<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d6390303\x26blogName\x3dStix+Blog\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://stix1972.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://stix1972.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-3180007464046243512', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, September 30, 2004

My reactions to the debate.

I don't think that the debates are going to cahnge anybodies minds adn will probably not change any undecided voters minds either. I think that John Kerry did a good job and Bush did a good job. I think it was like 2 teams testing eachother out at the beginning of a big game. No one wanted to make a mistake, so they went coutiously through the debated. With that said. I want to say some things about what Kerry said I think are wrong and a little deceptive. 1. How are you going to make more special forces. are you going to drop the requirements and tests to get into the special forces. You can't just say you are a special forces soldier without going through the training. 2 How much money is all of what Kerry wants to do going to cost???? A couple $ trillion maybe. 3 Kerry's biggest thing was going after Osama Bin Laden. When was he the only person in the War on Terror. I remember when Bush said he was just one man and the War on Terror was against all terrorists that want to do us harm. 4 I can't count the times he deceived people with his facts and figures. Iwill have to get back to you on that one when I see the transcripts. 5 It was not a mistaker to go into Iraq. We had knowledge of WMDs and officials from many countries said that he had WMDs and that Saddam was going to try and attack us or our allies. And here is what I thought anout Bush 1 He did a pretty good job, but he seemed to be a little too defensive. 2 Later in the debate he started to repeat stuff too much and maybe turned a few people off with that. 3 For once I think he didn't mess up the English language. 4 He did a good job of saying that it was hard to transform Iraq into a democracy. 5 He did have good points on how Kerry dissed our allies. How can you get those people on board with you when you call them the "bribed and coerced" All in all I think that it was kind a tie, with maybe a little edge to Kerry. He showed that he has a confidence that seemed to be missing throughout the campaign so far. He did seem to be consistant on his ideas. But wait a couple days that might change. Will see how the next debate goes. I think that the next one will be better suited for Bush. He will be more in a forum suited to his style of speech and debate. I might have to think a little more and get back with some more comment on the debate. This is just my initial comment. Tomorrow I will have more time to check out the transcipts and see what other are saying. Update!!! I forgat to add that Kerry was talking about a "International Test". WTF????????? Wht the hell is that. This just shows how he would give other people a veto on our military actions and our countries protection. Kerry is in no wy prsdidential material. He would not have out interests at heart. He would be trying to make France and Germany like us and let the terrorists go. , We need to elect Bush for our own safety. I know PResident Bush is not the greatest. I never said he was, but he is much better thatn Kerry. The main reasonis the War on Terror.

Lawmaker expresses "dismay" that White House allegedly wrote Allawi speech

What the hell is Feinstein talking about??? This is just crazy. Is she wesring her tin foil hat.
Lawmaker expresses "dismay" that White House allegedly wrote Allawi speech
Thu Sep 30, 3:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat expressed "profound dismay" that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech to Congress last week.

Photo AFP/File Photo

"I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were 'heavily involved' in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush (news - web sites).

"You may be surprised by this, Mr. President, but I viewed Prime Minister Allawis speech as an independent view on conditions in Iraq (news - web sites)," she wrote.

"His speech gave me hope that reconstruction efforts were proceeding in most of the country and that elections could be held on schedule."

"To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks," Feinstein wrote.

Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Debate Facts

Get your debate facts on Kerry here. Check it out.

Premiere Edition of Pundit review Radio

Go here to listen to the primiere edition of Pundit Review Radio The guest is Matt Margolis.

1,000 cases of suspicious voter registrations

Another voting fraud case involving the Democrats (NAACP) . I am just wondering how much voter fraud is going to happen here in Southern Illinois. And don't foget the Democratic creed during elections, "Vote Early and vote often"

1,000 cases of suspicious voter registrations

Lake, Summit officials intend to investigate
Friday, September 24, 2004
Steve Luttner and Michael Scott
Plain Dealer Reporters

More than 1,000 voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests may be fraudulent in Lake and Summit counties, where investigations of irregularities are broadening.

Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap said Thursday that he will investigate an attempt to register a dead person and other possibly fraudulent documents that were submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections.

Dunlap also said he has notified the FBI and the Ohio secretary of state.

"We want to make sure the election here in Lake County is the best possible," Dunlap said. "I don't know if this was a concerted effort or if it was just an overzealous, independent person here and there who decided to push the envelope."

Elections officials have said hundreds of absentee ballot applications and dozens of voter registration cards are in question. Lake County Prosecutor Charles Coulson, also involved in the probe, said the problems are more significant than originally thought.

"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."

Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.

The National Voter Fund could not be reached Wednesday or Thursday at its Washington, D.C., offices.

A spokesman for ACT Ohio, however, said the group believed the allegations would prove groundless.

Several registration applications submitted by campaign volunteers for a candidate are also being scrutinized, Lake elections board Director Jan Clair said.

None of the officials would identify the candidate, however.

Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.

In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered.

"We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said.

"We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."

In Summit County, meanwhile, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has agreed to assist the Sheriff's Department in the examination of 803 suspect voter registration applications.

Bryan Williams, director of the Summit County Board of Elections, said high interest in this year's presidential election has resulted in unprecedented numbers of voter registrations, absentee ballot requests and irregular voter applications.

Williams said the suspect voter registration applications include some with nonexistent addresses while others from the same street all have the street identically misspelled.

Williams said that usually people applying to vote fill out their own cards before signing them, drawing attention to the odd fact that the street name is not spelled correctly.

Still other voter registration cards bear strikingly similar handwriting, suggesting one person submitted a group of fraudulent voter registration cards.

"We are not certified handwriting experts, but we believe that these were common looking signatures," Williams said.

He said there are many groups aggressively trying to register new voters in time for the November election.

He said that in most instances, it's difficult to determine what group or individual submitted voter registration cards.

Italian hostages in Iraq released

Thank God the terrorists yhugs di not behead these 2 women. all they were doing was trying to help the Iraqi people. they were against the war and were helping the people of Iraq anyway. If they did murder these 2 women it would have been real bad for their image. they had nothing to do with the US invasion of Iraq. I wish them the best of luck and hopefully they will continue their help for the Iraqi people.

Italian hostages in Iraq released

Baghdad, Iraq, Sep. 28 (UPI) -- Two Italian women were released Tuesday by their suspected Iraqi kidnappers and handed over to the Italian embassy in Baghdad

Al-Jazeera television reported the release of Simona Barri and Simona Torreta to the Italian charge d'affaires.

