he knows that political operatives like Ginsberg are never going to answer those types of questions if they hope to keep getting steady work in the future. Matthews knew this but he went after Ginsberg anyway. It was both unprofessional and immature. Sadly, I am not surprised by Matthews outburts anymore. I am just surprised that MAGNIFIES keeps letting him out of his studio cage to anchor live political coverage.

Out of Action

2004-10-06T20:31:00.000-05:00

I have been out of action the last couple of days. Late last month I was notified that I was eligible for a computer upgrade at work (the first in seven years). Obviously, given how old and out of date my old computer was I jumped at the chance to swap-out for a new computer. Yesterday I received a new Dell lap-top. That's the good news. The bad news is that it basically knocked me out of blogging (and work) action for almost two days. I am happy to report that I have most of the kinks worked out and I am now back and ready to torment the blogging world. Look for new posts tonight and more tomorrow morning.

Fox Slips Up

2004-10-04T19:30:00.000-05:00

Fox News, a network that loves to point out the deficiencies of other news organizations, has found itself in a little bit of trouble recently. First it published a story on its web site quoting a fictitious Socialist organization praising Kerry's performance after Thursday's debate and most recently it was forced to apologize for posting a story from "Campaign" Carl Cameron that used a number of bogus (and unflattering) quotes attributed to Kerry. To Fox's credit, the network quickly retracted both stories and apologized (something that CBS has yet to do), but given Fox's history of making light of other network's troubles I can imagine that there are more than a few newsrooms tonight enjoying Fox's current predicament.

Another Great Line From Tucker

2004-10-04T09:46:00.000-05:00

Tucker Carlson has been on a role lately: "No matter how you feel about Bush, watching him speak is difficult. It’s like watching a drunk man cross an icy street," - Tucker Carlson on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Another Reason to Trust the UN

2004-10-04T09:39:00.000-05:00

Heck, if you can't get Hamas to stop blowing up kids, put them to work at the UN! Makes sense to me.

The Dems Answer To Zell Miller?

2004-10-04T09:28:00.000-05:00

Somehow I can't see Lincoln Chafee giving a speech that includes the word "spit-ball", nor can I see him challenging a TV talk show host to a dual. Maybe we will see a Chafee vs. Miller "disloyalty Rumble" on Pay-Per-View sometime soon.

Bloggers On The Prowl...

2004-10-04T09:07:00.000-05:00

Fresh from their success over exposing the fake memo used by 60 Minutes, right-leaning bloggers are on the prowl for a fresh victim. This time they are taking on the issue of whether John Kerry used a "cheat sheet" during last Thursday's debate. Some bloggers claim to have video "proof" that Kerry pulled note cards out of his jacket pocket just before the debate started. This, of course would have been against the agreed upon debate rules. I have seen the video and to my eyes it looks pretty inconclusive. Either way, who cares? Kerry's use of notes still does not explain Bush's sleepy performance during the debate.

I watched portions of the debate again yesterday and I was struck, after a second viewing, how really poor the President's performance was. It wasn't just the repetitive answers, the slow responses or the agitated looks. It was the general feeling you got that Bush was in way over his head. My initial feeling that the debate was a draw was more a response to Kerry's vague and inconsistent answers. Kerry's responses were so bad to many of the questions that there is no doubt in my mind that a more skilled debater (i.e. Cheney) would have wiped the floor with Kerry (For example, I doubt seriously that the Vice President would have left Kerry's attempt to explain away his vote on the $87 billion go unanswered without a devastating response). The President, however, just continued to stammer on with his canned responses.

I get the feeling that the poll results we are seeing now are more a result of the public's response to Bush's performance than to anything that Kerry said. This leaves Bush with a huge opportunity this week. If he can come out Friday with a strong performance he could, perhaps, recapture the momentum. If, however, he comes out and is again perceived as outmatched by Kerry, things could start to get ugly. We will see but if Bush doesn't get it now, he never will.

All's Well In The Sudan!

