Friday, October 29, 2004

October surprise?

Only if you haven't been paying attention the last three years... after all, he never was caught, dead or alive...

"The Other Shoe Drops: Bin Laden Weighs in":

"Bin Laden suggested Bush was slow to react to the Sept. 11 attacks, giving the hijackers more time than they expected. At the time of the attacks, the president was listening to schoolchildren in Florida reading a book.

'It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone,' he said, referring to the number of people who worked at the World Trade Center.

`It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God,' he said."

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Did Bush botched hunt for Osama?

Is there even a question?

"Look at the lede of this Washington Post article from April 17, 2002 ...
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

That really says it all."

Wednesday, October 20, 2004



How the media betray us

Sad but true, but Kerry at least has wised up in a way Gore never did, that the only way to 'level the playing field' with the bogus media that sets the discourse in this country is to start making shit up:

How to Make Bush Play Defense: "Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry appears to have finally embraced one of the more sordid truths of modern political campaigning: The best way to control the message of the day is to force your opponent to respond to a basically groundless attack.

The Bush campaign and its allies have arguably done this on and off since March. Consider, for instance, that Kerry lost most of August responding to Swift-Boat allegations...."

What the...?

I've heard of battle chess, but LoveChess?!?

Monday, October 18, 2004

faith or foolishness

another selection from "Without a Doubt":
"'Faith can cut in so many ways,' he said. 'If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.'

'Where people often get lost is on this very point,' he said after a moment of thought. 'Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.'

And what is that?

'Easy certainty.'"

question of the day

Are you reality-based or faith-based?:

"In the summer of 2002, after I [Ron Suskind] had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"


Texas-style: "This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker."

Friday, October 15, 2004

Dan Froomkin has the goods

A short while back I directed your attention to something Dan Froomkin had noticed; as he puts it: "every time President Bush says 'of course,' because in adversarial settings Bush seems to use that phrase whenever he's about to say something that supporters might find obvious -- but that his critics might consider a whopper."

Now here are some results:

"Here's every instance of 'of course' from [the Oct. 13 debate]:
-- 'Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden.'
-- 'Of course we're meeting our obligation to our veterans, and the veterans know that.'
-- Regarding his Social Security plans: 'And we're of course going to have to consider the costs.'
And here are the instances from last Friday:
-- 'Of course, we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already 75 percent of his people. And we're on the hunt for him.'
-- 'Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does.'
-- '[O]f course we've been involved with Iran. . . . Of course, we're paying attention to these. It's a great question about Iran.'
-- 'And of course he's going to raise your taxes.' "

Thursday, October 14, 2004

This is worth the wait

Need a laugh?

Then check this out: How do you run a convention on a record of failure?

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Dubya's dirty tricks exposed?

Employees of Voters Outreach of America, a GOP-funded voter registration outfit operating in Nevada, say they personally witnessed company employees shredding hundreds or even thousands of Democratic registrations. Now the same company (VOA) is being accused of destroying Democratic registration forms in Oregon....

Update: Click here for links to nine states where Dubya's dirty tricks have been committed


"10:06PM: Bush: 'The best way to get the troops home is to send them to Iraq.' There's not even a joke to make about that."

Debate impressions

Kerry started off red hot and Dubya was in trouble 'big time,' as his running mate would say. Kerry was scorching him on Iraq, the economy, you name it and Bush was starting to lose it, his face contorting and his speechifying sputtering.

So his golfing buddy, moderator Bob Schiefer (who looks like the Count from Sesame Street) tossed some softballs Dubya's way and changed the debate from substantive issues to so-called 'wedge issues' (abortion, prayer) and navel-gazing explorations of 'personality' (faith, 'women in my life').

As with the Veep debate the low quality of the questions really detracted from the latter stages of the debate. After all, what US politician in their right mind is going to get up and denounce 'faith'? Kerry still came out of the softball questions on top, however, as his answers did not sound like something a homeless man may try to pawn off on you in his desperate attempt to gather enough nickles for another bottle of cheep hootch ('prayer gives me a calmness').

Overall, Kerry kept up the offensive and got in a few killers like "Bush on fiscal responsibility is like Tony Soprano on law and order." Bush, back on his heals early on, was not helped by attacks that overreached: "Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Massachusetts."