The Qatari television station quoted security sources as saying the handover took place in the presence of mediators who worked on the release.

The identity of the mediators were not released.

Barri's father, Luciano, confirmed from Rome the release of his daughter and her colleague.

"Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi contacted us to tell us the news," Barri said in a telephone interview with al-Jazeera.

"We have no information about the identity of the kidnappers and all we got were the briefings from the press office at the foreign ministry," Barri said, adding that he did not have a chance to speak to his daughter yet.

Oompa Loompa Democrats

This was too good to pass up. Via Blogs of war

Oompa Loompa Democrats Oompa Loompa Democrats doo I’ve got another doozy for you Oompa Loompa doompadah dee If you are clueless you’ll vote for me

What do you get from a glut of TV? Swift Boat Vets always shooting at me Why don’t you try simply reading a book? But at my weak record you better not look!

You’ll get no You’ll get no You’ll get no You’ll get no You’ll get no achievements

Oompa Loompa Doompadee Dah At your expense I will go far Taxing and spending, flip-flopping too Like the Oompa Oompa Loompa Democrats do

Edited for John Kerry by John Little and Preston Ledger

Photo via Blogs for Bush

Bush Supporter Stumps Edwards at Town Meeting

From Blogs For Bush.
I asked Edwards the following question: “Would a Kerry/Edwards Administration end frivolous lawsuits by enacting serious tort reform in this country?” Edwards’ answer was: “Uhh...well…you need to ask Sam over there, he can tell you more about our plan.” I found the disappearance of his trademark smile and sudden uncertainty in an unplanned moment to be extremely revealing.
Shouldn't Edwards at least know something about the plan for tort reform? Or at least say that they we are not going to do any tort reform? “Uhh...well…you need to ask Sam over there, he can tell you more about our plan.” is not a good response for a lawyer.

Dick Morris: Bush Set Debate Trap for Kerry

This should be an intersting debate. What is Kerry goign to say about Iraq. What he said last week, amonth ago, in 1997 or what he said yesterday. I yjink Bush was right in saying Kery could debate himself for 90 minutes.
Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004 11:48 a.m. EDT

Dick Morris: Bush Set Debate Trap for Kerry

President Bush has set a debate trap for John Kerry that will force him to take positions opposed by a large percentage of his backers, former top Clinton strategist Dick Morris said Monday. "What's happened is that Bush has set up a trap for Kerry," Morris told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"He has so emphasized Kerry's flip-flopping, so-called weakness, vacillation, all that stuff, that Kerry has to take strong positions in the debate."

That will force Kerry to make his position clear once and for all on Iraq, the top strategist said – which inevitably will cost him votes.

Morris explained:

"A third of his voters are certified hawks, who say that we're winning the war on terror. ... [But] half of his voters are doves. When he starts adopting an anti-Iraq line, anti-war line, he's going to alienate a third of his own voters."

If Kerry comes out strong for the war, however, he can say goodbye to the anti-war types, who think he'll cut and run.

"Kerry has a strategic problem," said Morris. "And it doesn't matter how good a debater you are and how attractive you are. Every time he opens his mouth on a foreign policy debate, he's got to take a position that alienates a portion of his voters."

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

Everyone shold be terrified of a Kery presdency. Not just the military.
Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004 12:51 a.m. EDT

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday. Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it."

"We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.

The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.

"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson.

Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there."

Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.

"Almost immediately people were lining up to get their kids shots," he told Anderson.

Contrary to reports that the general population was too afraid to help ferret out insurgents, Romack said, "We had Iraqis pointing out former Baath Party members for us to arrest."

When the KWEL host opened up the phone lines, a member of the 82nd Airborne who had returned from Iraq in March was first on the line.

He agreed with Cpl. Romack that media reports coming out of Iraq were often inaccurate – and sometimes even dangerous.

"The news media – sometimes I felt like I had as much to fear from them as I did the Iraqis," he complained.

Frosty Blast of Reality for the 'Global Warming' Crowd

Bad news for the enviromentalist wackos. Looks like this summer was one of the collest on record.
"NOAA REPORTS COOL SUMMER, SEVENTH COLDEST AUGUST ON RECORD ACROSS THE LOWER 48 STATES," the headline blared on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's site.

Only the Far West was "much above normal." The Northeast and Upper Great Plains states were "below normal," and most of flyover country, from Michigan to Texas, was "much below normal." The Southeast and Southwest were "near normal.

Read the rest here.

Supreme Court Takes on Question of Government Seizing Land

Finally the Supreme Court is going to here a case of the illegal confisction of people's property. Hopefully the Supreme Court will actually look at the constitution and see that this is illegal and the govenment can not just take people's property away from them. Supreme Court Takes on Question of Government Seizing Land
NewsMax.com Wires Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when governments may seize people's homes and businesses for economic development projects. At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation" and the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

They argued the taking would be proper only if it served to revitalize slums or blighted areas dangerous to the public.

New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serve a "public purpose," such as boosting economic growth, and are valid "public use" projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.

Nationwide, more than 1,000 properties were threatened or condemned between 1998 and 2002, according to Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with commercial development intended to attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

"The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation," the city's legal filing states, in asking the high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes "public use."

According to the residents' filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts have indicated they probably would find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional. The remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

The case is Kelo et al. vs. City of New London, 04-108

Florida Officials Shred Jimmy Carter's 'Shockingly Partisan' Lies

Carter is the one that thought the elections in Venuzuela were alrigfht and is worried about the elections in Florida. What a joke. Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004

Florida Officials Shred Jimmy Carter's 'Shockingly Partisan' Lies

Florida officials have put the worst president in modern American history in his place.

Jimmy Carter's latest paranoid fantasies about the presidential vote – apparently he fears that John Kerry, like Al Gore, might not be able to steal the election – are as botched as his four years of White House malaise, according to officials.

Read the rest here.

Billionaire George Soros intensifies his anti-Bush campaign

Maybe a Barking Moonbat award is in the futer for George Soros.

Billionaire George Soros intensifies his anti-Bush campaign

WASHINGTON, Sept 28 (AFP) - Billionaire financier George Soros is putting his wealth and personal reputation on the line in his quest to convince voters to cast ballots against George W. Bush in the November 2 presidential election.

Soros, 74, announced Tuesday that he was traveling to 12 US cities -- including stops in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Florida -- starting October 5 for meetings with the public and local news media.

