"...the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi." --The Washington Post OMFG. Shouldn't there be a stink about this?

"The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show'' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver.''" -- Al Gore, quoting Jon Stewart, in this morning's NY Times

I have an advance copy of Thursday's debate... (as seen on bartcop)

"Question: Mr. President, when the Saudis from Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11, you made the decision, over the objection of our allies, to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11, and now we're in a quagmire with men dying in the sand over there everyday. Can you explain yourself? Pres. Fraud: If you're asking if I took necessary measures to protect America before the evil doers could launch another attack, ...the answer is yes, and if you're asking if I'll wait for permission from the French to protect America, the answer is no. The GOP-leaning crowd bursts into wild applause, Kerry rolls his eyes, and all the networks that signed loyalty oaths to Bush will call this "another slam dunk" for the never-elected Pinhead.

This is what Kerry agreed to when he caved in on the debate format. Now we need a miracle." --Bartcop

the french strike back

HAHHAAH..... HAHA...ha...... (sob)

I fear that Bart has it right in this characature of what will happen on thursday. The format doesn't allow the candidates to question each other, so that means we can expect side by side press conferences with rebuttals. Now, how do you rebut that kinda crap? The only thing I can think of is a slap in the face. Remeber in 2000 when Al tried to ask Bush his stance on affirmative action? Paraphrased: "If affermative action is quotas i'm against it, if it's what I said I'm for than I'm for it."

Facts and explanations are NOT ACCEPTABLE in [presidential] discourse anymore. Anyone listening to the pre-debate discussion has been made amply aware of that. I remember in 2000 that Gore won both of the debates I watched, and clearly. Yet after each I was astonished to watch the pundits call it for Bush. To IMMEDIATELY portray that Bush had been the victor. And who would disagree with folks on TV? In that affermative action banter, gore was "too pushy." who cares that bush would't say if he was for or against affermative aciton? this is about whose more likeable-- who makes us feel good. Watching the news is a lot like going to the movies with someone with a job reserved for smart people, like professor or doctor or... journalist. Now the movie ends and your leaving the theater and she starts telling you all the reasons why the movie was really great... Maybe you thought it sucked, but might you not allow yourself to be swayed by Ms. SAT? No, not YOU, or ME. But, what if she were a professional movie critic? And you were an avid reader of her column? What if she were the television and you were voter mcwhitey? That's why these polls are so infuriating to see tossed around all damn day. that and the fact that they are being manipulated by who knows who. 95% of the analysis and discussion in the media is about strategy and polls.... Who'se winning and why? This "horse-race" WILL affect people's vote, but not in particularly helpful ways. nobody wants to vote for a loser. ok, some people do... artsy fartsy types whose favorite film was Rushmore before it became popular... but they don't vote anyway because they aren't "into politics". is 'not wanting to vote for a loser' a consideration worth pushing ahead of everything else?

My dad says he doesn't have much faith in kerry's ability to run the country because of how badly the campaign is run. ok. i agree that a badly run campaign is evidence of something or other, but what shitty evidence it is. Shouldn't we have a press evaluating the issues of our day? people get sick and have no way to see a doctor. Most working people with HMO's get pretty shitty treatment, and anything else is really reserved for the rich or those without families. Some people are out there making nuclear weapons, others want to blow them up in the US. How will we make sure that doesn't happen? Why did we go to war on incorrect intelligence? How will we make the best of what's going on there? How will we capture osama? how will we reintegrate with the world community? how will we quit our oil habit? how will we prevent global warming, if you believe it exists?

