Two Neocons Solving the Worlds Problems

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The Great Pumpkin



I guess things could be worse for the newly orange John Kerry. He could be blue like Stan Jones.

Stan Jones was the smurf Senate candidate who turned blue a couple of years back from drinking a health elixer that contained colloidal silver.

Kerry was an odd looking guy to begin with.

Kerry walks into a bar. Bartender asks, "Why the long face?"
But now add orange tan-in-a-can and botox and an ungodly Ross-from-Friends-level teeth whitening.

Didn't these guys learn anything from Al Gore's Tammy Faye Bakker makeup fiasco at the last set of debates?

Posted by Hello

Kerry Might Have Just Lost Florida

I've spent all morning thus far, trying to find the transcript for all of John's Kerry interview on Good Morning America. Here is all ABC has posted thus far. My disappointment comes because I heard a sound bite this morning on ABCNews (radio) from Sen. Kerry in which he criticized Pres. Bush for "cleaning up debris(brush) in Florida instead of cleaning up problems in America." If this quote gets out in the media and Kerry happens to sound it again, Florida will be gone. After four hurricanes in the past two months, the concensus is that Floridians are too tired, stressed, and distracted to care about the election. Ironic for such a key swing state. Yet, if the people here this attack by a man who has barely visited their state during such a hard period, I predit their response will swiftly move Florida out of the swing state category and into Bush's column.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Instalaunch!

...just not at this blog.

Here's my post on the space tourist industry that caught the eye of a certain law professor.

Keep scrolling for Phil's take on the same news.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Stem Cell Debate



Elizabeth M. Whelan and Henry I. Miller have published an even-handed article on the arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, "Politics and the Debate Over Stem Cell Research."

You'll want to read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Here's a column by Ramesh Ponnuru seeking to answer Whelan and Miller.

 Posted by Hello

Selling Doom



Mark Steyn hits another one out of the park this morning in "The Doomed Defeatist." Link requires free registration. As you probably guessed from the title, his column is about John "C3PO" Kerry.

Desperate for payback for his month of SwiftVet hell, the thin-skinned Kerry demanded that his campaign went on the attack about Bush's fitful National Guard service back in the Vietnam era. Nobody cares. But Dan Rather and CBS did a big story on whether Bush failed to show up for a physical in the War of 1812, and the Kerry campaign promptly lost most of September because Dan's case had been built on laughably fake memos supplied as part of a convoluted deal involving the network, a man of dubious mental stability and key Kerry campaign contacts including Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who was brought on board to get Kerry out of last month's mess, not land him in this month's...

If you look at the broader picture, the Democrats made a disastrous error in the years since 9/11. One reason they've been in decline for a decade is that, on all kinds of matters, they're in thrall to unrepresentative interest groups - to the radical feminist lobby on abortion, to the teachers' unions on education, to the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton ethnic-grievancemongers on black issues. These groups effectively exercise a veto over any serious thinking on the relevant issue. Since the Afghan campaign, the party has allowed a new grouping - the Michael Moore crowd, MoveOn.org, the Hollywood Left - to swell into a veto on any serious thinking about war and national security. If you want the relationship distilled into a single image, fish out a picture of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the Presidential box at the Democratic convention. A weak vacillating man at the head of a party deeply ambivalent about the war is not the kind of guy who's going to be putting the screws on Musharraf or the Saudis.

And, just in time for the change of policy, comes a new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth focusing on another cheery snapshot from the John Kerry scrapbook of 35 years ago. This one is about Kerry's trip to Paris to meet negotiators from the North Vietnamese communist government and the south's Provisional Revolutionary government. He was a Naval Reserve officer at the time, and many of my correspondents regard it as treason. I'm not in favour of having Senator Kerry put on trial and executed; soccer moms and other swing voters may see that as over-reaching. But John O'Neill, the Swiftees' spokesman, says, "It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al-Qa'eda." Even if that line doesn't catch on, the ad is nicely timed with Kerry's Iraqi withdrawal strategy to paint the senator as the candidate of American defeatism, then and now.
Can Steyn write or what?

