🚀 go-pugleaf

Here is why NOT to vote for George Bush!
Courtesy of Scott....

Read it ALL before you vote!


by Scott Smith:

"Sunday, October 24, 2004
Why I'm Not Voting for George W. Bush

Although the election is still a little over a week away, I, like many
others, have already cast my ballot in my state's vote by mail. George
W. Bush was never a consideration for me. To be honest, I probably
would have voted for any candidate running against Bush. Bush has got
to go.

George W. Bush's policy of going it alone has resulted in a huge
disaster in Iraq. And as much as the Bush administration wants people
to believe that the reason we went to war against Iraq was to hunt
down terrorists, the real reason has been conveniently ignored by
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney: we went in to find
and rid Iraq of WMDs. For whatever reason -- whether it was
spectacularly bad intelligence or an administration determined to go
to war regardless of the reason -- the war has been paid in blood by
the deaths of over 1,100 American soldiers, while thousands have been
injured, many never to walk or see or hear again, learning to live
with prosthetic limbs or horrific burns. The lives of these young men
and women have been destroyed by a president who cannot see shades of
grey -- his world is a black and white, either-or world where you're
either with him, or against him. The war has also cost the lives of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, and our occupation of that country has
created an insurgency dedicated to our destruction. Almost daily
targets are bombed, our troops are under constant attack, and Iraqi
forces assisting the U.S. often end up dead, as was the case this
weekend when insurgents attacked a convoy of unarmed Iraqi soldiers,
killing 50.

Perhaps the biggest blunder of the Bush administration was allowing
Osama Bin Laden to escape. The man that George W. Bush once said would
be captured "dead or alive" could be anywhere.

George W. Bush has not apologized to the families of the dead troops
who were sent to Iraq to find WMDs, nor has he apologized to the
American people on how we were so very wrong about WMDs.

Back home, Bush's domestic record is almost non-existent. Bush's one
and only domestic program has been tax cuts. That's it. Since Bush
took office, the economy has lost a total of 821,000 jobs, both in the
private and public sectors (the figure is higher if you do not take
into account public sector jobs).

The number of people living in poverty since Bush took office has
increased by 14%, for a total of 35.9 million Americans living in
poverty, while 45 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, lack
health insurance.

The administration's passing of the U.S. Patriot Act is another reason
for concern. I can understand the need for law enforcement agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be able to share information, but other
provisions of the act potentially violate civil liberties.
Conservatives like to say "What rights have you lost?" but I'm more
concerned with the possibility that certain situations will result in
violation of civil liberties. For instance, if I were to go to a
library and check out a book about Osama Bin Laden, law enforcement
could request my record with no search warrant. If a book is available
at a public library, I should be able to check it out without fear
that the feds will come knocking on my door, asking questions about
why I checked out a particular book. Law enforcement officers can also
infiltrate organizations like churches, mosques or synagogues, again
without a warrant, in an effort to gather intelligence. Also troubling
is the power of the Bush administration to declare someone, even U.S.
citizens, as "enemy combatants" in the war on terror, effectively
removing all constitutional protections one would normally receive. No
access to a lawyer, no speedy trial, and the authority to hold that
person in custody indefinitely.

There are many other troubling aspects of the Bush administration, too
many to list here. Bush's presidency has been a colossal failure, and
he does not deserve a second term.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 1:51 PM 
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Politics of Fear

My new column is out at CounterBias. It's about the politics of fear;
if Americans are scared enough of another terrorist attack, will they
vote for Bush/Cheney? Team Bush is counting on that fear to win the
election. Counter-terrorism is their only platform.

It's been a slow news day. I'm waiting for more O'Reilly news in order
to milk it for all of its worth. Stay tuned.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 3:14 PM 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Sinclair Broadcast Group bitch-slapped by Capitalism

My, what a difference a week makes.

Last week, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns or controls over
60 television stations, announced it would have its affiliates air a
special "news" program about John Kerry, anchored by a 42-minute
anti-John Kerry "documentary" called Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never
Heal. Following that bit of propaganda would be some sort of panel
discussion, presumably to further tarnish the reputation of John
Kerry.

The fact that Sinclair would air Stolen Honor right before the
November election was not lost on the general public.

Many people were soon fighting back, in the same way conservatives
pressured CBS to not air a movie about the Reagan family. Before long,
investors caught a whiff of the controversy, sending shares of
Sinclair stock right down the toilet.

Advertisers in some markets threatened to pull their advertising from
Sinclair stations if the anti-Kerry program was aired.