Damn, if you thought Dubya's credibility was in trouble to begin with then it landed smack dab in the toilet with that whopper!

That about summed up Dubya's grand strategy -- dump flip-flop for LIBERAL (a flip-flop in itself). Two kinds of name calling masquerading as strategy, and both doomed to failure when the stakes are so real for so many Americans. If this is Dubya's idea of a grand strategy no wonder we're in a quagmire in Iraq!

Tonight's the situation required Dubya to break Kerry's gathering momentum, not stand pat and hope that the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' would (once again) float him to victory. Playing defense for most of the night was not what Dubya needed, but it is essentially what he did. After all, if he hasn't wrapped up the evangelical vote by now, he never will. And his pandering to the them only turns middle of the road folk off -- as is reflected in the post debate polls, where Kerry whomped on Dubya by double-digit margins.

This debate will seal the narrative of the out-of-touch emperor strutting around without any clothes.

Did you like Dubya's answer on jobs?
No Child Left Behind

...hello, it is not my child who needs a job, it is me, f*ckface!

How Dubya's answer regarding discrimination:
No Child Left Behind!

Or his answer for outsourcing?
No Child Left Behind...

...and his answer for education...
failing to fund No Child Left Behind.

So, to sum up Dubya's domestic agenda in a nutshell?
A big middle finger for the middle class.

And don't think his dodging and weaving will be lost on folks trying to make up their minds. Kerry was resolute, specific, articulate, and decisive... he didn't have to run out the clock with bumber sticker slogans and when times are tough people look for someone who has a clue...

You see it at work all the time, the smarty may be mocked when everyone is fat and happy, but if there is a deadline and heads are going to roll, all of a sudden office politics goes out the window. Barring any catastrophic events, this debate portends that we'll be seeing something else go out the window this November 2.

the most damning lie

Bush stated that he never claimed to not care about ObL... let's go to the tape:

"Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]

BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]

Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.

I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him."
You can run, Dubya, but you can't hide!

Kerry wins -- again

three for three

Early post-debate polls
Kerry Bush
CBS 39 25
ABC 42 41
CNN 52 39

The CBS poll was only among undecideds. The ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats.
So in other words, you can add roughly 12% points to Kerry's 1% point advantage, which is in keeping with the other two polls.

Let's face it: one of the candidates is serious, smart, and focused and the other is a goof off who lives in a bubble and whose middle name begins with W...

LA Times scoop

Wonder why the rest of the media won't touch it?

Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote: "The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi -- where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

'When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously,' said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity...."

banana republic?

"There is no low to which the GOP will not stoop. Now, they are shredding Dem voter registrations in Nevada.

Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats...."

GOP: lie cheat and steal

"This is a bombshell accusation, so you'd sorta kinda hope that the reporter would follow it up a bit:

The former [Republican] governor and congressman says the national GOP is encouraging campaign workers to cheat. He says his ire is directed at the Republican Party's Victory operation, which helps register people and get them to the polls.

Janklow says his problem with the organization goes back to 2002 when he was a candidate for the US House."

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

what did I tell you?

Checking the Facts, in Advance:

"...By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers."

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Bush as b.s. artist

"Is George W. Bush better described as a pathological liar or as someone dangerously unhinged from reality?"

CNN spins for bushies

Here's the misleading headline: - Poll: Bush, Kerry even in 2nd debate - Oct 9, 2004

But here is the fact of the matter:

"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate Friday night found that respondents gave a slight, statistically insignificant [sic] edge to Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, 47 percent to 45 percent.

The respondents included 515 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 38 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent."

Hmmm, now lets do the math: 6% more GOoPers than Dems, even though turnout typically gives the Dems a 4% advantage, so that adds up to a 10% stacking of the deck for Bush. Once we adjust the poll for that we find Kerry has a win of 12% -- well outside the margin of error.

But CNN doesn't report the facts, just the spin. Why don't you ask them why not right here?

let your voice be heard


Who the hell is...

...that short "ANGER MAN" who is running all over the screen YELLING at people?

He's what? He's the most powerful man on the planet? Then why is he acting like a schoolyard bully who's sucked down too much Kool-aid too quickly?

[Go here to watch him flip out]

And people wonder why we have a virtual coalition of one?... would you want to play in the same sandbox with this little freakazoid? Or let your kid play near him?