 Posted by Hello

Thursday, September 23, 2004

R2D2 Would Win in a Landslide



Warning: If you're drinking a soft drink, take your last swallow and put the can down before reading further. Otherwise you will blow it out your nose:

...with all the political crap flowing through the news wires…I'd thought I'd take time to check in on some old childhood friends--namely the Star War Trilogy which just came out on DVD...

But as I tried to get into those stories again, my mind kept going back to the spin I'm faced with on a daily basis. Something was nagging me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but then it dawned on me. Threepio, with his constant negativity and bitching, was starting to sound like John Kerry...

THREEPIO:
We'll be destroyed for sure. This is madness!
We're doomed!
Secret mission? What plans? What are you talking about? I'm not getting in there!
Are you sure this things safe?
How did I get into this mess? I really don't know how.
No more adventures. I'm not going that way.
That malfunctioning little twerp. This is all his fault! He tricked me into going this way, but he'll do no better.
And R2D2 is the very essence of Dubya. Sure you can't understand what he's saying half the time, sure he kind of swaggers when he walks, but if you've got to take on the Death Star or search the spooky swamps of Dagobah for an ally, he's the one you want with you, not C3PO.

UPDATE: James Taranto runs even further with this meme.

Home Schooling

We (Kathy, Matt, Dan, Phil, and I) are having an interesting discussion on home schooling at Beyond Words.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Election News

I hope that election night this year won't be as long as in 2000! I was worthless the day after election day. So this year I'm developing a system so that I can "call" the race early:


  • If Bush takes Maine or New Hampshire, then Kerry's in trouble. These states only have 4 electoral votes each, but if Kerry can't win solidly in the Northeast, it may be an early indication of how the rest of the evening will go for him.

  • Bush can lose either Pennsylvania or Florida and still win a close reelection. But if he loses both, then he's going to have a hard time making it up elsewhere. If he wins both, I don't see how Kerry can make it up.

So I'll watch these states carefully and then go to bed early happy in the knowledge…who am I kidding? I'll be up until CBS FoxNews calls it.



One sign that it might be another long night is this erratic Electoral Vote Predictor. Bush is still ahead 256-239, but he is no longer polling the 270 votes needed to win.

I don't think this is an indication of how well the Kerry campaign is doing or how poorly the President's campaign is doing. Rather, this dramatic 99-vote swing demonstrates how close the race still is. Small changes, like a fading RNC convention bounce, can mean a big difference in the electoral count.



Glenn Reynolds is looking at some different polls.



Over the weekend there was a minor sequel to the Cheney-Edwards conflict when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert commented:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they [the terrorists] would be more apt to go (for) somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."
When asked in a follow-up question if he believed al-Qaida could operate better with Kerry in the White House he said "yes."

John Edwards immediately shouted "Fear Mongering!"

The same day (are these guys coordinating their messages at all?), Kerry came out saying "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

In other words...

Reelecting Bush = Everlasting War. And, presumably the end of human civilization and the rise of The Planet of the Apes.
YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
I actually don't think either statement amounts to fear mongering - at least not in any unethical sense. After 9/11 it is entirely proper to debate which party will make the country safer.

I just happen to agree with Cheney and Hastert.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Odds and Ins

In my “Why Kerry’s Losing” post I said,

Considering all of [my brilliant analysis from earlier in the post], it's not really surprising that, according to the Electoral Vote Predictor, Bush is now ahead 311 to 223.

I'm guessing that this will probably even out some by the election. My prediction is that Bush will win with electoral votes in the 290's.
I might still be right about that, but this morning’s Electoral Vote Counter has Bush up to 331 with New Hampshire edging (barely) over into his column.



I’ve written a semi-review of “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” over at The Speculist.

Also at The Speculist, Kathy Hanson has posted part 5 of the novella that she and I are collaborating on. Here’s “part 1.”

A Debate

I hope my title is not misleading. So far there's only been my original post, "Why Kerry's Losing," a comment by "arash," and my response.