BUT NO, lets not focus on the candidates responses to these issues. let's focus on telling the american people how stupid they are by endlessly discussing how successful bush is by "staying on message." (it's amazing what a word can do, imagine if the press said "staying on script" instead of staying on message every day. imagine if they "asked" if people trust the president after iraq instead of if they trust kerry after swiftboat questions. lets remind everyone that gore was boring and kerry might be kinda boring too. these assholes are making america dumber and calling it journalism. Maybe, instead of advising kerry to be less like gore, they should be evaluating the way they made being boring the worst thing in the world in 2000. Gosh it was so boring being a prosporus respected and admired nation. ok so maybe the 90's weren't that sweet. this shit was always brewing, but maybe it's good to have someone thoughtful, instead of a SPORTS MASCOT. Bush is a BRAND, not a leader. He makes people FEEL good. and that's what matters in america. so go ahead and glut out on the petroleum that funds al queda, if not THE TERRORISTS WIN. Gosh it must feel so good to keep shopping at wallmart, so fucking patriotic you are. Is that where you bought that flag on your house? that made in indonesia for .01 cents flag that you bought so you can FEEL good.

vital issue, or loose gossip?

yeah its a ramble... the thing is that what makes you a successful presidential candidate, and what makes you a successful president, may be quite different. One is reality tv, and the other is reality. and we all know how different those two things are, don't we?

sometimes boring gets it right

speaking of reality tv, kerry HAS to hit at least a triple on thursday. It’s easily the most important event in the rest of the election, and even a minor kerry victory will be CALLED a bush victory. I’m not suggesting [here] that the media is biased for bush, but they will say this: “kerry needed a big win (cus he’s losing), but he only looked a little better than the president, so the president came out on top. he did an amazing job of not totally losing or farting on stage. what a great debater he is.”

bullshit

There is a lot of self fulfilling prophecy with the media.

Imagine if the jurors in a criminal case (lets say murder 1) got all their evidence through a tv show they watched every night. A tv show that consisted mostly of polls of what the other jurors thought and analysis of what the lawyers need to do for things to go their way. What a cynical and uninformed jury you would have. Of course we all want to jury to focus on the evidence, but that’s just too boring.

Republican Party acknowledges sending mass mailings in two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible

"The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians." -- Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible, NYT

"Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst and terrorism expert formerly known as Anonymous, agrees with the IISS findings and goes further. He has suggested that al-Qaida is likely so pleased with Bush that its agents might try to help his campaign. In an interview last summer, Scheuer told the Guardian that the White House and Department of Homeland Security alerts about a possible pre-election strike by the terrorists are credible but wrong about the purpose.

The aim would be not to depose the Bush administration but to "mount an attack that would rally the country around the president" and "keep the Republicans in power." As he put it, "I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now." --Bin Laden's candidate, Salon

So, some folks whose opinions are worth a damn think like I do. osama loves bush. any any attack preceding the election would be in order to ensure a bush win. I've been saying this since spain, where perhaps the terroristst were foiled by the election results-- or maybe not, the bad guys may have different strokes for different folks.

taking this to its logical conclusion, does bush really want to capture osama n gang? we've all heard the quotes about bush not caring much about him any more. Why not? why are we diverting attention to Iraq and away from al queda? of course we have plenty of terrorists in iraq now. and we're brewing more there every day.

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." --Trotsky

huh?

"JIM LEHRER: What would you say to somebody in the United States who questions whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the cost of more than a thousand lives now and billions and billions of U.S. dollars? PRIME MINISTER IYAD ALLAWI: Well, I assure you if Saddam was still there, terrorists will be hitting there again at Washington and New York, as they did in the murderous attack in September; they'll be hitting also on other places in Europe and the Middle East."

