Saturday, October 30, 2004

Media bias watch....

Drudge reports: CRONKITE: KARL ROVE BEHIND BIN LADEN TAPE?
Former CBSNEWS anchorman Walter Cronkite believes Bush adviser Karl Rove is possibly behind the new Bin Laden tape. Cronkite made the startling comments late Friday during an interview on CNN. 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." Interviewer Larry King did not ask Cronkite to elaborate on the provocative election eve observation.

Say it ain't so, Walter.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

As if there were any doubt about media bias

CBS planned to drop the missing explosives bomb on Sunday, October 31, according to DRUDGE. Now it appears, according to NBC, the explosives were already gone when our troops arrived in April 2003. CBS should have, and could have known this, had they wanted to. After the forged documents scandal (which is sitll being "investigated"), and this, can anyone trust CBS News at ALL?

20-20 Hindsight is a wonderful thing but ...

It doesn't prove John Kerry (or anyone, for that matter) would have handled the war any better. OpinionJournal provides a historical perspective.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Dems strategy to create voter fraud instead of stop it.

This is scary stuff, particularly if it portends a general strategy by the left to move every close election into the courtrooms for lawyers and judges to decide.

After screaming for four years about how GWB was "awarded" the presidency, it appears they're gearing up to run the game the other way.

Kerry's Teresa Problem

An official gaffe list

And in the interest of fairness...

James Bowman writes in OpinionJournal this alternate take on Jon Stewart's recent dustup with Tucker Carlson of CNN. Not sure I agree with all of this, but Bowman's point IS important when he talks about how audiences have changed (not for the better):
The consumers of TV satire 40 years ago were assumed by the satirists to be pretty well-informed people already. Now there are indications that a lot of people, especially young people, are skipping the regular news and going straight to the satire.

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press earlier this year, 21% of people aged 18-29 "regularly" got news about the election campaign from "The Daily Show" or the monologues of late-night comedians--about the same number as watched network news shows or got news from the Internet.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Fake News vs. the Big Boys

Jon Stewart ripped them a new one at Crossfire last night, and deservedly so. Same insights apply to Hannity & Colmes and other shout/debate shows, IMHO. Here's the transcript at CNN.com - Transcripts. Courtesy of Andrew and Wonkette.

Thursday, October 7, 2004

Stewart Smalley for Veep

John Edwards, quoted yesterday: "You can't fix these problems until you recognize there is a problem,'' the Democratic vice presidential candidate told a sign-waving audience in a warehouse at the Palm Beach County convention center. "They're in denial. They're in denial about everything."

I know it's just election demagoguery, but why are we describing the issues surrounding a damn WAR for God's sake -- as though it were simply a new age psychiatric disorder. How kindly you put it, you patronizing jerk: The president is "in denial." He needs help. He's wrong, but it's not his fault, he's just "in denial."

No, the president is arguing his case for the war in Iraq which is integral to the war on terror. He is NOT sick, he's not in denial. He doesn't need a 12-step recovery program. HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU, MR. EDWARDS. Grow the hell up, Slick. This is a war, not another opportunity for you to throw buzzwords and phrases at a handpicked-for-their-ignorance jury. People are fighting and some are dying, and it's NOT because the president is some deluded Captain Queeg. It's because he wants to keep terrorists out of our backyards. How dare you, you damn arrogant ambulance-chaser?

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

CBS Says Probe Results Unlikely Until After Election

How sensitive:
An external review of how CBS News came to use disputed documents in a report on President Bush's military record will probably not be concluded until after the November election so as not to interfere with the presidential race, a top executive said on Tuesday.

Of course, CBS had no qualms about running the original story regardless of its effect on the election. This is covering your ass hypocrisy of the lowest order. CBS News has dropped a long way from the days of Walter, who, at his best, was a hell of a journalist.

Dems should leave drug companies alone

From Berkleysquare, this blogger with disabilities explains why he doesn't want Kerry-Edwards in Get Out The Gimpy Vote:
As a valid holder of a handicapped parking permit, let me chime in. A Kerry administration would demolish the private pharmaceutical industry. He's got Michael J. Fox stumping for him on the Stem-Cell debate but as I have blogged before, his policies will chase capital out of the sector.