The group, facing lawsuits from angry stockholders and pressure from
grassroots groups targeting Sinclair advertisers, will now only show
excerpts from Stolen Honor, but still plans on airing a "news" program
about POWs and will likely offer up anti-Kerry sentiments in the
context of that program.

Boycotts of Sinclair continue. Those interested in participating can
sign a petition to stop Sinclair from airing any parts of Stolen
Honor.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 5:12 PM 
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The Election of Fear

Vote for George W. Bush, or the terrorists will strike again!

Fear can be a great motivator. It's very much a part of corporate
America; since no one, for the most part, works for the same company
until they retire, a worker, depending on the corporation, is always
in a position that they could lose their job, whether it be through a
corporate reorganization, massive layoffs, or the outsourcing of jobs
to India, China, Malaysia, and other countries. I used to work in high
tech for a huge corporation, the company that produces the computer
processor that is likely powering your PC. We knew that, depending on
the market, we could lose our jobs. So most people work long hours,
hoping that if job cuts are announced, they will be safe.

George W. Bush knows the power of fear. His campaign knows it. They
know that Bush's record, both foreign and domestic, is piss-poor. The
war in Iraq is claiming lives nearly every day. Bush's domestic policy
accomplishments boil down to several tax cuts. It's not a great record
to run on.

Ah, but add fear into the mix -- fear that terrorists will attack the
United States again -- and suddenly George W. Bush is a viable
candidate.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, Iowa on Sept. 8, Vice President
Dick Cheney warned against a possible terrorist attack -- if John
Kerry is elected. Not that he mentioned Kerry by name, but the
implication was clear: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks
from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make
the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll
be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the
United States," Cheney said.

The Bush administration has been creating a climate of fear since the
attacks of September 11. In March of 2002, the Department of Homeland
Security unveiled the color-coded terror alert advisory. And, every
few months, some vague threat would be announced, and the terror alert
would be raised for a while, then lowered, and then raised again,
causing a near-constant state of anxiety for some people.

The Bush campaign is now counting on that anxiety to win a second
term. Vote for Bush/Cheney, and you'll be protected from terrorists.
Vote for Kerry/Edwards, and watch your ass.

There is no indication at all that a President Kerry would deal with
this issue in a way that would cause another attack on America. George
W. Bush wants you to believe Kerry will let down our guard and be
attacked again.

Terrorism has been quite the boon for Bush. His war on terror can last
indefinitely, and Bush knows that many Americans are worried we'll be
attacked again. Bush has no problem with exploiting that fear for his
own gain. There's no way our terror alert will ever drop down to green
(low) while Bush is president. Keeping a nation in a perpetual state
of anxiety is Bush's goal. And it looks like it's working.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 11:17 AM 
Monday, October 18, 2004
Monday Miscellany

Another week, another day closer to the Nov. 2 election. Will it be
President Kerry? Or will it be President Bush? The two have been tied
in the polls for weeks now, with some fluctuations on occasion in
favor of one candidate over the other.

Several polls currently have President Bush as the front-runner: the
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has bush ahead of John Kerry, 52-44; 50-44%
in the latest Newsweek poll; and 50-46% in an ABC poll.

Will this translate into a win for Bush? That's hard to say at this
point. It is certainly going to be a tight race right up to election
night.

Top 10 Conservative Idiots

Another week, another Top 10 Conservative Idiots list from the
Democratic Underground. What better way is there to start the week
off?

Speaking of Idiots...

I'm not sure if the executives at Fox News are dumb, stupid, crazy, or
a combination of the three. The network is seeking to terminate the
employment of Andrea Mackris, the woman who brought a sexual
harassment lawsuit against popular moralist Bill O'Reilly. They want a
judge to determine that doing so isn't in retaliation for the lawsuit.
Oh, no, of course not, Fox News! It's just one of those wacky
coincidences that are a part of daily life. I'm sure they'll cook up
some lame excuse as to why they need to fire her: "She stole pens from
the supply closet"; "She was chronically early"; or, "She created a
hostile work environment by arousing Bill O'Reilly." Something like
that.

Stay tuned for more O'Reilly bashing. I'm going to be like Fox News
covering the Scott Peterson trial. All O'Reilly, all the time.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 3:07 PM 
Saturday, October 16, 2004
There's Something About Mary

Dick and Lynne Cheney's daughter, Mary, has suddenly become the focus
of media attention, all because John Kerry made what he probably will
think in hindsight was a mistake: evoking her name in answer to a
question in the last presidential debate. Bob Schieffer had asked the
question, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" This was Kerry's
response:

"We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to
Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that
she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who
struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because
they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And
I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when
they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they
were, who they felt God had made them. I think we have to respect
that."