2004-10-03T15:59:00.000-05:00

At least according to the sources cited in an article that appeared in today's London Guardian. Looks like all those stories about dead or starving people in the Sudan were just a bunch of hype. Who knew? Just another example of how useless the UN really is.

Shocking, Just Shocking

2004-10-03T14:06:00.000-05:00

The London Times is reporting that Saddam bribed UN Security Council members France and Russia through the UN Oil For Food program. I, for one, am shocked. Just shocked.

Kerry's Debate Bounce

2004-10-03T14:01:00.000-05:00

Newsweek's latest poll has Kerry up 2. Rassmussen has Bush up 4 (a number that has stayed rather steady over the past few weeks). It remains to be seen if this is a trend but it is clear that Kerry has gained momentum from last week's debate.

UPDATE: CNN is showing the race dead even. Kerry has the "Big Mo". I get the sense that if Bush tanks again this Friday, Kerry could start to pull away.

Kerry's Big Bounce

2004-10-03T13:57:00.000-05:00

Newsweek's latest poll has Kerry up 2. Rassmussen still has Bush up 4 (a number that has been rather steady over the past few weeks). It remains to be seen if this is a trend but it is becoming clear that Kerry has gained some momentum as the result of the debate.

Joe Wilson's Revenge?

2004-10-01T17:49:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the former ambassador was behind Robert Novak's fall!

Fox Is A Major Player

2004-10-01T17:42:00.000-05:00

Despite the best of efforts of the left and the MSM, Fox News continues to dominate the other cable news outlets when it comes to coverage of major political events. Almost 10 million views? Must all be Republicans.

A Chilling Thought

2004-10-01T16:56:00.000-05:00

First off, I admit to liking Mickey Kaus, he appears to be the same political leanings of JC Media Watch Watch. Second, I truly believe that bin Laden et al. actually wants a Bush victory in November since Bush is inflexible and is incompetently fighting the WOT. Therefore, it is tough for me to disagree with Kaus' suggestion that a terrorist attack may be forthcoming as a result of Bush losing last night's debate.

Where Is The Outrage?!

2004-10-01T16:33:00.000-05:00

While the right-wing blogosphere and JC Media Watch works itself up into a lather over CBS' fake National Guard memos and reporting on the alleged re-institution of draft e-mails, where is the outrage over

a. Fox News' website attributing ridiculously false quotes to Kerry. Journalist Josh Marshall has the details and the false quotes; and

b. GOP operatives posing as "undecided voters," scroll down here and here, and slamming Kerry in the media?

There is none, since it does not further their radical conservative agenda! Trust me, I won't hold my breath waiting for Powerline, Instapundit, Free Republic, JC Media Watch etc. to report on this stuff. That is why JC Media Watch Watch is here, to keep JC Media Watch honest.....

The Pundits: The Good, The Bad, The Irrelevant

2004-10-01T08:44:00.000-05:00

This may be a little catty but here is a USA Today type of review of the performances of last night's Cable pundits:

FOX News

Britt Hume: In general, I like the guy but the way Fox uses him in events like this is not all that effective. He hosts a very short introduction and then an equally short rap-up. He is clearly biased toward Bush but he has an orneriness about him that I find enduring. Typically asks argumentative questions of members of his "panel" that he doesn't agree with but last night he seemed restrained. Overall grade: C+
Sean Hannity: Conservative blow-hard (this coming from a conservative blow-hard). Seemed to be as "out of touch with reality" last night as Kerry tried to paint Bush. As far as I could tell he was the only person on the air last night that thought that Bush beat Kerry. I'll give him points for being a bombastic tool but that's about it. Overall grade: D
Alan Combes: If liberals want to make a case for Fox being a conservative soap-box all they have to do is point to the presence of Alan Combes. Talk about tokenism. Fox having him on the air is like a Lilly-white country club admitting one black member and calling themselves "integrated." As far as his skills as a pundit he is terrible. He is a horrible debater, he is a complete wuss and he looks like he is going to piss himself every time Hannity works himself into a lather. Last night he was his typical terrible self but then again I probably should give him points for being consistent. Overall grade: D.
Fox "Panelists": Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Mora Liason and William Kristol: Once again, in fine Fox tradition, not a true liberal in the lot. Where was Juan Williams (a wuss in his own right but better than Alan Combes)? Each of them offered fairly even handed analysis (for them). All of them pointed to a good night for Kerry and were cautious to claim that Kerry will get a big bounce out of this. Overall grade: B.