He's the type to wait till people are looking away before pulling a sucker punch and then pretend that he doesn't know how his 'playmate's' face got pushed into the sidewalk.


Mistakes are for the 'little people' --like taxes (smirk)-- if he wants to make a mistake, he 'hires it done.'

The only mistake he ever made was hiring people who can't follow the party line and allow reality to intrude in their assessment of the state of the world.

Now why are we stuck in a quagmire again?

No way in hell am I voting for ANGER MAN. Let him go screw up his own sandbox on his own dime for a change.

debate diary

Must read Internets:

"9:27 Bush is grinding his teeth into stumps. Oh, fuck: 'That answer almost made me want to scowl.' . . . Uhm. Yeah. I think I could hear crickets. I mean, that joke bombed. Bombed like a bad war.

9:29 Oh, yes. The rumors on the 'internets.' The interweb. Whatever. You have to excuse him. . . he mainly just uses it for porn.

9:31 Hmmmm. . . back door draft . . .

9:33 Good thing that no one really knows who Charlie Gibson is, or Bush steamrolling over him like a grumpy elderly driver would probably get noticed.

9:37 Shorter Bush: 'Stop fucking with me! Stop it! Stop fucking with me!'"

And the winner...

10:28 Q: Name three times you've made a mistake. A: I WAS RIGHT TO GO TO WAR. AND THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION. FUCK YOU.

Friday, October 08, 2004

psychological quirk

Bush's 'I am about to lie' tag-line:

"Here's a debate-watching tip: Perk up your ears every time President Bush says 'of course' tonight.

Because if recent history is a guide, what's coming is a statement that his supporters might find obvious, but that his critics might consider a whopper....

Depending on where you're coming from, politically, [what he says is] either manifestly true or a Freudian slip exposing a significant falsehood....

Bush's views were being challenged that night, and his use of the phrase 'of course' sounded defensive in nature. So I decided to go back and look at how Bush used the phrase in other situations recently where he was confronted by tough questions...."

There is more, 'of course' (NOT a Freudian slip), and it makes for an interesting read.

The global test

Presidency 101


Thursday, October 07, 2004

Cheney's lies

The thing abut Cheney's lies is that they are of a far different nature that the typical "stretching the truth" that we have come to expect from politicians. That is why it is fundamentally misleading to equate Edwards saying that we are $200 billion in the whole in Iraq (we have spent $120 billion and have already allocated another $80 billion that will be spent in the next year regardless of who is president) with Cheney's whole-cloth reinventions of reality "I've never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11" or "Iraq represented a nuclear threat."

If you consider what Edwards said to be an exaggeration or error of degree (and I don't, since that money is as good as spent right now -- who is going to deny the troops what has already been allocated and is necessary, even if only to extricate them from the quagmire?), then what Cheney says on a regular basis has to be considered something else, since it does not exaggerate or embellish -- it departs from reality absolutely. Arguing that Saddam has nukes, when he does not is not an exaggeration. Arguing that Iraq was behind 9/11 terrorists when they were not is not an exageration -- it is a fabrication, a lie. You cannot 'exaggerate' that black is white. And that is why most news services did the country a disservice when they equated what some might call Edwards' interpretations of reality with Cheney's whole-scale departures from reality. It both minimizes the true differences (and lends credence to the old saw: 'all politicians do it') and by so doing implicitly endorses what Cheney has to say, since it is 'no worse' than what Edwards said.

Or, in brief, Cheney has mastered the technique of the Big Lie and the press is still not on to him...

Or are some perhaps beginning to answer the clue phone?

MSNBC - Rewriting History: "With virtually all of the administration's original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night's debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill's first question, said that 'concern' about Iraq before the war had 'specifically focused' on the fact that Saddam's regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a 'state sponsor of terror,' that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an 'established relationship' with Al Qaeda.

But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda--a claim that is now more in question than ever--the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night's debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons...."

Judith Miller in the tank

We always knew she was in the tank for the bushies... but now she may be for real: "A federal judge held a reporter in contempt Thursday for refusing to divulge confidential sources to prosecutors investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed until she agrees to testify about her sources before a grand jury, but said she could remain free while pursuing an appeal. Miller could be jailed up to 18 months."