I've contacted arash, hopefully he'll respond. For now, here are the comments:


ARASH:

My thoughts are that being able to wage an effective war against terror depends upon more than a blind allegience to our national policies. In fact the dogmatic approach that this current president and administration have applied in launching a unilateral war without the necessary international support of some key allies has weakened our position in many of the Middle Eastern countries that had supported us and created a greater reason for even the most moderate of Arabs to question the U.S. tactics in fighting this war.

To undertsand the enemy's position is not the same as admitting defeat! To gloss over the reasons for the attack and to not address those issues by blanketing the situation by saying that 'the evildoers hate our freedoms' is quite upsetting.

So here we are mired in a situation in Iraq for no apparent reason (or at least none of the ones that were given). We have created what ammounts to another Palestine, in which enemies are created daily by constant strife. We have in effect repeated a history whose lessons we continue to ignore.

Feel free to e-mail me should you choose to respond as I doubt I will happen upon your blog again.


My response:

Arash:

Thanks for stopping by. We welcome debate.

Citizenry should never have blind allegiance to national policy. It's not unpatriotic to debate or to protest policies that you think are bad for the country. I do think some of the "Bush is Hitler," "I support the troops...when they shoot their officers" tripe is unpatriotic. But judging from the sane tone of your comment, I'm not counting you among those people.

I am suggesting that, with eyes wide open, aggressive engagement of terrorists abroad is keeping us safer at home.

By "key allies" I assume you mean allies like France, Germany, and to some extent, Russia. Are you aware that the announced purpose of French foreign policy is to "counter American hegemony?"

Many, including John Kerry, are arguing that we've squandered the good will of the world after 9/11.

I wander at what point, exactly, this "good will" was squandered. Many point to the war in Iraq, but I would place it earlier. The "good will" was gone after we went to Afghanistan. The "good will" of France (and others like Germany and Russia) requires a humbled, defeated, and victimized America. Once we responded militarily, we ceased being victims and lost their "good will."

In other words, the "good will" was not solidarity. It was pity at best and schadenfreude at worst. They agreed that it was a shame that innocents suffered and died, but also thought that we deserved it. If the U.S. learned her lesson, then maybe September 11 might not have been such a bad thing.

What have we lost by squandering that "good will?" For a country that has not accepted defeat and surrender, it was worthless to begin with.

There is truth to your argument that our actions abroad can create terrorists. If you are some on-the-fence potential terrorist and your terrorist uncle gets bombed, you might go looking for some revenge. But let me suggest that an appearance of weakness on our part and success in a spectacular attack on Osama's part drive recruitment much more. Potential terrorists might be willing to lay down their lives, but even they want to feel like their death accomplished something. They want "glorious" deaths, not "cannon-fodder" deaths.

Our lack of action in seriously dealing with Osama before 9/11 invited terrorism more than perceived wrongs. But by keeping the pressure on since 9/11, I believe that we have prevented follow-up attacks.

I agree that it's not weakness to learn about the motivations of your adversary. But just because we learn that they find our material success humiliating doesn't mean we should stop being successful. Just because they find equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, democracy, and capitalism somehow distasteful doesn't mean that's going to stop either.

But that's the end result of multiculturalism as it is currently embodied. The multiculturalists say that all cultures are of equal value. So if one culture somehow humiliates other cultures, then IT must be the problem. Wrong. Right making might. We are a powerful country precisely because of the attributes that they find so distasteful.

You said that we went to Iraq for no apparent reason, or at least not the reasons given. Well, I disagree.

It appears that we may have been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. I actually think we may yet find these weapons. Nevertheless, literally everyone, including the intelligence services of other nations and even Senator Kerry, thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Saddam did have these weapons. He used them on his own people in the 1980's.

Many would have you believe that there was no connection between Saddam and terrorists. This is just not true.

We know of at least one terrorist training camp 30 miles south of Baghdad where they used a 707 fuselage to train in airline hijacking. You'll find more evidence here.