MSNBC

Chris Matthews: If you have read this blog at all over the past day or so you probably know where I stand on this guy. In a word: awful. He talks over his panelists (in a way that puts Britt Hume to shame) and all too frequently allows even the most outlandish comments by his panelists to go unchallenged. Overall grade: D-
Ron Reagan: Why is this guy doing a political analysis show? What exactly are this guy's credentials (other than being the way-ward son of a former President)? He adds nothing to a show about politics that a guy sitting in his living room couldn't add. Easily the worst on TV (and that's saying alot given the presence of Larry King, Alan Combes and Aaron Brown). Overall grade: F.
Joe Scarborough : The best out there in my opinion. Sure he has bad eyesight which causes him to squint way too much (or wear his god-awful glasses), but is he one of then most honest and consistent commentators on cable news today. Sure, he has his agenda and you may not agree with him all the time but rarely does he simply regurgitate the Republican party line. Last night he was brutally honest which is refreshing given his background. Overall grade: A.
MSNBC Panel: Let me tackle Andrea Mitchell here. Please, will someone get her a new make-up consultant. Maybe it was the South Florida air but she looked like Richard Nixon last night with that make-up job. Alan Greenspan needs to be spending more time with Henry Kissenger if this is what he has to come home to every night. As for her analysis skills, she is better than some of the other female dolts that MSNBC employs (i.e. Norah O'Donnell) but not by much. Overall grade: D-.

CNN - To be honest, I spent less time watching CNN than MSNBC or Fox but what I did catch was wretched.

Aaron Brown: This guy must have pictures of CNN executives in compromising positions somewhere. How is this guy CNN's prime time guy? He is soooooo boring that he makes Alan Combes look animated. I watched his guy for 5 minutes and still don't think heard a question. He is like the Chet Coppock of cable news. Overall grade: F.
Larry King: Like Aaron Brown, I have no earthly idea why CNN has this guy host major event coverage. His guests are typically totally irrelevant and the next penetrating question King asks will be his first. CNN should have King stick with his lame weekend "specials" which include insightful interviews with Vicky and Steve Lawrence. Overall grade F.

My overall reaction to last night coverage was that I thought that the cable networks did a poor job of covering the event. I could do with less "spin" interviews and more analysis. Many of the commentators were not on their "A" game and it showed. I will give MSNBC credit for having the only "Fact-Checking" segment last night which busted both candidates for playing fast and loose with the facts.

Hopefully last night's mixed bag of coverage was only a warm-up for the next couple of debates. I doubt the coverage could get much worse so really there is nowhere to go but up.

Fisking the Debate Recap

2004-09-30T22:49:00.000-05:00

1. Both Kerry and Bush were about as strong as each of them are capable. Kerry was able look presidential and was solid, focused and complete in his advisors. Bush repeated his points over and over and stayed on message. Measuring by standard debate scoring Kerry probably won. Bush came across, as expected, as more likeable. Overall probably a draw. Bush's body language was bad. Not exactly Gore in 2000, but not great. He look agitated by Kerry and the "banned" camera shots caught it.

A. Someone send out an APB for George Bush as he appears to have been taken over by Al Gore! He did not look Presidential to say the least. Even the FauxNews crowd was all over him.