One has to wonder why she is going to jail and Novak isn't, since Novak is the one who spread the leak in his column. Perhaps Miller was carrying water for the bushies and is the one who spread the leak to Novak (and other reporters) to begin with?

check this out

Wonder why Dubya looks like he just wet his pants?

How terrible is wisdom when it does not profit the wise

Because Mr. Bush chose to act, we know what capabilities Iraq did -- and did not -- possess, and we've learned how difficult it is to occupy and attempt to reconstruct that country.
-Washington Post 10/6/04

"So, it is only thanks [to] Mr. Bush's decision to invade that we can now have the certainty we do about how wrong he was about Iraqi WMD.

Similarly, Bush's decision to invade has gained us invaluable new insights into urban guerilla warfare and how badly an occupation can go wrong.

I think I now have a better understanding of what the president and his supporters mean when they call Iraq a 'catastrophic success.'"

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

exercise your right to vote


More great analysis

"...I swear, Cheney had a 'that's it' a 'no mas' moment. He knew, Cheney knows. That bald old man realized that John Edwards is going to take his job, and that John Kerry is the next President....

And when Edwards delivered the 1-2 blow of Haliburton and the acknowledgment of the gay Cheney daughter, Dick had nothing to do but grin & bear the load of his profiteering ways and of Bush the divider; and then speechless, to thank Edwards for the acknowledgment of his daughter-- that was the moment..."

photographic evidence

Cheney had met Edwards before... not the last Cheney lie to be exposed tonight!

"I can already hear the Dems' snark line: 'Dick Cheney says he'd never met John Edwards before last night? I bet he wishes he still never had.'"

Josh is dead on in his analysis

"The task for Democrats over the next forty-eight hours is to bang home with hammering detail and repitition just how many things Vice President Cheney said during the debate that were just flat-out false and to make the case that this is part and parcel of a general pattern of denial about what's happening in Iraq and failure, on so many fronts, to level with the American public."

Josh's whole analysis is dead on -- click and read.

tonite makes it 2-0

Whew... it started fast and furious tonight!

It was quite evident the the old dragon wasn't used to getting poked with a lance... Cheney looked ready to pop a few f-bombs early on, and then grew oddly quiet... like a dog with his tails between his legs.

Edwards shot out of the gate so fast he had Cheney tumbling trying to stay on his feet. Edwards was sooooo good early on (especially when asked about the "global test") it may have hurt him with a few viewers, as it was almost impossible to keep up that pace. He was correcting the facts, connecting back to the big picture and tossing in tasteful zingers for good measure -- masterful.

The second half of the debate lost its edge, with Gwen Ifill trying to prove how smart she was with cutesie questions and on a few occassions essentially asking the same question twice... all of which which left Cheney with nothing to say -- literally -- a couple times, and even Edwards at some points was forced by the inept direction of the questioning to either reiterate or extemporize on topics not touched on.

Since Cheney was essentially playing defense for most of the debate, the slowing of the tempo aided him, but he had clearly lost his zest. Edwards comes out with a clear win -- forcefully rebutting Cheney's attempts at distortion and intidimdation and setting the record straight on the difference between having a resume and being right.

Two down and two to go.

Thank god!

An idea whose time has come... indeed is long overdue:
"...Though we're tempted to blame the politicians, it's time to dig deeper. It's time to blame the press corps that daily brings us this unrelenting symphony of horseshit and never comes within 1000 miles of an apology for any of it. And it's time to blame the press not only as a class of people, but as individuals. We must brand anyone who puts his name or his face on credulous campaign coverage an eternal Enemy of the State. Hopefully, over time, this will have a deterrent effect.

To begin this important process of collective healing, we must find that first person to mark with our scorn. That is why New York Press has launched the First Quadrennial Election Hack Invitational--a tournament, to be held between now and the week after the election, which will answer the question: 'Who is the worst campaign journalist in America?...'"

Read it all... it is ROTFLMAO funny!
Thanks to Atrios

cuticle cultural criticism

"Final point: In Campaign 2000, several pundits did express concern with Gore's short nails. Result? We're now in Iraq."

You've got to click on this and read where a reporter defends reporting on style over substance... just incredible the contempt that they have for their audience!

Kissing up to Kissinger

This is an interesting peek into media-govt relations.