In response, Lynne Cheney said Kerry was guilty of a "cheap and tawdry
political trick," adding, "This is not a good man."

I believe Kerry was trying to make a point about the importance of
families, and perhaps the decision to mention Mary Cheney was a bad
decision, but I find it hard to believe that Kerry intended to hurt
the Cheney family in any way. How could he? People know the Cheneys
have a gay daughter. If Kerry's remarks were a "cheap and tawdry
political trick," what exactly did he stand to gain by making those
remarks?

If I had to make a guess, I'd say a campaign advisor to the
Bush/Cheney campaign suggested that John Kerry be called on his
remarks. Republicans are good at creating distractions away from
issues they know would harm them if the public focused on those
issues. The war in Iraq, the economy, and other domestic and foreign
issues are going to be something of concern from the Bush/Cheney
campaign. The strategy seems to be to shift focus away from the
important issues and instead occupy the public with a non-issue that
ultimately does not affect anyone.

What's odd about this whole episode is how silent the Cheneys have
been in other situations where the subject of homosexuality was
brought up, but not in a positive way. For instance, in an appearance
on the 700 Club on Sept. 13, 2001, Rev. Jerry Falwell said the
following: "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and
the feminists and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to
make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American
Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the
finger in their face and say, 'You helped this (9/11 attack) happen.'"

So, on one hand, we had John Kerry, in a clumsy way, compliment the
Cheney family on being good parents, and the other (extreme), a man
who blamed gays and lesbians for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The
Cheneys had nothing to say about the remarks, and the only statement
issued by the White House about Falwell's remarks was that Bush found
them "inappropriate."

And while the media is focused on Mary Cheney, attention is shifted
away from Iraq. On Friday, car bombs killed five American troops,
while other car bombs targeted churches. This latest attack brings
American casualties to 1,098. Iran is continuing its program of
uranium enrichment, as that country moves closer to actually having a
weapon (or weapons) of mass destruction. There are big issues in the
world, but it's easier just to focus on John Kerry and his compliment
to the Cheney family. Such is the nature of political campaigns.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 12:45 PM 
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Talking Points Memo

Before I get to the memo, here's a link to my new column up at Counter
Bias. It's a piece on the Iraq war and the Bush administration's
colossal intelligence blunder that has resulted in the loss of so much
life. Now, on to the memo.

A bit of startling news from yesterday: Bill O'Reilly, that untiring
crusader against secularists attempting to destroy the moral fabric of
society with their illicit ways, has been slapped with a sexual
harassment lawsuit. It's a complicated story. O'Reilly claimed that a
Fox employee and the employee's lawyers were trying to extort $60
million from O'Reilly/Fox News. The gist of it was the threat to
launch a lawsuit if the "settlement" offer of $60 million was not met,
and the lawsuit would certainly mean the end to the career of Bill
O'Reilly.

So, Fox sued the law firm and the employee for extortion, and the
employee in turn filed the sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly.
You can read all of the gory details at The Smoking Gun. Let's just
say if this material had gotten into O'Reilly new book, The O'Reilly
Factor for Kids, O'Reilly would be sitting next to Michael Jackson in
a courtroom.

I suspect Fox and O'Reilly will settle out of court. It wouldn't be
much of a stretch to assume that the woman, Andrea Mackris, an
O'Reilly Factor associate producer, had taped O'Reilly on occasion
when the two discussed...uh...things, over dinner, or over the phone.
I don't think a man of O'Reilly's reputation would want the world to
hear his voice on tape, speaking graphically of masturbation,
vibrators or Thai prostitutes. That would most certainly destroy his
career.

More as this story develops...

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 2:41 PM 
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Better Than Nyquil: The Final Presidential Debate

I wish this debate had aired at midnight; I deal with insomnia daily
and anything to help get me drowsy is a good thing.

I'm not even sure what anyone said. President George W. Bush was
frequently incoherent; his response to the question regarding
shortages of the flu vaccine made no sense at all; in the last debate,
Bush said he hadn't approved a decision to import generic drugs from
Canada because the Canadian drugs were dangerous, but it turned out
that the flu vaccine itself was dangerous and we're now working with
the Canadians to make up for the shortage (huh?); and John Kerry, I'm
positive, was sedated. Someone behind the scenes must have told all
parties involved to lower the intensity and the result was something
akin to spending an hour staring at a freshly-painted wall.