Even with all the problems that we've had in Iraq, do you really believe that our country would have been safer with Saddam in power? Don't you believe that the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off without him (if they're not already better off)? Please keep in mind the mass graves when you answer.

Ultimately it is hoped that an Iraqi democracy in the heart of the Arab world will help spark reform in the region. Surely reform holds more promise than terrorism. That's the hope. And as far fetched as it may sound, I believe that this hope is better than sitting at home hoping that being inoffensive will buy us peace from people who would die to kill us.


My comment was changed only to add hyperlinks to the URL's included in the comment. I'll do the same for arash if he responds with URL's.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Why Kerry's Losing

On August 18th the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that…

a majority of Democrats (51%) believe that "U.S. wrongdoing in dealings with other countries might have motivated the 9/11 attacks." Republicans, on the other hand, "reject that view even more decisively than three years ago (76% now, 65% in late September 2001).
This raises a serious question. If a majority of Democrats assign blame to the United States for 9/11, can they be trusted to aggressively wage the War on Terror? Specifically, can the Democratic Party's first (Kerry) and fourth (Edwards) most liberal senators be trusted with the war?

This is not a question of patriotism, but a question of motivation and the setting of priorities.

I don't need to answer this question. A majority of American people - Republicans plus persuadable Independents and Democrats - have already decided that the Democratic Party is not the best party to wage this war. This issue wins for the President and loses for Kerry every time it's brought up.

So Kerry has to fall back on domestic politics and hope for a 527-style attack that sticks to the President. An improving economy, Rathergate, and a disorganized Kerry campaign aren't helping.

Considering all of this it's not really surprising that, according to the electoral vote predictor, Bush is now ahead 311 to 223.

I'm guessing that this will probably even out some by the election. My prediction is that Bush will win with electoral votes in the 290's.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

The Genius of the Hitler Technique

I don't have much time tonight. It's late and I've been in class, at work, and at church from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. My main motivation tonight was to go bed and enjoy waking up next to my wife after a good 7 hrs of rest. That was before I made the mistake of reading the CBS statement (I missed it earlier) hoping to find, within it, a shred of journalistic integrity. As many of you knew before this humble post, disappointment was happily waiting for me. This post by Ernest Miller is a better response to CBS than I could put together, but I do have one thing to say: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU STINKING KIDDING ME!!!!
This is CBS' idea of an admission. That might even be slightly defensible except that it's not an admission of error. Today, CBS trotted out and said, "you should believe it because WE say so!" No longer does CBS feel it should function as a reporter of the news but "rather" as a shaper of American opinion. I don't know if this frightens anyone else, but it does me.
The title of this post is provocative on purpose because I want to allude to a connection between history and the hypocrisy of the left. Despite his obvious evil nature, Adolph Hitler was perhaps one of the most effective propagandists this modern world has seen. In fact, Hitler perfected a technique in which he believed that if you told a big enough lie enough times, then people would begin to believe it. I find it sadly ironic, yet telling that after three years of comparing this President to Hitler the left has reached the climax in using Hitler's most enduring propaganda tool. This CBS memo scandal is but piece of it. Consider that in the past month the left (including the DNC, MoveOn PAC, CBS, etc) has resurrected every piece of mud that they originally slung at George Bush 4 years ago. CBS has ruined it's credibility in order to fill the airwaves with the lie that Bush somehow went AWOL from the Guard and has been covering it up for the past 30 years. MoveOn and the DNC have both jumped on this sinking bandwagon in order to air ads that use CBS's false claims to tell America that Bush got his daddy to get him into the guard and then partied all the way through. Finally, Kitty Kelley has published a book in which calls the President AND first lady drug addicts; claims that Laura Bush sold drugs; and states that President beat his wife! It's unreal! I think that the left really believes that if they say enough, the rest of us will just buy it for the same reason that you heard on CBS tonight, "because WE say so."
Thank God for the technology we hold the freedom to have and use, because it has produced a way beyond the hypocritical propaganda of the left and much to their chagrin has created a powerful system of accountability to the facts in today's media. I tip my hat to all of you who blog and have blogged for years. You may be called amateurs by the MSM, but so where the members of the Continental Army. In this media revolution the Internet and everyone who is willing to Google and blog will be the Minute Men of truth. (Okay enough of the emotional analogies, but I seriously do thank each blog that offered a fair level of journalistic review.)