For example, check out what Ted Koppel - the guy who killed Carter with the "x number of days held hostage" schtick - had to say in The reporters who loved Henry and what they said:

"...Although ABC News' Ted Koppel is a card-carrying member of the Kissinger cult and you can sense his adoration for Kissinger in the transcripts, he never really loses it until Carter defeats Ford and he calls to say goodbye on Nov. 8, 1976:
I didn't want to call you last week. It has been a [sic] extraordinary three years for me and I have enjoyed it immensely. You are an intriguing man and if I had had a teacher like you earlier, I might not be quite so cynical.

A slip of the mask

"...something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance...."

Monday, October 04, 2004

win the spin

Dubya and his media minions are trying to spin the debate, making the "global test" the test of loyalty under the Bush crime syndicate. What we need to do it hit back and remind the press that this is yet another example of Dubya's "selective hearing" that he finds so effective in insulating himself from reality:

Here's what Kerry said:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer, the debate moderator], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Kerry called it the "global test" but he could just as easily called it the "laugh test" -- if it weren't so damn serious.

What did Kerry mean by it? He meant that if we go to war, we damn well sure should have some legitimate reasons for doing so. Is that so hard to swallow?

You would think after all the lame excuses Dubya has cooked up for his private vendetta (aluminum tubes, yellowcake ore, mobile bio labs, drone planes to fly around the world) all now proven false, that the press corps wouldn't have such a hard time intuiting what Kerry was trying to say. But then Kerry is only making common sense... something that is not so common after all.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Elmer Befuddled

This is SWEEEET... read and enjoy

Oh, and note the commie pinko treehugging rag that is the source of the story.

thank god for media matters

After "make-or-break" buildup, CNN commentators downplay significance of debate

That is, they downplayed the importance after Kerry croaked Dubya...

Go and read the quotes, these people are such bellycrawling lick-spittles.

Fox apologizes?

Imagine putting a parody of a presidential candidate on you Website and calling it news... but the real story isn't the dirty trick, it is how the dirty trick is intended to distract attention from the dismal performance by the dithering boob squatting in the white house.

The folks at Fox understand that if you want to change the topic, you have to give people something even more sensational -- even if momentarily embarassing -- to focus on.

Don't take your eye off the ball... continue to write to your media outlets about how out of touch, isolated from reality, cocooned in a fantasy Dubya is.

Media: incompetent or just in the bag for Dubya?

CNN interviews undecided voter who in his secret life is an active member of his campus branch of College Republicans

And apparently CNN isn't alone?

The Miami Herald was also duped by another dirty trickster posing as an "undecided."

Haven't these folks in the media ever heard of Google?

CNN ditches journalism for corporate ties

CJR Campaign Desk:
"MoveOn's ad argues: 'Gallup's methodology has predicted lately that Republican turnout on Election Day is likely to exceed Democrats' by six to eight percentage points. But exit polls show otherwise: in each of the last two Presidential elections, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican by four to five points. That discrepancy alone can account for nearly all of Bush's phantom 14-point lead,' reported by Gallup a couple of weeks ago.

Often, CNN covers contentious issues like this with sound bites from both sides, treating both positions roughly equally. But not this time. After all, a blow to Gallup's reputation as a reliable polling service is also a blow to CNN. So, on the network's 'Inside Politics' this afternoon, it dealt with the issue this way...."

Another story buried by editors

Allawi is not just our puppet, he's also been drafted for the Bush campaign...

Bush op helped write Allawi speech:

"Why was this bombshell on P. 20, and why was it combined with a separate story about DoD putting a positive spin on news from Iraq? Either story alone justified P. 1 treatment."

A sad day for America...

When outside elections observers deplore the prospects for a free and fair election...
Observers fear repeat of 2000: "International observers of the US election have highlighted concerns over voting machines, voter eligibility rules, and allegations of intimidation aimed at lowering the turnout of ethnic minorities.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe observers issued a report this week on preparations for the vote after a visit earlier this month, and warned that the result could again be delayed...."

watching the watchers

MMFA fact-checks networks' "fact checks" ... [Media Matters for America]

win the spin

"The key point I think, the key impression, was of a president who was out of touch. Erratic. Without a plan. In a cocoon. Unwilling to admit mistakes. Unwilling to level with himself or voters about what's happening in Iraq. Lost."