Also, and I know this is not important, but there was something on the
corner of Bush's lip that was really distracting.

Back to the debate. Uh, people said stuff. That's about all I
remember. Bush denied that he ever said that Osama Bin Laden was no
longer a concern (which he actually did say at a press conference held
on March 14, 2002. Bush said, in response to a question about the
threat Osama Bin Laden posed to the United States, "Well, as I say, we
haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at
the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he
is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about
him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had
taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was
basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.")

And come on, ending a debate with candidates making jokes? They should
have been bashing each other in the head with two by fours. Bush's
laugh is kind of creepy and Kerry obviously isn't used to being jovial
in public.

Some facts and numbers were thrown around and no one seemed all that
interested in those numbers.

All in all, a lifeless performance by both candidates.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 8:33 PM 
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Sinclair Broadcasting: It's Just News

On April 30, the ABC News program, Nightline with Ted Koppel, devoted
the show's air time to reading the names of the fallen soldiers from
the war in Iraq.

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns or operates 62 television
stations in 29 markets, was none too happy with ABC's decision, and
ordered its affiliates to not air the show, in part, because,
according to a statement issued by Sinclair, "(Nightline) appears to
be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts
of the United States in Iraq." The Sinclair Group also deemed the
broadcast to be political statement "disguised as news."

How then to explain Sinclair's decision to have its affiliate stations
air the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal --
uncut, with no commercials? In an ironic twist, Sinclair is calling
the broadcast of that documentary, followed by a panel discussion, as
a "news event."

Stolen Honor is described by its producers as "A documentary exposing
John Kerry's record of betrayal."

So, to summarize: reading the names of the fallen soldiers from the
Iraq war is in reality a thinly-disguised effort to undermine support
for the war, while airing an anti-Kerry documentary in the days prior
to the presidential election is a "news event."

Of course, Sinclair could also air the documentary Going Upriver: The
Long War of John Kerry in an effort to present a balanced look at John
Kerry.

Oh, look, I think I see some flying pigs.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 2:22 PM 
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Superman Has Died; Christopher Reeve, 1952-2004

I still remember the day as a kid when I went to see the first
Superman movie starring Christopher Reeve. And man, did it make an
impression on my young mind. I dug up an old class picture from 6th
grade, and I had my Superman t-shirt on for that day. Christopher
Reeve was a hero to me as a kid, as I'm sure he was for many kids.

Superman has remained one of my favorite movies, and when the DVD
special edition came out a few years ago, I had to have it. Watching
it again as a grown man, I still felt that same sense of wonder that I
felt as a kid back in 1978, watching Superman fly to catch Lois Lane
when she fell from her crashed helicopter atop the Daily Planet
building. That nine-year-old boy was awed by the magic up on that huge
movie screen.

Mr. Reeve fell into a coma Saturday night, and died Sunday of heart
failure. He was 52.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 11:56 PM 
Friday, October 08, 2004
Presidential Debates Round Two: Kerry 2, Bush 0

Tonight's debate was a close one; it wasn't a slam-dunk for Kerry as
last week's debate was. The two men had very different strategies in
responding to questions, and I think John Kerry chose the right
strategy in answering much in the same way Bill Clinton would have.

Bush came across as arrogant, petulant and overly aggressive. Humility
is not a trait I would associate with George W. Bush. Bush still
cannot own up to any mistakes he thinks he's made, because he doesn't
think he's made mistakes. As anyone who has participated in a
behavioral interview knows, there is a way to answer the "what
mistakes have you made" question in a way that shows strength of
character, not weakness.

While Kerry had many facts and figures to use in answering questions,
Bush presented his standard stump-speech responses and talking points.
It is getting tiresome to hear yet another conservative say that John
Kerry is the "most liberal" member of the senate. The National Journal
rated him the most liberal member of the senate based ONLY on one
year, 2003. Kerry's lifetime record puts him as the 11th most liberal
senator.

Bush was aggressive in pushing the message of Kerry being a
"flip-flopper," but, again, seemed to be spouting lines fed to him,
rather than making statements based on facts. The quick sound-bite
response has become the standard in politics, and of course John Kerry
does the same thing. I guess you have to with only a couple of minutes
to respond.

Also, and maybe it's a regional thing, but I had no idea what Bush
meant when he said "Battling green eye shades." What the hell does
that mean? Will someone please explain this?

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 8:40 PM 
The Friday Night Fight

Round two of the presidential debates is upon us. I'm hoping to write
up a debate analysis this evening, so stay tuned.