He has also penned a pamhlet tited "Why we must not re-elect President Bush" and is mailing copies to two million voters.

Five weeks ahead of the November 2 US presidential vote, Soros, a Hungarian born US citizen, also announced he was launching an website (www.GeorgeSoros.com) where he promises to answer questions by undecided voters.

He said he was running two-page ads in several US newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, on Wednesday.

"This is the most important election of my lifetime," Soros writes in the brochure. "I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending this message."

Soros adds: "I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing."

Republican House of Representative Speaker Dennis Hastert suggested in a late August television interview that Soros may be making his billions off illegal-drug related activities. Soros wrote to Hastert demanding an apology.

"There is no way to avoid a smear campaign," said Soros, speaking at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday. "It`s in full swing. All I can do is get my message out and try to have people listen."

The event was barely over when the Republican National Committee issued a statement blasting Soros.

"The only explanation for the Daddy Warbucks of the Democratic Party . . . to step out from behind the curtain 35 days before the election is his obvious concern for his investment in (Democratic presidential candidate) John Kerry," the statement read, an allusion to the 12 million dollars that Soros has contributed to the Kerry campaign.

"I am not a politician," a subdued Soros told reporters. "I am totally out of my normal role standing here. Nobody would get far with my advice."

Soros blasted the US-led war on Iraq, conducted by the Bush administration as an extension of the "war on terror," which he says makes the United States less safe, not safer.

But Soros was unprepared when asked if he thought the more than 1,000 US soldiers who died fighting in Iraq gave their lives in vain.

"It`s a tremendous responsability for president Bush," said Soros. There was a pause as he chose his words carefully. "It`s a tremendous tragedy," he added.

Soros also said that he was "eager to reach Republicans who might vote for Bush out of party loyalty," and intends to "reach out to the business community, especially among the traditional conservatives."

According to Soros there are many Republicans "who are quite distressed about the policies of this administration."

Retired army general Wesley Clark, earlier in the year a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, introduced Soros at the event.

Clark spoke on behalf of a group called "Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change," which will join Soros for parts of the tour.

'American Taliban' Appeals for Early Release

'American Taliban' Appeals for Early Release
Email this story Sep 28, 2:43 PM (ET) SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The lawyer for an American sentenced to 20 years in a U.S. prison for fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan appealed to President Bush to lessen his sentence after a man in a similar case was freed.

John Walker Lindh, 23, dubbed the "American Taliban," was captured during the Afghanistan war and was sentenced in 2002 under a plea deal.

His lawyer, James Brosnahan, said he had filed an appeal on Tuesday to commute the sentence after a long-held accused enemy combatant, Yaser Hamdi, was scheduled to be freed from the United States to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was also captured in Afghanistan.

"I hope America can find it in her heart to forgive John," Lindh's mother told a news conference. "John has admitted he made a mistake when he went to Afghanistan in June 2001 to fight in the civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance."

Bush administration completes get-tough plan for Syria

As I have staed it before. It is about time!!!!!!!!
Bush administration completes get-tough plan for Syria

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The Bush administration has drafted contingency plans for bringing military and economic pressure against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Officials said the administration has determined that diplomacy has failed to resolve U.S. concerns that Syria has been working to destabilize the interim government in Iraq.

They said the Assad regime has been harboring senior operatives of Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq, aides to Saddam Hussein as well as Iraqi nuclear scientists as part of a Syrian policy coordinated with Iran.

Read the rest here.

Ads may be over the top

TI thought the Democrats couldn' get any lower than using the fake memos, but they have dene it with this ad. Ads may be over the top

Anti-Musgrave spot could backfire and harm Matsunaka

By Deborah Frazier, Rocky Mountain News September 28, 2004

A new ad attacking Rep. Marilyn Musgrave features a pink-suited woman flitting into a fiery battle and taking money out of a soldier's wallet.

"Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave claims nobody supports our troops more than she does, but she voted to slash veterans' benefits by $14 billion," the narrator of the ad says.

Read the rest of here.

The Case of the Phony Memos

This is a pretty long article. But is a very good one. you should read the whole thing.

LISTEN TO DNC and Kerry campaign officials talk about the CBS memo scandal, and you might start to think that they protest too much. Just read the email Howard Wolfson sent to the press corps the other day. Wolfson is a political consultant, a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton, and a senior adviser at the Democratic National Committee. He's in charge of Operation Fortunate Son, the DNC political outfit meant to attack President Bush's service in the National Guard, but he wants you to know he is shocked--shocked--to find that the memos Dan Rather said came from the personal files of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian are actually forgeries.

The Democrats' rap on George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard runs roughly as follows: Political pressure must have helped Bush enlist in the Guard in 1968. There are gaps in his service record, notably some months in 1972-1973 when Bush was working on a political campaign in Alabama. There are missed medical exams and flight groundings, and some documents have never been found. The questions haven't been answered to the satisfaction of the president's critics--any more than the charges have been proved. And all this may be beside the point; Bush's activities from 1968 to 1973 have had no impact on voters' opinions of him. Yet.

Read the rest here.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Homestate Crowd Walks Out on Edwards

It is looking worse for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. People from Edwards own state walked out before he even got there for a rally. Od course he was 2 hours late. Nothing like being on time during the campaign.
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 10:32 p.m. EDT

Homestate Crowd Walks Out on Edwards

Half the audience who showed up last week to see John Edwards' first South Carolina appearance since he won his home state's primary in February walked out before he arrived - two hours late.

And in another sign of trouble in paradise, the state's Democratic Senate candidate - whose campaign the Edwards visit was supposed to boost - declined to be seen on the same stage with him.

Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful Inez Tenenbaum "has gone to great lengths to distance herself from the national party," reports the South Carolina newspaper, The State.

Edwards "is about as close as she’s going to allow herself to get to the national party," the paper added, noting, "Tenenbaum didn’t appear on the platform with him" at either the rally or a fund-raiser scheduled for later that day.

Aides said she would have skipped the event altogether if John Kerry had been the guest of honor. It didn't help that Edwards kept the crowd at Columbia's Martin Luther King Jr. Park waiting so long.

As they sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, Democratic officials were observed checking their watches and looking irritated.

When State Party chairman Joe Erwin opened the door to let some air in, people began to get up and leave.

This is a very good post . PLeas help out the people of Florida and other places ravages b yh hurricanes in any way you can.

Dear Doug,

We're writing to ask for your help.