Varied Interests

Today I wrote a new post for The Speculist about the first photograph of a planet orbiting another star.



And at Beyond Words I wrote about Peggy Noonan.

Just don't ask me to connect the dots.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Thinking Out Loud

John Podhoretz is no longer holding back his opinion of the Killian memos:

The documents aren't just forgeries, they're bad, blatant, ludicrous forgeries. They're forgeries so easily detected that in the space of a few hours after CBS released computer photographs of them on the Internet, they had already been pegged and deconstructed.
So, how in the world did the forger expect to get away with it? Rich at "Shot Across the Bow" has an interesting theory.

His idea is that some Clinton loyalist within the Kerry campaign concocted the poorly forged documents, passed them to their willing accomplices in the press, knowing that they would be quickly discredited once reported. This would lead back to the Kerry campaign, which would sabotage Kerry in time for Hillary to be Torricellied in for 2004.

Rich has Rather knowingly sacrificing the short time he has left in his career for the benefit of Hillary.

This is a fascinating theory, but I've got doubts. First, I don't think Rather would sacrifice his legacy even for a political party he believes in. I think Rather is guilty of allowing partisanship to cloud his judgement, but I don't think he planned to be a patsy. That just seems out of character. It is marginally more likely that Rather knew or suspected the documents were fakes but thought the world would believe him anyway. The most likely scenario was that Rather was fooled.

But by whom and why? Rich's idea that the forger knew and wanted the forgery to be discovered is interesting. It is hard to fathom the stupidity of some guy typing the memo in Microsoft Word giggling to himself that he's going to fool the world. Surely he had to think the forgery would be found out.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has already floated the theory that Karl Rove might be behind the forgery (funny that the DNC is basically admitting that these documents are forgeries before CBS). The RNC would have much to gain by a scandal that led back to Kerry. But I don't buy that either. Dan Rather couldn't know he was receiving documents damaging to Bush from the RNC or a pro-Bush group. He would have known something suspicious was going on.

In order for Rather to believe the documents enough to be duped, he'd have to believe that they either came directly from the Texas Air National Guard, or were dug up by some group adverse to Bush. That would be the Kerry campaign itself, the DNC, or maybe some left leaning 527 group like MoveOn.

If Rove is such a genius that he was able to fool Rather into believing a memo he leaked came from anti-Bush forces, then Glenn Reynolds was right. Kerry should just give up.

And no, I don't think a Clinton loyalist did this to get Hillary in the race in 2004. It's too late to pull the Toricelli option. I doubt Hillary could even get on the ballot in all states at this point. Of course she wouldn't need to get on the ballot everywhere, just the blue states and the battleground states, but it's just not logistically possible to pull off such a switch at this point.

And why would she go to all the trouble just to lose? Hillary would have no chance of winning this time, especially if the Dems were consumed in scandal. Hillary is not stupid, she's going to wait to take her shot in 2008.

She wouldn't get a shot in 2008 if Kerry wins. Why not sabotage Kerry to insure a clear field for 2008? This seems much more likely than Rich's theory, but there's still a problem. Why take the risk since Kerry is in trouble anyway?

Again, in order for Rather to accept the documents he would have to believe his source was capable of digging up dirt on Bush that had remained buried through a congressional campaign, a gubernatorial campaign, and a presidential campaign. He'd have to believe his source was some powerful individual on the left. And if we are saying that it's a Clinton loyalist trying to hurt Kerry, it would have to be a Kerry campaign insider loyal to Clinton – someone like James Carville.

But planning for a memo you write to be discovered as a forgery is just plain nuts for someone like Carville. He'd have to know that when it fell apart he'd be outed by Rather, not just the Kerry campaign.