Tonight's debate will be a town hall format, moderated by ABC's
Charlie Gibson. 15-20 members of the audience have been selected to
ask questions; the candidates do not know what questions will be
asked. I think it's safe to assume that Iraq and the U.S. economy will
be addressed. Hopefully someone will ask Bush about Iraq WMDs.

Republicans still stubbornly cling to the notion that the world is
safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars. Given what we now know of
Iraq's non-existent weapons and weapons programs, I wonder how the
world is safer. Maybe it's more accurate to say that Iraqi people are
safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars. Well, maybe not safer right now
(we seem to bomb a lot of wedding parties in the war on terror) but,
hopefully, eventually. Lacking WMDs, I have to wonder exactly how
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world. It's a question for Bush to
answer; not that he will. The words "Bush" and "responsibility" have
never been used in the same sentence.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 4:50 PM 
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Great Moments in Presidential Debates

My new column is up at CounterBias. It's a light-hearted look at past
presidential debates. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 11:35 AM 
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Weapons of Mass Destruction: "Wait Until Charlie Gets Back."

At a June 10th press conference following the G8 summit, President
George W. Bush was asked by a reporter about the hunt for WMDs in
Iraq:

I wonder if you can share with the American people your conclusions,
based on what you've learned over the past 15 months, sir, as to
whether those weapons were -- existed and they were hidden, were they
destroyed, were they somehow spirited out of the country, or perhaps
they weren't there before the war, and whether you had a chance to
share this with your G8 partners?

Bush:
Right, no -- Bob, it's a good question. I don't know -- I haven't
reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors -- inspection
teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity
to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used
weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll
wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be
glad to report.

The Charlie in question is Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons
inspector in Iraq.

Charlie is back, and the WMD report has been released (you can read it
here, but you'll need to have the Adobe reader to view it).

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

None.

George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,064
brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not
to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in
a hunt for weapons that never existed. In fact, contrary to
conservative claims, 12 years of sanctions in Iraq diminished Saddam
Hussein's ability to produce weapons. The sanctions were working. We
didn't need to go to war. There was no threat by Saddam Hussein.

And now, young men and women have paid the price for the mistakes of
the Bush administration. Paid with blood and limbs torn from bodies
and paralysis and brain damage, young lives destroyed because Bush and
his team were so fucking anxious to take us to war that they would do
anything to dream up an excuse to use military force.

It's time for Junior to take some fucking responsibility and stop
blaming his mistakes on the CIA, on Bill Clinton, on anything and
anyone but him.

Expect no outrage from conservatives. They don't give a shit that
anyone has been killed in Iraq.

Thanks, Mr. Bush.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 8:27 PM 
Cheney Lies, Pt. II: The Proof

The DNC has produced a devastating video showing Vice President Cheney
lying through his teeth (it should be on the front page of the DNC
site, under the header of DNC Video: Cheney vs. reality). Take a look
and let other folks know just how honest Mr. Cheney is.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 2:18 PM 
Dick Cheney Is a Lying Liar

Dick Cheney lies. A lot. Tuesday's debate with John Edwards is a good
example, because Cheney and the truth were not in the same room.
Here's a great example:

Dick Cheney: I've never met John Edwards

Cheney seemingly landed a blow against Edwards when he made this
statement:

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate,
the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're
in session. The first time I ever met you (Edwards) was when you
walked on the stage tonight."

One problem with that: it's a lie. Cheney and Edwards, among others,
participated in the National Prayer Breakfast on February 1, 2001. In
a speech, Cheney said:

"Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards,
friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country
from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this
morning. I've always counted myself fortunate to have been raised in a
part of the country where the Almighty chose to do some of his finest
work."

Now, in case you might think Cheney was referring to a different
Senator Edwards, the photo below should clarify which Senator Edwards
Cheney was talking about.


Cheney continues to insist he's never said that there was a connection
between Iraq and the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. From Tuesday's debate:

"The senator (Edwards) has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested
there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an
established Iraqi track record with terror."

Oops. Another lie. Cheney, appearing on Meet The Press on Sept. 14,
2003, said:

"If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base
of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but
most especially on 9/11."

That sounds like a connection between Iraq and the attacks on Sept.
11. Perhaps Cheney's memory is faulty?

Regardless, we do know that Cheney lied, frequently, in his debate
with John Edwards. Not that I expected Cheney to tell the truth, as
that would get in the way of his attacks against John Kerry.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 11:35 AM 
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Retraction: Cheney 0, Edwards 1

I'm not going to change my general review of the debate, but I'm
changing my opinion of the winner in light of something I missed while
watching the debate, and give the edge to John Edwards.