But not for the campaign.

This time we're asking our volunteers and supporters, those who have been so helpful to the President, to help our friends and neighbors around the country who have been battered by a series of weather events.

From hurricane damage to flooding, we've seen our nation hit again and again by Mother Nature's fury. When disaster strikes, the American Red Cross leads relief efforts and helps communities by providing food and shelter.

You can help by contributing to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund.

American Red Cross http://www.redcross.org/ 1-800-HELP-NOW

There is a time for politics, and a time to set partisanship aside and come to the aid of others. Now is the time to help our friends, family and neighbors in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

Please give all you can.

Sincerely, Marc Racicot

Protesters attack Danish embassy in Sweden

Hattip to My Pet Jawa Protesters???? Aren't they called terrorosits.

Protesters attack Danish embassy in Sweden

25 September 2004
STOCKHOLM: Protesters smashed windows and splattered red paint inside the Danish embassy in Stockholm to oppose Copenhagen's support for the war in Iraq, officials and the group responsible said on Friday.

Denmark is a Nato member and has troops in Iraq.

Thomas Lehmann, minister councillor at the embassy, said a group calling itself Global Intifada carried out the protest, which happened overnight.

"They tried to break some windows, some they succeeded and some they didn't. . . the damage is material damage, walls, windows, it's red paint all over the floor," Lehmann said. The embassy would take any necessary security measures, he added.

In a statement, the group said it was angry at Danish support for United States actions in Iraq, including sending troops.

This is what the terrorists said last week.
"....we threaten the government of Denmark with the commencement of military strikes with utmost fatal ferocity if it does not declare a timetable for its withdrawal from Iraq. The government of Denmark should benefit from the Italian lesson, and the Russian lesson, and the British lesson, and the American lesson, because we will not show mercy to any Danish citizen who falls into our hands unless the Danish nation submit to our demands.”


Looks like Bush wasn;t the only one to drink and drive. I wonder how many big media types are going to report on this one. I think it will be pue on the back pages of newspapers and probably nevere even be seen on major tv media.
10:30 - 25 September 2004
A woman scorned is a dangerous thing as contract cleaner John Andrew Kerry learned to his cost. Kerry agreed to see his ex-girlfriend at a pub to talk things over. But the meeting failed to sway his resolve to end the relationship and he left in his van after drinking two pints of beer. Unfortunately for Kerry, his ex-girlfriend rang the police and he was breathalysed. When he appeared before South Gloucestershire Magistrates 42-year-old Kerry was banned for three years after he admitted drink driving along Merrywalks in Stroud on August 11. Prosecuting, Malcolm Hayes said Kerry , 42, failed a roadside breath test and later gave an intoxiliser reading of 54mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 35. The court heard that Kerry had be the subject of a previous ban for drink driving in 1996. Defending, Leo Goatley described Kerry's story as "a rather frustrating tale of woe". "He's usually very conscious not to drive after a drink," said Mr Goatley. "Recently he split up with his girlfriend. On August 11 she phoned him to meet for a drink and talk things over. "She bought him two pints of beer. They didn't argue but Mr Kerry indicated he didn't wish to get back together with her. "He was later stopped by the police. Subsequently he learned from his ex girlfriend that she had phoned the police. He felt he had been snared by his ex-partner." Kerry, who gave his address as The Martins, Stroud, was a self employed contract cleaner, the court heard. Mr Goatley said Kerry hoped his employee would be able to drive between jobs, although he was unsure how long he would be able to continue his business. Kerry was given a mandatory 36-month ban due to his previous conviction for being over the limit twice within 10 years, although he was offered the opportunity to reduce this by nine months by taking part in a drink drivers' rehabilitation course. He was fined £300 and ordered to pay £55 costs.

From Blogs For Bush
Carnival of the Bush Bloggers 29

This is the twenty-ninth edition of the weekly Carnival of the Bush Bloggers.

Here is what some Bush bloggers are writing about on their own sites:

You can submit your entry for next week's Carnival with the form on the Carnival page

Times: Kerry's Own Aides Criticize Him as Manager

Kerry can't even convince his own people that he could lead. This is not good for Kerry. If you can't even lead you election campaign, how can you lead the country???
onday, Sept. 27, 2004 8:59 a.m. EDT

Times: Kerry's Own Aides Criticize Him as Manager

John Kerry is trying to convince Americans that he is more qualified than President Bush to lead the nation, especially during a time of war.

But Kerry’s own aides are complaining that he has difficulty managing his own campaign.

Read the rest here.

Clintonista Suggests U.S. Wage War on Iran

Wow. A Clintonista is saying we might have to attack Iran. Man I wonder what Michael Moore , Kerry, Dan Blather and the rest of the left thinks about this????
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004

Clintonista Suggests U.S. Wage War on Iran

Something buried deep in a wire story today caught our eye: a former Clinton administration official asserting that the United States might have to start a war with nuclear Iran.

Imagine the uproar if an official in the Bush administration or any other Republican administration suggested such a thing.

Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center and Clinton's former expert on Tehran, said that "if diplomacy fails, there might be no choice but for the United States to lead a concerted military campaign against Iran," the Associated Press reported.

Kupchan said, "If the U.S. moves aggressively, it won't be sanctions; it will be a coalition of the willing."

Where have we heard that phrase before?

Houston's CBS Affiliate Cans Dan Rather

Looks like some See BS affiliates are going to start Rather's retirement first. Even though See BS is going to "sugarcoat" his retirement. Saying it had nothing to do with his mistakes in Rathergate.
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004

Houston's CBS Affiliate Cans Dan Rather

The movement to fire Dan Rather has scored a coup. KPRC, CBS's radio affiliate in the sinking anchorman's former hometown of Houston, has yanked his daily radio broadcast in response to his latest Bush-bashing scandal.

"I felt no anchor ... should ever be the story or bigger than the story," Ken Charles, program director of the news-talk station, told the Associated Press today. "I thought it was appropriate to take him off the air."

"For right now, I'm not convinced there's any reason to put him back on the radio station," said Charles, who is airing more reliable sources of information: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. "Until CBS or somebody is able to do that, I feel like there's no place for Dan Rather on KPRC."

AP noted, "At least one radio station, WNIS in Norfolk, Va., last week dumped all of CBS because of the story."

'Liberals' Aren't So Tolerant

Charles said he had received more than 300 e-mails about dropping Rather's five-minute program.