allawi more articulate than bush, also gives good handjob

"Q Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to ask about the Iraqi people. Both of you have spoken for them today, and, yet, over the past several months there have been polls conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, by the Oxford Institute and other reputable organizations, that have found very strong majorities do not see the United States as a liberator, but as an occupier, are unhappy with American policy and want us out. Don't the real voices of the Iraqi people, themselves, contradict the rosy scenarios you're painting here today? PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me start by that. You said the poll was taken when the CPA was there? Q One poll -- PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, let me stop you. First of all, the Iraqi people now have got Iraqi leadership. Prime Minister Allawi and his cabinet are making decisions on behalf of the Iraqi people. Secondly, I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. (Laughter.) It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future. Talk to the leader. I agree -- I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure. But I talk to this man. One reason I'm optimistic about our ability to get the job done is because I talk to the Iraqi Prime Minister. I'm also optimistic that people will choose freedom over tyranny every time. That's what I believe. But, Mr. Prime Minister, you might answer the question on the polls. There's a lot of polls; sometimes they show you up and sometimes they show you down, as you might remember. PRIME MINISTER ALLAWI: Let me -- let me take a minute to explain to you something, a factual event. I meet, personally, every now and then with the fringes of the so-called resistance to try and talk them into respecting law and order and withdraw their arms. And I ask them in a very honest, very open way, I say to them, "What do you want to achieve? Could you know exactly what you want to achieve? Do you want to bring Saddam back from the hole in the ground, living like a rat? Do you want to bring him back to rule Iraq? Or do you want to bring bin Laden or similar persons to bin Laden to rule Iraq? If you want to do this, we will fight you room to room, house to house. If you want to be part of the political process, you have to be part of the political process, you are welcome. If you do not want the multinational force in Iraq -- I was talking to Fallujah people recently, to tribes, ex-army officers, ex-Saddam loyalists -- if you want the multinational force out, win the elections, go to the United Nations, talk to the Security Council, and tell them we don't need the multinational forces. But I tell you what is going to happen. If you ask the multinational force to leave prematurely -- this is me talking to the Fallujah people -- your country will be in ruins, and we cannot now, on our feet, stand and fight terrorism and global terrorism. These are realities. And once you are in Iraq, I will be my (sic) host. I can put you together with these people in my home and you can talk to them. And you can find out yourselves that the Iraqis, tremendously, by and large, respect the United States, and respect the other partners in the coalition for helping Iraq, not only in liberation, but now in helping Iraq to rebuild itself and to rebuild its institutions." also Bush said "TV" or "television" 4 times during this press event about the situation in Iraq. Clearly he prefers it to the print media. This was the first time he has answered a question from the "press" in a month.

obviously there are many costs not associated with this figure, and there is the argument that the costs are acceptable. In any case, this is an amazing number to watch.

Yahoo! News - Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer

"Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes. " --Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer, AP

so the same news organization that released these obvious fakes encouraged the kerry people to contact the source. this very conveniently allows news organizations to write headlines like "Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer." Does this stink or what? I haven't really been following the story so there may be some facts that make my crazy conspiracy theory a non-starter. can you tell me what those facts are?

sheeeeit

COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq. --GIs claim threat by Army, Rocky Mountain News

"We change and destroy countries," the statement said. "We even influence the international economy, and this is God's blessing to us. We won't accept to be an object in this world, but a player, a strong player - with God's will."

.

The statement tells Americans that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election of President George W. Bush.

.

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," it said.

.

Addressing Bush, it said: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, "Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization." --Oldish AP article

.

i only mentioned this to a few people, but last week i was saying that my conspiracy theory about these national guard memos is that they ARE fake, and were planted by, cue star wars empire music, bushco. They will be proven false, linked to the democrats, leaving the guard service issue off limits. Meanwhile further smears on kerry will be spread while the real issues still sit dormant. Yeah, I watched "bushes brain" recently. chilling shit, and no doubt in effect to some extent or another. if bush wins, after the election, i think he will come to be have one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of our country. with less on the line, the handlers will grow sloppy and something bad will either stick, or even worse, happen.

I found this on the forums at NovaWorld. It is a quote from the latest issue of Computer Games, a popular magazine. "Bohannon is promoting his new book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Grand Theft Auto, A Study on Video Games & Psychology... Dr. Bohannon said his book is also concerned with the lessons learned in more recent games. "I've included research on Joint Operations, a new military simulation. In a study of the people who play on popular servers. I've concluded that this game will teach you that you simply don't matter. Its a realistic lesson in how the efforts of one person can't win a war. This is a valuable lesson after years of teaching our children that they have enough health to sustain seven or even eight shots before they need to find a medkit. In fact I demonstrate that this thinking might be part of the problem we're having in Irag. Many of the soldiers over there have never played a FPS with a lean key." I would ave to say that he is not accurate, but I think he is getting at something. I won't get into details, but certainly one person can make a difference in JO. However, the game was designed from the start to favor teamwork, thus its moniker. While this might be a good lesson for players, I don't know if it is part of the problem in Iraq. I believe are soldiers are trained to act effectively as teams, and teams within teams-- despite the counterevidence of the "army of one" ad campaign, which is bears as much realation to reality as a typical Pepsi commercial.