Why? Well, at one point during the debate, Dick Cheney said to visit
the web site Fact Check to get the "truth" about Halliburton. But he
said Fact Check dot COM. And what happens when you pull up Fact Check,
as Cheney said?

Well, click on this link and see for yourself.

Priceless.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 11:21 PM 
  

Cheney vs. Edwards: Cheney 1, Edwards 0

Although John Edwards gave it his best shot, ultimately Cheney came
away as the winner of tonight's debate, in my opinion -- but barely;
it wasn't a slam-dunk by Cheney. Edwards made some good points --
especially when he reminded everyone that the votes John Kerry had
cast in the senate against weapons programs were, in fact, at the
recommendation of Dick Cheney.

Debate moderator Gwen Ifill seemed to have forgotten the rules she was
on hand to enforce, as both Cheney and Edwards directly addressed each
other on numerous occasions. Also, the answers given to questions many
times had little to do with the actual question asked by Ifill.

The debate lacked the sparks seen in previous debates -- particularly
the infamous Lloyd Bentsen/Dan Quayle '88 debate where Quayle had
difficulty answering the question of what he would do if he had to
assume the presidency, and Bensten's "you're no Jack Kennedy" response
to Quayle when Quayle mentioned having the same experience as JFK.

Cheney was rattled a few times and his famous short-fuse came to the
surface; Edwards spent a lot of time writing on his pad of paper and
then loudly ripping the pages from the pad.

As is typical with most debates, there was little substance. Cheney
focused almost entirely on Kerry's record (regardless of the accuracy
of Cheney's interpretation of that record) while Edwards tried hard to
defend Kerry and, at the same time, take shots against Cheney (Bush).

The issue of experience was raised. This is always a confusing subject
due to the fact that, depending on the situation and candidate,
political experience can be either seen as a benefit or a deficit
("He's a Washington insider!") Yes, Dick Cheney has more experience
than John Edwards, but John Edwards has the same amount of political
experience that Bush had when he ran for president. Does it really
matter? I don't think so, necessarily, as Bush has proven.

Whatever the outcome, ultimately this debate is merely the warm-up act
for the next presidential debate on Friday, a town forum format hosted
by ABC's Charles Gibson.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 8:40 PM 
Fox News' Last Comic Standing: Carl Cameron

Carl Cameron is the chief political correspondent at Fox News. He's
featured in Robert Greenwald's documentary Outfoxed. Cameron is shown
interviewing candidate George W. Bush during the 2000 election.
Cameron is also shown chatting with Bush a few minutes before the
interview, and we learn that Cameron's wife had been working for the
Bush campaign. In a news organization driven by journalistic ethics,
Cameron would not have been allowed to interview Bush, because of a
little thing we journalists call a "conflict of interest."

Fox News and conservative pundits had very strong reactions to the
revelation that a New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, had
fabricated stories; and, of course, conservatives screamed bloody
murder when it was discovered that CBS News had used forged documents
in a story about George W. Bush's National Guard service.

How do conservatives respond when one of their own fabricates quotes
for a story featured on the Fox News web site? With silence.

Carl Cameron, for whatever reason, wrote up a mock press release about
the first presidential debate, including a number of phony quotes
attributed to John Kerry. The piece was quickly removed from Fox's web
site, not before other sites mirrored the story, which can be read
here.

Remember, this is the same fellow who covered the Bush campaign in
2000 while his wife worked for the campaign.

Some of the quotes:

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry
said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to
keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few
days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women
and abortion rights.

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures,"
Kerry said.

"I'm metrosexual he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of
himself and his opponent.

Oh, man, my sides are splitting. The Daily Show really needs to hire
Cameron, he's a friggin' hoot.

Fox News quickly took action, by removing Cameron's comedic
masterpiece from the web site and offering up a lame apology:

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain
quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporters partial
script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted
or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue
and bad judgment, not malice.

Damn fatigue!

Presumably Cameron is keeping his job, and I haven't seen any reaction
from right-wingers about the incident. I have to wonder what Roger
Ailes, the president of Fox News, would have done if, say, Alan Colmes
had written up something that put George W. Bush in a bad light and it
was published on Fox's web site? I imagine Alan would be looking for a
new job.

Now, I don't know how old Cameron is, but I'm guessing he's older than
18. See, when I was 18 and fresh out of the Defense Department's
school of journalism, I drafted up a phony bit of correspondence that
I left on a conference room table. I was young and stupid, so I wasn't
punished, but still, Cameron is the chief political correspondent and
should know better.