"It's been overwhelming ... over-over-overwhelmingly supportive," he said. "Four of them called my mother really bad names, which is unusual because I thought liberals were nicer."

A 'Joke' to Amuse Everyone

RatherBiased.com hopes other stations will follow these two stations' excellent examples.

"We have no animus against him. But this 'Memogate' fiasco is just another example of Dan Rather's long record of lowering his journalistic standards when it comes to Republicans," Matthew W. Sheffield, co-founder of RatherBiased.com, told the St. Petersburg Times.

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist for New Republic Online, told the liberal Florida daily: "This '60 Minutes' story never would have happened if the memos had come from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry. Now [Rather] is a joke, and everyone can see it."

Sellout for Hollywood's Conservative Film Festival

Here is some good news from the Left Coast.
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 6:37 p.m. EDT

Sellout for Hollywood's Conservative Film Festival

L.A.'s first conservative film festival, the Liberty Film Festival, is already selling out as audiences respond enthusiastically to the festival's groundbreaking slate of new conservative films.

The West Coast premiere of Larry Elder's film "Michael & Me" is totally sold out, as are all full passes to the festival.

The festival opens this Friday, Oct. 1, with writer/director Stephen Bannon's controversial "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" and Oscar-nominated writer Lionel Chetwynd's "Celsius 41.11."

The festival will be held Oct. 1-3 at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood.

"In the Face of Evil," having its West Coast premiere at the festival, looks at President Ronald Reagan's victory over communism within the context of mankind's continual fight against evil – including the current war against Islamic fascism.

"Celsius 41.11," which also has its West Coast premiere at the festival, is Lionel Chetwynd's response to allegations made by Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Other hot festival screenings among the 20 films being shown include "WMD: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein" (world premiere) by Kurdish/Iraqi director Jano Rosebiani; the edgy black-and-white suspense thriller "Terminal Island" by Jason Apuzzo & Govindini Murty (world premiere); and Mike Wilson's widely anticipated "Michael Moore Hates America."

The panel discussion "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again," on Sunday, Oct. 3, will examine whether or not there is a new Hollywood blacklist against conservatives.

Panelists include producer-director David Zucker ("Phone Booth," "Scary Movie 3"), talk show host Michael Medved, producer Doug Urbanski ("The Contender"), actress Morgan Brittany ("Dallas"), Andrew Breitbart of The Drudge Report, producer Dan Gifford (of the Oscar-nominated "Waco: Rules of Engagement") and NewsMax.com columnist James Hirsen.

On Saturday, Oct. 2, the festival will host a Ronald Reagan tribute, featuring a screening of Reagan's World War II classic, "Desperate Journey."

The festival closes with a screening of Cecil B. DeMille's religious drama and Cold War parable, "The Ten Commandments," introduced with a special lecture by Michael Medved.

Guantanamo's Star Witness?

Hopefully he will spill the beans and five the US some good intelligence on Al Qeada.
Sunday, Sep. 26, 2004 Guantanamo's Star Witness? Will John Walker Lindh take the stand?

As one American-born Taliban, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was set to be released last week after more than two years in a U.S. naval brig, another one, John Walker Lindh, above, remains in a California prison. But he may soon be on the witness stand, testifying for the prosecution in the Guantanamo Bay military trials. Lindh, who pleaded guilty in 2002 to aiding the Taliban, is cooperating in the Gitmo trials in an effort to reduce his 20-year sentence, according to a government official familiar with the case. Considering his original indictment, Lindh may have some significant information to share about high-ranking al-Qaeda members. The 2002 indictment claimed that Lindh had met Osama bin Laden as well as another senior al-Qaeda leader, who encouraged him to participate in attacks against the U.S. and Israel — an offer Lindh says he refused.

Since his capture in Afghanistan, Lindh — who has grown a beard down to his chest and covers his shaved head with a khaki skullcap to match his prison jumpsuit — appears to have had a change of heart about the Taliban and claims he was misled about jihad, according to sources close to his case. But although he remains a student of Islam — his daily routine includes reading the Koran and improving his Arabic via a correspondence course — he has little to do with other Muslim inmates. "He thinks that most Muslims are not good Muslims," says an official. "I can see him looking down his nose at them." Lindh also spends his days poring over his fan mail, which so far has included at least one marriage proposal. "When people talk to him about his CNN interview, he gets a glint in his eye and a little smile," says the official. "He's definitely into the fact that he's famous."

No French or German turn on Iraq

Man is Kerry really in a fantasy world if he can get the Axis of weasels on board with us in Iraq. this is one of his number one reasons why he wants to be president and they say even if Kerry is elected they would not send troops to Iraq. With allies like this who needs enemies.
No French or German turn on Iraq By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

Read the rest here.

Plans: Next, War on Syria?

It's about time!!!!!!!!!
Oct. 4 issue - Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

Carter fears Florida vote trouble

What about the vote in Venuzuela Presidnet Carter. There was no fraud there was there???
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.

He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".

Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".

Read the rest of Carter here


JEB FIGHTS BACK Mon Sep 27 2004 20:33:05 ET Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's office yesterday said charges by former President Jimmy Carter that the state is "likely" to have a repetition of the voting problems that plagued the 2000 election are politically motivated by Democrats intent on undermining voter confidence in the state. The WASHINGTON TIMES's Joe Curl will report on Tuesday: State officials also said the former president made no attempt to get up-to-date information before writing an opinion piece and never tried to contact the governor's office or that of Secretary of State Glenda Hood. "This is a shockingly partisan opinion piece and it's unfortunate that a person such as the former president is being used by the Democratic Party for low-level political rhetoric," said Jacob DiPietre, press secretary for Gov. Jeb Bush. Developing...

Bush Mocks Kerry for 'Changing Positions' on Iraq

I wonder who woudl win in the Kerr Vs. Kerry debate. The war hero or the war protestor. the man who voted for the War on Iraq or the one who says it is the "wrong war at the wrong time". I makes you wonder deosn't it??? The one that sauid we dont' need the UN in 1997 orthe one who says he will bend over backwards fo the UN now. Man it would be a good debate. I would pay money to see that one. SPRINGFIELD, Ohio (Reuters) - President Bush on Monday mocked his Democratic rival John Kerry for shifting his positions on Iraq so many times he could "debate himself" in this week's face-off between the two candidates. "He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself," Bush added to hoots of laughter from his supporters. Read the rest here.