'We Lie. We Decide.'

'We Lie. We Decide.'

"A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan. Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts." --The Washington Post: $3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

MSNBC - Transcript for April 18

MSNBC - Transcript for April 18: "MR. RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq? SEN. KERRY: It depends on what the situation is you find on the ground on January 20th of 2005. I will tell you this, Tim. I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world, which will do a number of things. Number one, change how we're approaching North Korea. Number two, change how we're dealing with AIDS globally. Number three, change how we're doing with proliferation with Russia and other countries. Number four, change our approach to global warming and the effort of 160 nations. And that will take some of the poison out of the well that this administration has put there."

my dad thought Arnold delivered the best speech at either convention this year. I thought I'd give a quote from my governor's round endorsement of george bush: "Ladies and Gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican!" Oh really. it's just a short hop from this shit to cheney's bile (quoted at the top of this blog). And from there?

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," he told the newspaper. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry." --Dick Cheney Dick, you said the danger if we make the wrong choice is that we'll be hit again. This implies that the danger will not exist if we make the right chocie. You are a fork-tongued failure who already veeped through the largest intelligence disaster in US history. where you get the nerve i have no idea.

20 questions

absolutely phenomenal. click on the play link at the bottom of the demographics form. you don't need to fill that out, by the way.

"'You have to conclude that the war, so far, has made us substantially less safe,' said Tuchman Mathews, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace." -CBS News is looking at campaign promises then-candidate Bush made four years ago.

the word from australia

"But go back three years. From the moment American airliners were transformed by suicidal fanatics into missiles of mass destruction, it was clear the world had changed. Now we know it has changed in ways most of us could not have imagined, and mostly for the worse. The nations of the West are more afraid, less united and, most tragically, less free. To that extent, in spite of George Bush's war against terrorism - indeed, in part, because of it - al-Qaeda has achieved its ends." - The Sydney Morning Herald

here's what some ruskies think:

"George Bush's United States is clearly in a proto-fascist condition. Of course, there's no such thing as direct equivalence between historical events. The same dangers never come around again -- not in the same form nor with precisely identical content. At every point in time, a new set of elements and circumstances coalesce to create the unique reality of that particular historical moment. But if you take the general definition of fascism provided by its founder, Benito Mussolini -- "the merger of corporate and state power" -- and apply it to the elements that are coalescing in America at this historical moment, you could hardly find a more apt description of the Bush Regime." --The Moscow Times

Inside Bush's Brain

It was Sasha who told me that the president's crew attacks the strength of his opponents, not his weakness. Similarly, they make the president's weakness the pillar of his campaign. From Altercation: -There were no WMDs -There was no nuclear program -There was no connection to Al-Qaida or any other group of anti-American terrorists. -We were not welcomed as liberators; We were “welcomed” as infidel occupiers. -The occupation did not pay for itself; it is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. -Saddam Hussein is more popular in Iraqi opinion polls than Ahmad Chalabi, who may be an Iranian spy, (and so, too, may be some of the Neocons themselves, but that’s another story). -America is more hated and reviled in the Arab world than any time in its history. yet somehow, despite all reason and evidence, the president is currently ahead in the polls on his perceived strength in the war on terror. this president has put us in greater danger. Kerry needs to start making this argument or we are going to have a scary four years. and i believe that if Bush is reelected, he will be a very unpopular president when his term is over.