This theory has the same problem as the theory that Rove leaked the documents. If someone – from either side – leaked the documents knowing and hoping they would be discovered as forgeries, he'd have to find a way to make it look like the documents came from some other believable person. Otherwise the forger could expect a sentence in a federal penitentiary. We are talking Lex-Luther-level evil genius here.

So I'm not buying it. I guess I'm back to shaking my head at the stupidity of somebody thinking they could pass off these third-rate forgeries for the real thing. And once he fooled the gatekeepers he had reason to hope the forgery would never be discovered, at least not until after the election.

And he would've gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you snooping kids!

UPDATE: Rich writes to say that his post was a parody. It's my Emily Litella moment...Oh. Never Mind!

I guess it's a measure of how bizarre this whole story is that a parody actually sounds like a serious theory.

Monday, September 13, 2004

So Who Really Does Play Dirty?

This story by Newsweek describes the negative atmosphere of this Presidential election as being the worst ever. I can't believe I'm agreeing with such a liberal publication, but they're right. This is one big difference, however, in their story and what the reality of this election has been. The Bush campaign is a well-run unit (unlike his father's in 1992) and there exists no doubt that the RNC retains the services of some amazing political "bull-dogs". The direction of Republican attacks though has been primarily upon John Kerry's record, his votes, his views, and his inerrant and flip-flopped opinions on virtually every issue. The attacks leveled at the President from Senator Kerry and the DNC, however, are primarily centered upon the man, George Bush. They've called him a cocaine addict, a drunk, a liar, a traitor, stupid, an abuser, a deserter, and host of others diatribes all intended to demean him as a man. The Newsweek peice does not speak about the content of the "slime" being hurled by each campaign. Instead, it puts the character assault of the left as equal to any, ANY, criticism of John Kerry by the right. My feelings on this subject are obvious yet I challenge any liberal to catalog the criticisms of John Kerry alongside the attacks of George Bush and show an equality of actual content. On a final note, the bias of the media has been discussed in each post so far on this blog. It's worth repeating again that never before has the Mainstream Press showed such open and vitrious nepotism toward one party or candidate. One only has to compare the treatment of the Swift Boats vets' story to that of the Bush Guard stories to see a clear and distinct difference. I hope that any of you who happen upon these humble ramblings will take the initiative and research the reporting with an open mind and open eye. Vote for any candidate you want, but please for the future of our nation, vote informed.

Update: For any visting this tonight, I haven't added all the links yet to the various attacks on President Bush. Stayed tuned tomorrow for those.

Why's Dan Sticking With His Story?

CBS News has to know that the Killian documents are forged. So what is wrong with these people? Why haven't they admitted it so that they can retain a shred of dignity and begin to repair the damage?

Stanley Kurtz's analysis of this mystery is the most convincing I've read so far.

Abbreviated version: The audience of CBS News has grown more and more liberal over the years. The mainstream media as a whole grew liberal during the 70s, which drove away the first wave of conservatives, which created the need for alternative sources of news, and these alternatives began to be created in the 80s. Once conservatives had alternatives they left mainstream media news in mass, especially the most liberal network, CBS.

Rather's remaining audience really believes Rather's pathetic defense: the veracity of the documents is less important than the seriousness of the issues they raise. Who cares if it's true? It's what they've chosen to believe.

Let me go off topic just a second to announce I just "found" a document that "proves" Dan Rather personally armed John Hinkley, Jr. and told him Jodie Foster would be his girlfriend if he shot President Reagan. Sure the documents are still warm off my printer, but the charges are so serious that Rather should be compelled to prove them untrue.

The Killian document scandal has only polarized the potential audience further. CBS knows it isn't getting the conservatives back, so why bother carefully vetting stories that either hurt conservatives or help liberals in the future? Why bother retracting this story now if most of the remaining CBS audience is dying to believe it anyway?