B. Both of them got in good shots. While Kerry's line that the Iraq War was bin Laden's recruiting tool is true, I thought Bush's retort, to the effect that Americans decide how to defend themselves, not bin Laden, was good. While Kerry, I believe, made a good point on calling Bush out on the deficiencies in Homeland Defense, I think he made a mistake tying the tax cuts and the costs of the Iraq War with Homeland Defense. I believe you can make the case that Bush has been incompetent in securing the borders, the ports, etc. without talking about taxes. The "global test for preemptive war" was weak. I understood what he was trying to say, I think he was trying to say there is an "international sniff test", but he mangled it completely.

C. Staying on message? It was as if Bush didn't even prepare for this. He seemed very unprepared to me. How can you not fill 2 minutes other than to repeat "flip flop" over and over and over again. While I understand that his inability to speak publicly endears himself to many, he went beyond that tonight. It was almost as if Bush refused to listen to Rove in preparing because he thought he had this locked up and Rove said, "Screw it," knowing that Bush would come back with his tail between his legs, ready to listen to Rove in preparation for the next debate. That whole "tax gap" ad lib was weird.

D. North Korea. Obviously it is ironic that Kerry wants the unilateral approach while Bush wants the multilateral approach. Kerry could have made more points by specifically pointing out that Bush's multilateral route is OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING as the nutcase over there has the BOMB and, yet, Bush is not going to change his ways. Kerry only touched on this with this statement:

But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.

It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new acts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.

What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.

Pragmatism (see definition no. 2) is the American contribution to philosophy. It would be wise of Bush to get on the bandwagon. As a great man once said, "My only dogma is to have no dogmas."

2. Ninety minute debates are probably too long. Political junkies love this stuff but I kind of think that the average person gets a little weary of watching the babble after about an hour. The format of two minute answers and 90 second responses kept things moving but in the end I doubt that many average people out there are counting the minutes until Round 2.

I thought it was pretty snappy. You are probably pissed it lasted 90 minutes because your guy lost!

3. I loath the "spin". Look, I know what I just watched and I don't need a bunch of party hacks to tell me how to think about it.

Hey, some real media criticism on this media criticism blog! I agree. It is a complete waste of time. To hear the GOP call Kerry the "anti-war" candidate is absurd. However, as was proven in 2000, the spin works. My spin for Bush, "There is only one direction for him to go in the next debate. Up."

4. My prediction: not too many votes were swayed either way after this debate. My guess is that the polls are going to look next week kind of like they look now: Bush up about 5-6 points.

Not so fast, my friend. First, this will fire up what has been a demoralized Democratic Party having "buyers remorse." Do not underestimate that. Second, this is all about the undecideds and from what I have seen on the TV, they are going to Kerry after the debate.

(Edited for grammatical purposes on 10/1.)

Debate Recap

2004-09-30T22:18:00.000-05:00

Some quick points regarding the just finished debate:

Both Kerry and Bush were about as strong as each of them are capable. Kerry was able look presidential and was solid, focused and complete in his advisors. Bush repeated his points over and over and stayed on message. Measuring by standard debate scoring Kerry probably won. Bush came across, as expected, as more likeable. Overall probably a draw.
Bush's body language was bad. Not exactly Gore in 2000, but not great. He look agitated by Kerry and the "banned" camera shots caught it.
Ninety minute debates are probably too long. Political junkies love this stuff but I kind of think that the average person gets a little weary of watching the babble after about an hour. The format of two minute answers and 90 second responses kept things moving but in the end I doubt that many average people out there are counting the minutes until Round 2.
I loath the "spin". Look, I know what I just watched and I don't need a bunch of party hacks to tell me how to think about it.
My prediction: not too many votes were swayed either way after this debate. My guess is that the polls are going to look next week kind of like they look now: Bush up about 5-6 points.

Matthews Does It Again...

2004-09-30T19:45:00.000-05:00

Chris Matthews is interviewing Al Sharpton right now and in typical Matthews fashion he is allowing Sharpton to blather on and on about voter suppression in minority communities. Does Matthews challenge him on this argument that has virtually no support? Not at all. Great interview Matthews. Why interview these nutballs if you aren't going to challenge them on their wacky positions?