"As the towers fell, ChoicePoint's stock rose; and from Ground Zero, contracts gushed forth from War on Terror fever. Why? Because this outfit is holding no less 16 billion records on every living and dying being in the USA. They're the Little Brother with the filing system when Big Brother calls. ChoicePoint's quick route to no-bid spy contracts was not impeded by the fact that the company did something for George W. Bush that the voters would not: select him as our president. Here’s how they did it. Before the 2000 election, ChoicePoint unit Database Technologies, held a $4 million no-bid contract under the control of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, to identify felons who had illegally registered to vote. The ChoicePoint outfit altogether fingered 94,000 Florida residents. As it turned out, less than 3,000 had a verifiable criminal record; almost everyone on the list had the right to vote." --Don't Look at the Flash, Greg Palast

election shananigonometer: activated

no doubt the subject of election 2000 will come up in many conversations that we will find ourselves in during the next 2 months. its a very complex issue. there were multiple problems , multiple recounts, and byzantine results. here are some articles that i've been revisiting to remind myself of what happened. i haven't seen the documentary that was made. "Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots. <>The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December." -- "Gore's Victory," Consortium News The major caveat to keep in mind about the results is that they did show that had votes been counted in the way that Gore's attornies had requested in court, Bush would have won. Those are the partial recounts mentioned in the second paragraph above. This means had the supreme court done nothing bush still may have won. Is that the most important issue? Probably not, what matters is who would have won if the votes had been counted correctly, and that is surely Gore. However, even this pyric, in terms of legitimacy, victory for Bush might not have happened... BUT: "A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore." -- "So Did Bush Steal the White House?," Consortium News ... more to come. this post will grow... <>

Moore on the RNC:

Don't worry! "I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in mourning black and sitting shivah?"

from time's interview with laura bush:

TIME Critics throw out so many charges against the President. Is there any one that you found the most unfair?

BUSH I think they're all very unfair. [Laughter.] I really do.

TIME Do you think these swift-boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?

BUSH Do I think they're unfair? Not really. There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband.

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

no i didn't cut that into that order. that's how it's printed. that's the level of consciousness. yes she said millions of terrible ads.

last for today

worth the read "Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign." -the washington post does some of that stuff called fact checking.

from talking points memo

from talkingpointsmemo "Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."

George W. Bush Convention Acceptance Speech September 2nd, 2004

"As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.

In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq.

Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level."

NBC News September 2nd, 2004

a pretty good analysis of the policy bush outlined last night "More controversially, Mr Bush also revived his call for a partial privatisation of Social Security, the cornerstone federal pensions programme. Social Security is facing huge deficits once the baby-boom generation retires. The president advocates individual accounts, into which workers would put part of their pay cheques, to be invested in assets of their choosing. Mr Bush sold this as a way to guarantee benefits. But with a stockmarket slump and corporate scandals still fresh in the memory, peddling investment accounts as a guarantee against insecurity may be a tough sell."

from salon's war room

Republicans send New York Times spinning Sometimes the best way to put today's political press coverage in perspective is to contrast it with how an identical event was covered in the very near past. Take the New York Times' coverage of the Republican and Democratic conventions. The morning after the Democratic Convention concluded, the Times published two Page One stories: a straight news piece about Sen. John Kerry's address, and a separate analysis of the themes of the speech. Today, following the Republican Convention, the Times does the same: a news piece on President Bush's address, as well as an analysis. But for the Republicans, there's a bonus dispatch, a valentine of a report ("Buoyed G.O.P. Says It Has Framed Agenda for Fall") on how "confident" and "optimistic" Republican strategists were celebrating their convention, convinced they had "framed the debate for the fall" and "had succeeded in raising significant doubts" about their opponent.

If you're guessing that upon the conclusion of their convention, Democratic strategists were convinced they had framed the debate, ended on a confident note, raised doubts about their opponent, and were willing to share their spin with New York Times reporters, you're right. But for some reason, in July the Times didn't consider that dog-bites-man angle an A1 story. Today, when Republicans state the obvious, the Times senses major news at hand.

The piece plays into the media's favorite new narrative that there's been a major shift toward Bush in the last week or two. (Last night MSNBC's Chris Matthews suggested Bush might have "sealed the deal" -- i.e., the race is over.) Yet, not once in its story did the New York Times point to a single poll backing up that notion. That's because there are no polls showing Bush leading Kerry beyond the margin of error. That may change in the coming days, with the usual convention bounce. But surely the Times wouldn't go with a Page One story based on the expected convention bounce. Surely the story's prominent placement had to reflect real facts on the campaign trail, and not simply Republican wishful thinking, right? Wrong.