That's Fox News: fair and balanced, unless its correspondents are
fatigued.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 1:33 PM 
Monday, October 04, 2004
John Kerry: Dirty Cheater

Matt Drudge has been on a roll for the past year or so with his
devastating reports on John Kerry's...uh...skin. First, the revelation
that John Kerry was treated for wrinkles with Botox. Oh, my. Then, the
revelation that Kerry had stopped getting Botox treatment. Most
recently, Drudge reported the startling revelation of John Kerry with
tanned skin. Oh, the horror!

Now Drudge is suggesting that John Kerry "cheated" at the first
presidential debate by bringing a "cheat sheet" with him to the
debate. This Drudge "exclusive" includes a link to video footage of
Kerry removing...something...from the breast pocket of his suit
jacket. As others have concluded, it appears that Kerry had, in fact,
removed a pen. Conservatives, who automatically believe anything
Drudge reports to be the gospel truth, registered their disgust and
indignation over Kerry being a dirty cheat on blogs and message
boards. Of particular note are the posters at Conservative Underground
and The Right Society, two groups whose members frequently mention how
intelligent they are yet will use Drudge as a source to report on
whatever bit of gossip Drudge had dredged up for the day. That does
not support the notion of intelligence, but hey, when you lean to the
right, your brain stops working and you have to fill it with "facts"
spoon-fed by Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Let's explore this concept a little further. Yes, the debate rules
stated that a candidate could not bring anything with them to the
podium, such as a pen. Now, is it really that big a deal if Kerry
brought a pen? Could it be that when he arrived at his podium he saw
that the type of pen he liked to use had been forgotten? Whatever the
case, who cares? It's a friggin' pen, get over it. As for the
accusation that Kerry used a "cheat-sheet," well, that's just fucking
stupid. Bush and Kerry didn't know what questions would be asked or in
what order, or to whom. And even if Kerry had pulled out a sheet of
paper from his pocket...how could he possibly have notes on questions
he didn't know were going to be asked? The only time Kerry looked down
at his podium was to take a note of some of Bush's responses.

All of this stinks of desperation. Bush did a terrible job at the
debate, and now the right-wingers are anxious to deflect attention
away from the seemingly clueless Bush. What better way to accomplish
this than through a Drudge rumor? The next debate will be a town-hall
format. Expect conservatives to dream up another Kerry rumor if Bush
has his clock cleaned again, something along the lines of "Kerry
planted people in the audience! What a bastard!"

Make sure to tune in to the debate between John Edwards and Dick
Cheney tomorrow night. That should make for some good television.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 2:12 PM 
Sunday, October 03, 2004
John Kerry's post-debate Bounce

Not surprisingly, John Kerry's poll numbers have vaulted him back to a
dead-heat with George W. Bush. Kerry's numbers improved because of
last week's debate, where he finally had the opportunity to present
himself to America as a man of confidence with a firm grasp of the
issues. George W. Bush, on the other hand, appeared to be tired,
stumbling for answers to questions in some instances, on the
defensive, and clearly rattled by John Kerry. As Kerry spoke, Bush
reacted noticeably to John Kerry's responses, his face a grimace of
annoyance and frustration. Bush did not look presidential at all.

The latest Newsweek poll shows Kerry once again tied with the
president (or ahead, if you don't include Ralph Nader), with 47% of
voters likely to vote for Kerry and 45% for Bush. The previous
Newsweek poll had Mr. Bush with a very comfortable 11-point lead over
Kerry.

The poll also showed that voters felt Kerry was more likeable than
Bush, 47% to 41%. I think this has been a big problem for Kerry up
until now, as the perception of him previously wasn't as positive,
with voters feeling Kerry to be distant and aloof.

Bush's job performance rating has dropped to 46%, an all-time low.

Conservatives who dismiss the debates as irrelevant are forgetting how
previous debates changed the direction of a presidential campaign,
from Ronald Reagan and his "are you better off now than four years
ago" line in the 1980 election that cost Jimmy Carter his job. In the
1988 debates, Michael Dukakis came across as cold and distant; and in
1992, the debates helped an unknown governor of a small southern state
to beat an incumbent. Clinton's victory was huge. And while Al Gore
won the popular vote in 2000, Gore's demeanor and audible sighing in
that series of debates likely caused some undecided voters to vote for
George W. Bush.

George W. Bush has a hard job ahead of him. The final debate will deal
with domestic policy. Let's just say domestic issues are not Bush's
strong suit. Kerry is very likely to clean his clock in that debate.