Kerry appeals for end to election advertising war

Kerry what are you talking about. You have said notjing about your record int he Senate. Tell us one thing that you did worthwhile in the Senate, other than gut the military. PLease, I want to understand why I should vote for you. not that you were a veteran in the Vietnam and the wirld is going to hell in a hand basket because of Bush. tell us what you weould do different. Or are you afraid that if you say waht you really want to do, you will never get elected. Please tell me how you are going to get along with all the allies we have in the awar on Terror when you disregard them. I really wnat to know. You have no ideas. you have no core. Why in the world would anybody vote for you??? I want to know. Sorry about the rant, but he is just geting me all riled up. Just read the story.

Kerry said the avalanche of negative television spots and attacks being shown on US screens was scaring off voters.

"Americans need a real conversation over our future," Kerry said in a speech at a school in Spring Green, Wisconsin.

"What they don't need is all these trumped up advertisements, they just make people curl up and walk away," added the Massachusetts senator.

"I'm calling them 'misleadisments,'" Kerry said of the adverts. "It's all scare tactics ... because (Bush) has no record to run on."

The Democrats have complained bitterly about a new advertisement that shows Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), September 11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the ruins of the World Trade Center, and questioned whether Kerry was up to dealing with them.

A statement called the spot, run by the Republican group Progress for America Voter Fund, the latest in a series of "desperate and despicable attack ads" aimed at diverting attention from Bush's record.

See BS has some explaining to do. they have been doing this kind of stuff for years.
The Weekly Standard

Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning From the October 4, 2004 issue: It didn't start with Rathergate. by John Podhoretz 10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

What if, some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you . . ." --Nietzsche on the "eternal return" in The Gay Science

CBS NEWS airs a report about a Vietnam-era controversy. Almost immediately the report comes under harsh attack, its credibility and essential honesty challenged. There's a huge uproar, complete with calls for a congressional investigation. CBS is compelled to acknowledge certain errors in its handling of the story, though senior officials say pointedly that no one has challenged its basic thrust.

Does this sound familiar? It is, but this is not just a quick-and-dirty recap of the current mess at CBS. For the few CBS News staffers who have been at the network for more than 30 years, the events of the past few weeks must make them feel they're trapped inside Nietzsche's "eternal return." This is the third occasion over the past 32 years in which CBS News has been caught behaving unethically and irresponsibly in the reporting and editing of a hot-button issue involving the United States, the Vietnam war, and the behavior and conduct of senior officials in Washington.

One of those CBS employees with a long memory is Dan Rather, who has been with the network's news division for 42 years. If you want to understand why Rather is being so recalcitrant and finding it so difficult to make a full acknowledgment of his role in perpetrating a colossal journalistic and political fraud--and why he was so adamantly opposed to an internal investigation of his now-infamous story about George W. Bush's National Guard service--you need to understand that Rather saw his network weather two previous and surprisingly similar tempests.

It did so in the first case, in 1971, by refusing outright to have its programming examined by Congress and winning plaudits and awards for doing so. The offending program was a documentary entitled The Selling of the Pentagon. It stands even today as a monument in the history of American broadcasting, an award-winning subject of veneration in journalism schools--despite the fact that the producer lied to sources when he assembled the documentary and used some astoundingly dishonest editing to change the meaning of statements by two Pentagon officials caught on film by CBS (one of whom later sued the network to little effect).

For example, according to a report by Claude Witze in Air Force magazine, five sentences in an interview with Marine Col. John A. McNeil "came from four different spots on the camera record, and the sequence was rearranged." In addition, "CBS distorted the film to make its viewers think Col. McNeil said" something that was actually a paraphrase of a remark by the prime minister of Laos. The purpose, in Witze's words, was "to make McNeil's presentation sound inept, stupid, wrong, vicious."

At another point in the documentary, the program's host, Roger Mudd, was seen asking a question of Assistant Secretary of Defense Daniel Z. Henkin. The program dealt with the Pentagon's public-relations campaign in the United States and abroad. Mudd asked, "Does the sort of information about the drug problem you have and racial problem you have--is that the sort of information that gets passed out at state fairs by sergeants who are standing next to rockets?"

"No," Henkin replied, "I wouldn't limit that to sergeants standing next to any kind of exhibit."

The problem was that this exchange was concocted. Henkin's answer had been to a question about the Soviet threat. Later, producer Peter Davis shot film of Mudd asking the question quoted above and then edited it in.

The documentary concluded with Mudd's ominous words: "On this broadcast, we have seen violence made glamorous, expensive weapons advertised as if they were automobiles, biased opinions presented as straight facts. Defending the country not just with arms but also with ideology, Pentagon propaganda insists on America's role as the cop on every beat in the world." 1 According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications, "the complaints about the show began only 14 minutes after it went on the air with phone calls to the network."

Sound familiar?

The iconic status of The Selling of the Pentagon in media circles, which was instantaneous, was certainly helped along by its bald and unapologetic hostility to the display of American military power in any form, as evidenced by Mudd's concluding words. But even more so, it was due to the network's defiance of a House committee's subpoena of the documentary's outtakes and other reporting.

A Democratic congressman from Louisiana named F. Edward Hebert, then chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, supplied some footage to Davis and his team of an interview he had filmed with a former Vietnam POW. Davis told Hebert's press secretary "the videotape would be used for a POW special on CBS." Outraged to have been used by CBS to aid its case that the Pentagon was improperly marketing itself, Hebert went on the attack. CBS re-aired the show a few days later with 20 minutes of responses after the airing by Hebert and others--followed by a rebuttal by CBS News president Richard S. Salant, who said pointedly on the air that "no one has refuted the essential accuracy" of the show.

If you want to know where Rather got the idea of saying, "Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the major thrust of our report," look no further.

Salant's aggressive refusal to admit any wrongdoing inflamed congressional passions. Rep. Harley O. Staggers, chairman of the House special subcommittee on investigations (and a Democrat like Hebert) issued a subpoena because "the American public has a right to know and understand the techniques and procedures which go into the production and presentation of the television news documentaries upon which they must rely for their knowledge of the great issues and controversies of the day."

The president of CBS, Frank Stanton, declared CBS would not submit to congressional bullying. He had, he said, "a duty to uphold the freedom of the broadcast press against congressional abridgment." Staggers's subcommittee voted to hold CBS in contempt and sent the matter to the floor of the House, where CBS prevailed by 50 votes.