At one point, the Times actually quotes Bush strategist Matthew Dowd saying it was "a distinct possibility" the president would emerge from Labor Day with a lead in the polls. This is news? This is front-page news? Given the obvious fact that the race remains so close and Republicans held their convention second, which meant they'd likely enjoy a bump in the polls on the eve of Labor Day, any serious election analyst had to assume Bush might enjoy a lead come Labor Day.

So the question remains, why did the Times run a Page One story speculating about the effects of the Republican Convention, while quoting optimistic Republican strategists, if that same story wasn't worth covering coming out of Boston?

"You have to realize that a lot of people involved in the Bush campaign are CIA people. Don't be shocked, his daddy, George H. W. Bush, used to be their boss, and you know the expression, once CIA, always CIA.

You must remember how during the Florida fiasco last election it was reported that in Seminole country 14,000 Republican ballots were corrected by a "former" CIA employee on behalf of the Bushes, while the defective Democrat ones were thrown out - enough to decide the election right there. (read AP Story)

You must recognize how what the "Swift Boat Vets" are doing uses the exact sort of tactics we use in places like Iran or Venezuela to try and destabilize a government or promote our leader of choice.

And you must recognize, seeing these people be so successful at it again and again, against McCain, Cleland, now Kerry, that these are experienced, well-trained pros at work.

You saw how they completely controlled the media message last election. You saw how they did it with the Iraq war. You saw how they did it in the primaries (which we documented step by step for you as they pushed first Dean, who, not coincidentally, sprang into the lead, then pushed Kerry and Edwards for the sake of burying Clark - and, not coincidentally, Kerry and Edwards then went ahead and won. If you missed all this, go back and read our primary coverage.)

So here it is again. The Bush campaign is making "complete use of their media machine to personally attack and smear while the President seems to have nothing to do with it," as they have before, as we knew they would. And again the "inevitability" is beginning to be reported - not just in one paper, not just in a few, not even just here in this nation, but around the world, from ABC News to O Globo in Brazil."

CLICK FOR FULL CREEPY UNPROFESSIONAL INTERNET ARTICLE

success!

"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty," Kerry says in the remarks. "Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit." -John Kerry, less than an hour after the RNC ended. Please Mr. Kerry, fight now. Fight hard. You have said that you are reporting for duty, and now the battle rages-- you must enter the fray. From the quote above I hope that your finally going to get your war on! The future of the supreme court rests with you, and that's the least of our worries. Remember that Osama loves bush and vice versa. What does bush have other than the war on terror? This convention proved he has nothing else to run on. If we were to capture osama the fear that buoys his popularity would dry up in a matter of months. No, a never ending war in a far off land is far more convenient. Why did he say it can't be won? Please Kerry, fight!

"John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington…He fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." --Zell Miller, praising Kerry's voting record in a 2001 speech, Attribution "For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak, and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protester KErry blamed our military, as a senator he voted to weaken our military..." --Zell Miller, RNC 2004 What I want to know is how can you be the most wrong and the most wobbly? If your wobbly aren't you at least a little right some of the time?

CLICK IT!

high quality television

click the picture

"The rules are simple: find a photo that has a grandparent with their baby (do a Google Image search for "smiling grandpa" for example; that comes up with a lot). Then swap their heads!" This is why somethingawful wins all

a quote from the (D) who is speaking at the rnc tonight

" MILLER (page 2): [M]y conscience travels with me everywhere I go, like some unwelcome inner companion. I cannot escape him and is he tough. He is on steroids, has a Black Belt and long fingernails, and stomps around inside of me, sometimes in hobnailed boots. He’s been there as long as I can remember. Although it’s getting tougher and tougher for me to blow out all the candles on my birthday cake, he just grows stronger—and louder." what a tough life this good man must have to live with this conscience with him all the time. What he needs is be conscious.