The Dems love to rail against 'big drug profits' but the sector trades at a lower multiple than any technology sector. Look at what Vioxx has done to Merck's valuation.

Maybe some of these folks, like me, have decided they don't need a Vice President who'll 'fight the drug companies!' We would be best served by someone who would help them with tort reform -- or at the very least stay the hell out of the way.

Sunday, October 3, 2004

Judge the debates based on substance, not style.

Dick Morris, former Clintonista, on the Bush substance in the debates -- from New York Post Online Edition
PRESIDENT Bush's positions on the issues aired in the debate last night are so sound and John Kerry's so contradictory that the Republican could not help but win the debate. But, despite the contradictions of his positions, Kerry showed Americans that he looks and acts like a commander-in-chief and someone we could trust with power.

Of course the United States needs to have China at the table to pressure Kim Jong Il. How else are we going to get the North Koreans to give away their nuclear weapons and stop building more?

Obviously a president can't ask our troops to suffer and die for a war he calls a mistake and "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Clearly our allies will be roiled by a president who calls them a coalition of the "bribed and the coerced" and belittles their contributions even as their soldiers risk their lives.

Certainly a free Iraq would send a signal to Iran — which is the only way we can get the mullahs to abstain from nuclear-weapon development.

Plainly, we need bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Where do you think the WMDs are — in store windows?

Unquestionably, we need a missile defense. Why do you think North Korea is testing its missiles?


Bush was too detached from debate number one, even though he was correct on all counts, and Kerry was contradictory. He needs to do better in upcoming debates.

Friday, October 1, 2004

More on the debate

Kerry is telling our troops "help is on the way?!" What does that say about his attitude regarding the current troops in Iraq? Oh, and where the heck is he going to GET all these extra divisions he's talking about? Like we just pick them off a tree. Is HE going to reinstate the draft? And how is he going to train the Iraqi forces "faster?" What does that mean?

More scarily, Kerry indicated that we should try to make a "deal" with Iran related to nuclear fuel. This amounts to the same sort of "deal" we made with North Korea (under Clinton), in which we got promises from a lying dictator that he wouldn't make nuclear weapons with the fuel we gave him. Kerry is either too stupid to understand that promises from dictators are worthless, or he doesn't really care. Either way, he's not the guy for the job.

Crib sheet for Kerry's global test

As posted at Instapundit.com.

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
  1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
  2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
  3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
  4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
  5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
  6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
  7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
  8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
  9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
  10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," the only acceptable course for the United States is inaction.

Debate I

Between running to the high school's band practice, listening in the car radio, and watching the replays, I didn't hear the whole debate, but here are my impressions of what I did hear.

First, yes, Bush wasn't slick, Kerry was. Kerry had very ready answers and Bush had to stop and think sometimes. Which is better? Well, I would prefer that my president think about things and not be a slick Mr. Perfect. Of course, Kerry isn't perfect, but he tries to give that impression.

I also wish Bush would really learn how to say "nuclear." He has to know he doesn't say it correctly, so it's just a habit, perhaps a product of growing up in Texas, but geez, it's not that hard -- NUKE LEE ER. And, he should have kept his facial expressions in check, but he's like his dad was in that regard. And frankly, I was reacting to Kerry the same way, so I guess I don't blame him.

When Kerry kept talking about building "real coalitions," I wish Bush could have called him on it. What's the difference between the coalition we have and a "real" one? Would a real coalition have Germany and France on board? Good luck, John. They already said it ain't happening, even if you do get elected.

And even if France and Germany hadn't indicated their unwillingness, why would any country want to follow a leader into a war he's already said was a "mistake." How does Kerry expect to sell that idea? "Our last president made a mistake, and well, it's a real mess, which I've been saying all along, a quagmire, ya know, but we really need you help getting out of it." Sign me up, Pierre.

Also, one of the more telling moments was when Kerry veered into talking about spending money on bunker busting nuclear weapons. This is the old Kerry. The nuclear-freeze Kerry. The guy who still doesn't understand that this nation with nukes is different than Kim Jong Il with nukes. Moral equivalence tied to objects, tools, if you will, rather than the morality of a nation or its leaders. A man this confused about who is right and wrong should not be president.