Stanton was celebrated and feted for his supposedly brave stand, which came at a time when CBS's evening newscast with Walter Cronkite had 40 million viewers nightly--making Stanton far more powerful and influential than any individual congressman, especially with the combined might of other broadcast networks and the elite media in lockstep behind him.

In 1982, CBS aggressively and successfully fought back against a libel suit filed by William Westmoreland, the retired general who had led U.S. forces in Vietnam. Another CBS documentary, this one entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception, had accused Westmoreland of knowingly understating the size of the Vietcong forces against which U.S. troops battled during the 1968 Tet offensive. The libel suit only went to trial because CBS News commissioned an internal investigation of its own broadcast following a damning TV Guide story that found many instances of unethical conduct comparable to those in The Selling of the Pentagon.

Had CBS refused to do that internal investigation, the lawsuit would almost certainly have been dismissed. This was the source of great bitterness at CBS, especially when the network had behaved so differently back in 1971. As Tom Shales of the Washington Post, the network's mouthpiece in the print media, put it at the time,

Another hallowed name that pops up in relation to this affair is that of Frank Stanton, the former CBS Inc. president who stood up to Congress and refused to turn over unused film from The Selling of the Pentagon in 1971. There are no Frank Stantons at CBS anymore. "Neither we nor anybody else is going to have a Frank Stanton again," one insider glumly notes.

Rather's strenuous efforts to block the launch of an internal investigation of his September 8 report on 60 Minutes must be understood in light of the consequences to his workplace 21 years ago. Those consequences were severe. For a time, CBS lost its libel insurance. And when, in 1987, CBS came under new management by the cost-cutter Larry Tisch, the network's news division was the hardest hit. The documentary unit that had produced both these shows and other fabled programs over the decades (most famously Edward R. Murrow's Harvest of Shame, the migrant-workers exposé first broadcast in 1960) faded away--something that, one could argue, would not have happened but for the CBS decision to investigate its own documentary.

In 1971, CBS News not only weathered the storm but triumphed over it. In 1982, CBS News survived the storm, wounded but still standing. In 2004, CBS has been devastated by the storm, and there's reason to believe it will never quite recover. The saga of CBS and its eternal return to Vietnam is almost over.

IT'S ALREADY BECOME a cliché to say that over the past two weeks we've been witness to a revolutionary moment in the history of media, the moment when the calcified Establishment that has dominated the dissemination of news in the United States for most of a century shattered like the fragile hip of an octogenarian.

From the bloggers who blew the whistle on the fabrications to the millions of Internet news consumers who could not get enough of every twist and turn in the unbelievable unfolding story, there was a definite sense that history was turning on a dime, that the exposure of CBS's infamy by non-journalists with a new ability to communicate through the Internet heralded the dawn of the New Information Age.

That's why, even though the precipitating event was a genuine outrage--CBS News's breathless use of forged documents accusing George W. Bush of disobeying a direct order from his National Guard superior in an all-too-obvious effort to sway the opinions of voters only 48 days before the 2004 election--the outrage has been accompanied by a spirit of giddiness and exhilaration almost from the moment the onslaught began.

This is a moment that's been a very long time coming. For four decades now, conservatives have been convinced, with supreme justification, that the institutional, ideological, and cultural biases of the mainstream media represented a danger to the causes in which they believe and the ideas they hold dear. What has happened over the past weeks isn't the beginning of a transformation. It's the culmination of a 40-year-long indictment that has, at long last, led to a slam-dunk conviction.

Some have wondered just how it is that Dan Rather could have adopted an aggrieved and persecuted tone in the days after the airing of his 60 Minutes segment--accusing those who revealed the typographical inconsistencies in the fabricated documents of being "partisan political operatives" doing a Republican administration's dirty work. The answer to this question also lies in the past--at the very beginning of the confrontation between the mainstream media and conservatives disgusted and appalled by them.

When the conservative movement emerged in the United States in the 1950s, its focus was primarily on self-consciously elite institutions--universities primarily--and their role in undermining the fundaments of Christian tradition. The media were not yet the great adversary. That notion would begin to form in 1964, with Barry Goldwater's pathbreaking march to the Republican nomination and then his disastrous failure to win the presidency away from Lyndon Johnson.

Goldwater's nomination was in part the result of brilliant "grass-roots" organizing among the party's youth wing. As GOP delegates gathered in San Francisco to choose the party's nominee in July 1964, it was clear that the party's Eastern establishment and its candidates could not withstand the energy, enthusiasm, and high spirits of the Goldwater kids and their Arizona standard-bearer.

The media didn't see enthusiasm. They saw Hitler youth. It was routine in news stories from the convention, both broadcast and in print, for the Goldwaterites to be likened to "shock troops." In his book The Making of the President 1964 (published a year later), Theodore H. White spake the conventional wisdom for the Ages: "This was a new thing in American conventions--not a meeting, not a clash, but a coup d'etat."

This sort of talk, which was not confined to opinion columns, understandably aggrieved the Goldwaterites. And at one point during the convention, a journalist ended up literally cross-wise of the Goldwater kids. NBC correspondent John Chancellor had stationed himself and his camera crew at a spot on the floor of the Cow Palace, the San Francisco venue that was home to the convention. When a pro-Goldwater demonstration broke out and began moving its way across the floor, Chancellor, asserting a heretofore unknown journalistic privilege, wouldn't move out of the way.

The Goldwater kids surrounded him, shouting. Someone went to get the security guards, who asked Chancellor to move on the grounds that he was disrupting a private gathering. He refused, and they carried him out bodily. "Here we go down the middle aisle," he breathlessly told NBC viewers. "I've been promised bail, ladies and gentlemen, by my office. This is John Chancellor, somewhere in custody."

Today, this entire incident seems like a parody out of a Christopher Guest movie--Waiting for Goldwater, perhaps, or Best in Convention. But in the world of the mainstream media, nobody was laughing. It was universally believed that Chancellor had nearly met his end at the hands of an angry mob. The Chancellor spectacle contributed to the general media portrait of Goldwater and his candidacy as a dangerous reactionary explosion that needed to be bested at all costs.

And it was universally believed by Goldwater followers at the conclusion of the 1964 election cycle that conservative ideas and conservative politicians would never receive fair treatment at the hands of the media--that, in fact, the media would do everything in their power to destroy both.