In fact, if CBS News admits these documents are forgeries, it will have an ethical obligation to divulge its source. If it's the Kerry campaign or the DNC, then Kerry is finished in this election, Rather's career is over, and the remaining CBS audience will hate CBS for losing the election for Kerry.

The only good news is that intelligent people have been placed on notice. If, regardless of your party you have any interest in objective truth, don't look to CBS News.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Scandals, Scandals, Scandals.

The forged document scandal is a serious problem for CBS. The fact that Dan Rather went on CNN about an hour ago saying that the documents are valid and that there won't be an internal investigation will only make it worse.

CBS, you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. It's over, the documents are clearly forged. Rather is down to arguing we should believe him instead of our lying eyes. You show me typewriter available in 1972 with proportional fonts, shrunken superscripted "th's," word wrap, and auto centering and I'll buy you lunch. In a fancy restaurant of your choice. In Paris, France.

And the fact that all of these things can be found and exactly duplicated in Microsoft Word removes all doubt.

I don't know whether to admire the gall of this forger, or shake my head at his laziness. It's not that hard to find a vintage typewriter.

But there are so many other scandals to choose from! We have former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes claiming that as Lieutenant Governor he pulled strings to get Bush into the Texas National Guard. There's a small problem. Bush was sworn into the guard in 1968, Barnes didn't become Lieutenant Governor until 1969.

Another problem. Barnes denied the allegation that he helped Bush get into the National Guard when it was first brought up in 1999.

The New York Times, no friend of the Bush family, reported in February 2004 that Barnes, who acknowledged he played a role in getting Bush into the guard unit only after he was under oath, said he had no contact with anyone in the Bush family. A 1999 news article quotes Barnes saying, "I never spoke to Congressman Bush about his son," calling a magazine's report he had pulled strings at the elder Bush's request "false."
And what about the Associated Press "fake boos" scandal? This one is a whole week old, so it's in danger of being forgotten.

To refresh your memory, the AP reported as follows:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.
Nobody booed. Not one person. Instead, there was cheering for Mr. Clinton. Listen to this.

So, out of bias, this AP reporter lied about the boos, then added bias to the bias-inspired lie by saying Bush did nothing about the nonexistent boos.

I wrote the AP this email:

Dear Associated Press:

I have long suspected the AP of liberal bias, but now I am fully convinced.

You reported that when President Bush told his audience that President Clinton was in the hospital, "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

This is a complete fabrication. There was not a single boo. Not even a scattering of "boos," and the complete opposite of "Bush's audience of thousands...booed."

Liberal spin is one thing - something sadly I've grown accustomed to with your publications. Outright lying is another matter. In a straight news story I expect
to get the truth.

Perhaps I'm asking too much of the AP. Thank God for
the "New Media."

Sincerely,

Stephen Gordon

P.S. I suggest soul searching. Why is your reporter portraying a Republican crowd as so hateful? Could it be "projection?"
And no, I haven't heard back from them.




UPDATE:

From the CNN interview with Dan Rather (hat tip to Drudge):

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!

It's not the veracity of the evidence that's important. It's the seriousness of the charge.

Wrong, Dan. If the evidence is fake, why should we believe the charge? In fact, why should we believe CBS News about anything until its house is put in order?

A Break in the Silence

I had resolved to sit on the blogging sidelines during this election. I'm in grad school full-time , after all, and serving in a full-time ministry position plus I have a new wife at home who deserves some attention too. Yet, this week's events have determined that the bench is not the place for anyone in this political season. As the news story about 60 Minutes' "forged" memos continues to unravel, the political agenda of the mainstream media has been revealed like never before. Not too say that the media hasn't picked favorites before, but during my short life and the four presidential campaigns I have closely followed, I have yet to see such an unbridled attempt by the mainstream press to affect an election to this extent. The response ( also here, and here) of the blogosphere has been truly remarkable and should be given credit for blowing this story out of the foggy waters of partisanship and getting the truth out to the public. The lesson for voters is this: We can no longer sit passive, assuming that we are being fed the truth by our news outlets. Instead, we must make the choice to look deeper and find the real story before we make up our minds.