This will be a tight race and the election could go to either man at
this point. It will be interesting to see if the debates will affect
the undecided voters, as they will ultimately decide the outcome of
the election.

The next debate will be Tuesday as the John Edwards and Dick Cheney
square off, followed by the second Bush/Kerry debate on October 8th.
That debate will be a town-hall format. The final debate is scheduled
for October 13. You can read about the debates, and view transcripts
of past debates, at the Commission on Presidential Debates web site.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 3:28 PM 
Friday, October 01, 2004
Presidential Debate, Round One: Kerry 1, Bush 0

Last night's presidential debate, the first of three, ended with a
clear winner: John Kerry. The question remains if this debate will
have any affect on undecided voters. They're the key to this election,
which might be a very tight race. (Read the debate transcript here)

Bush's problem in the debate was that he was on the defensive most of
the time, and many times had trouble articulating responses to the
questions asked by host Jim Lehrer. You could see Bush taking a few
moments to come up with an answer. Kerry, on the other hand, appeared
to be ready for any question. I was also pleased to see that Kerry was
able to give a short, concise response to the questions, while at the
same time leveling some devastating attacks on Bush. Now, the rules
for the debates (mostly requested by the Bush campaign team) required,
among other things, that the camera focus only on the candidate
speaking and not to cut away to responses given by the opposition. Fox
News provided the debate feed to the other networks, and Fox wisely
ignored the request to not air reaction shots. John Kerry remained
calm and poised, while Bush, many times, grimaced in response to what
Kerry had to say, clearly rattled.

To be fair, neither candidate provided details on their respective
plans for Iraq, which was the focus of this first debate. Those
details certainly will be provided in the upcoming debates.

Kerry was relentless is speaking on the war against terrorism, and
invoked the name of Osama Bin Laden in many of his responses, driving
home the message that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda responsible for
the attack on Sept. 11, not Iraq.

Bush provided a Rumsfeld-esque Freudian slip when talking about
progress in the war against terrorism:

"We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart,
they'll strike anywhere, with any means.

And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we
do.

That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of
mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaida, which we
are.

But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't
really understand the nature of the war on terror.

Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. He's
isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to
justice. The killer -- the mastermind of the September 11th attacks,
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison."

Kerry was also able to get Bush to say Bin Laden's name, something
Bush hasn't done in a long time. Because, under the Bush
Administration's new paradigm on the war against terror was to strike
against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11,
but in Bush's mind, he was the real threat to the United States, not
Al Qaeda.

Here's a bit from the debate where Kerry got Bush to say "Osama Bin
Laden." Bush was clearly not pleased with this exchange, judging from
his body language and defensive tone in response:

"KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily
revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your
question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The
enemy attacked us."

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida
attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains
of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With
the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use
the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one
criminal and terrorist."

"BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I
know that.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have
caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my
judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.
We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind
eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him.
He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made
weapons."

Disarm Hussein? Of what? It's interesting that Bush made a number of
references for the need to disarm Saddam Hussein, as if he, Bush,
still believed Saddam had stashes of WMDs somewhere.

It will be interesting to see how the other debates play out. This
first debate, on foreign policy and the war in Iraq, should have been
a slam-dunk for Bush, as these are the areas he mainly is campaigning
on. The next debate will cover domestic policy, and Bush knows his
record here in the United States is a dismal one. Bush likely will be
pounded against the ropes by John Kerry in a debate on domestic
policy. It should make for a great debate.


# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 12:09 PM 
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
This Week's Column Is Out

Head on over to CounterBias to give it a read, and make sure to check
out the other great articles by my fellow CounterBias columnists. It's
also running at the Democratic Underground and The Smirking Chimp. Let
me know what you think.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we're waiting to see if Mt. St. Helens
is going to blow its top again. For the last few weeks, the volcano
has experienced a series of earthquakes. I lived in Vancouver,
Washington when Mt. St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980. I was 11 years
old and it was an awesome spectacle. My neighborhood was covered in
ash for weeks. From Vancouver, Mt. St. Helens looked like a nuclear
explosion had occurred, with a huge plume of smoke and ash billowing
out into the air. For weeks after we had to wear air filter masks if
we went outside into the neighborhood, there was so much ash on the
ground.

I'm hoping to have a debate analysis posted Friday, so stay tuned.

# posted by Scott C. Smith @ 2:09 PM"

-------------
THANK GOD for Scott Smith!
Please watch this ALL of this to the
BLOODY end: http://www.scottcsmith.net/remindus.swf