Flash forward five years, to November 3, 1969. That night, President Richard Nixon delivered his famous "silent majority" speech detailing his plan to draw down American forces in Indochina in favor of what he called Vietnamization. By any reckoning, the speech was a rhetorical and political triumph, shooting Nixon's favorable ratings into the stratosphere and generating more supportive mail, telegrams, and phone calls than any White House address ever has. But as ever with Nixon and his men, they focused not on their success but on the discussion of the speech in its aftermath by network commentators like CBS's Eric Sevareid.

Ten days later, the White House struck back in the person of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who went to Des Moines to complain that Nixon's "words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous critics." Agnew pointed out that the "70 million Americans" who tuned in to hear the president became a captive audience for "a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed . . . their hostility to what he had to say."

The commentators who made such quick sport of the president's speech, he said, were "nattering nabobs of negativism." That phrase (coined by a White House speechwriter named William Safire) has remained in the national consciousness ever since, but the negativism of the media was not the heart of Agnew's complaint. That came when Agnew suggested the networks were guilty of liberal bias, that the bias was mutually reinforcing, and that the biased men running the networks possessed too much power over the American people.

"A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the twenty minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public," Agnew said. "This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what forty to fifty million Americans will learn of the day's events in the nation and in the world."

This small group of men, Agnew went on, "live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City. . . . We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints."

Then he lowered the boom. "Is it not fair or relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny and closed minority of privileged men, elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government?" Agnew was referring to the fact that broadcast networks are made up of television stations that use airwaves to transmit their wares. Those airwaves were declared public property by the Federal Communications Act of 1934, and television stations are granted licenses to use them so that they can broadcast in the public interest.

"I am not asking for government censorship or any other kind of censorship," Agnew said. "I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists."

In a 1972 book on Agnew called The Impudent Snobs, the conservative journalist John R. Coyne Jr. reports that Agnew received a warning about his actions (whether before or after the speech Coyne does not say) from none other than former president Lyndon Johnson. "Young man," Johnson told Agnew, "we have in this country two big television networks, NBC and CBS. We have two news magazines, Newsweek and Time. We have two wire services, AP and UPI. We have two pollsters, Gallup and Harris. We have two big newspapers--the Washington Post and the New York Times. They're all so damned big they think they own the country. But young man, don't get any ideas about fighting."

Johnson got it right. Within days, every network nabob had fired back. CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, then considered the most trusted man in America, described it as "an implied threat to freedom of speech in this country." His boss, the ineffably noble Frank Stanton, said the speech was "an unprecedented attempt by the vice president of the United States to intimidate a news medium which depends for its existence upon government licenses." NBC News chief Julian Goodman said Agnew "would prefer a different kind of television reporting--one that would be subservient to whatever political group was in authority at the time."

The public thought differently. U.S. News and World Report said that in the first few days after Agnew spoke, the White House "received more than 29,000 telegrams and seventeen sacks of mail. The communications were running forty to one in [Agnew's] favor."

Nixon and Agnew were, of course, sadly and tragically wrong in one respect. The American people were entirely capable of drawing their own conclusions about the nation's political direction despite media bias, as they proved by reelecting Nixon by the largest margin in American history in 1972 and eight years later sending Ronald Reagan to the White House in a landslide.

THE AGNEW SPEECH gave profound voice to the growing sense among non-liberals in the United States that their concerns, their interests, and their views were either not reflected or were under direct attack by the media. The ways in which the media misreported and misrepresented news events and political shifts became a subject of consuming interest in neoconservative and conservative intellectual and journalistic precincts, from Commentary and the pre-Clinton American Spectator to National Review and Human Events.

Academics began to examine the issue of media bias, and social scientists S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman demonstrated that conservatives' feelings weren't merely an expression of paranoia with a groundbreaking 1981 study of 240 journalists. It revealed that 94 percent of them had voted for Johnson in 1964, that 81 percent had voted for McGovern in 1972, and the same 81 percent voted for Carter in 1976. "Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center," Lichter and Rothman reported, "compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum."

Throughout the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, organizations like Accuracy in Media and the Media Research Center dedicated themselves to the laborious (pre-Internet) collection of examples of media bias in print and on television. The evidence they gathered, like the social science data that continued to show an overwhelming preference for liberal ideas and Democratic politicians in the decades after the first Lichter-Rothman study, was overwhelming and unimpeachable.

And yet it remained the stated position of most major American journalists that there was and is no bias in the media. In response to Agnew's speech, Eric Sevareid of CBS said, "I don't even know what a liberal is"--and Sevareid was CBS's on-air commentator! Nearly 30 years later, Lesley Stahl of CBS said flatly, "I had my opinions surgically removed when I became a network correspondent."

Dan Rather is still trying this trick, asserting that "anybody who knows me knows that I am not politically motivated, not politically active for Democrats or Republicans, and that I'm independent." But it no longer matters much what he may or may not say. He has destroyed himself and his news organization not because he is biased--which of course he is--but because his bias blinded him to the obvious truth that the memos he and his team believed (and/or desperately hoped) might help derail the reelection bid of George W. Bush were fabricated. They believed this because they wanted to believe it.

Dan Rather imagines that he is still battling Spiro Agnew, with the voice of the sainted Frank Stanton driving him onward. But here's the thing: When Stanton took his uncompromising stand on behalf of a scurrilous documentary that violated every journalistic standard of decency, he did something corrupt, not noble. And if there had been a blogosphere in 1971, he wouldn't have survived; The Selling of the Pentagon would today be remembered as a low point in American journalistic history rather than as a legend.

Dan Rather's eternal return ends here with the collapse of his reputation and the collapse of the 20th-century American news industry in which he was one of the last grand potentates. And it is a bleak end, unless he can console himself with the thought that he didn't fail to live up to the standards of his predecessors. He followed perfectly in their footsteps.

John Podhoretz is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and columnist for the New York Post.

1 Lest there be any doubt about the political leanings of the show and its creator, note this: Four years after writing these words for Mudd to speak, producer-director Peter Davis collected an Oscar for a documentary called Hearts and Minds. The Oscar ceremony came just 22 days before the last American helicopter pulled away from the roof of the American embassy and Communist North Vietnam swallowed the South. Davis's producer on the film, Bert Schneider, read a telegram from Dinh Ba Thi, a Vietcong leader, offering "greetings of friendship to all American people." While the audience at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion cheered, the backstage workers who actually knew people who had been killed by the Vietcong nearly rioted, and later Frank Sinatra read a statement disavowing the politicizing of the Academy Awards.