Sinclair has told its stations
Without watching the debate and paying attention to solely the pundits, I declare this debatea draw or a modest Bush victory. All the predictable persons on theright proclaim it is a Bush victory, all the predictable persons on the left decalre it a Kerry victory. The talking heads on all the channels are unable to spin this as a Kerry victory, and when you factor in the automatic anti-Bush bias, that means Bush must have done pretty well for them to fail to make the Kerry case.
Nope. I won’t be watching them. I have the new Chris Rock HBO Comedy Special, I have the new Rock movie- Walking Tall, and I have that shitty Travolta movie, the Punisher. And before you give em any shit, I know this is not a high-brow selection. I fully expect the Punisher to suck. Back off the Rock, though. I like him, and I think he is the best of the new action heroes, and as far as I am concerned, he is the new Arnold.
I just can’t bear to spend two hours watching Bush stumble over words while Kerry lies about everything and no one in the press even blinks. I can tell you what the press will report astheoutcome of the debate before it has even occurred and without watching it. Kerry won it. I mean, the mainstream media has already told us where they stand:
An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to “reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable.”
The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”
But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to “win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.”
That is what is known in liberal circles as ‘nuance.’ Kerry lies, and it is no big deal. Bush lies- and he must be doing for re-election!
The Democrats may win the Presidency this year, but I still doubt it. Regardless, if they do win, it will be an extremely costly victory. If they win, it will cost them, at the very least, the complete and total credibility of the mainstream media.
Forget Dan Rather and the 5 year investigation that ended up with nothing more than forged documents. When you read this piece in the LA Times by Jonathon Chait, which is supposed to be a barnburner, and it seems rather tepid when compared to the daily fare offered by the NY Times, you get an understanding of how in bed with the Democrats most of us on the right now view the media.
I used to think the meida was just lazy, but that benign mistrust of them has now been replaced with a malignant disdain for their out and out bias. Is there any way to explain how Kerry has not been asked ONE tough question this entire election cycle. How the only references to his flip-flopping on every issue are to the Republican attempts to paint him as a flip-flopper, rather than his actual flip-flopping? Why has not one reporter asked Kerry about his Senate career, and the votes for unilateral disarmament, nuclear freezes, etc. Why has no one seized upon the stunning incoherence of the Diane Sawyer interview? Why the thorough disdain for valid questions about Kerry’s military record? Why no questions about his taxes or military record? Why the complete acceptance about his lies about the economy and outsourcing?
How many weeks in a row did CBS air anti-Bush books? For fun, ask yourself how many of the NY Times op-ed columnists have written Bush-bashing books in the past year. Ask yourself, why are specious charges about Bush taking too much vacation time given mainstream attention bi-weekly, and no one notices that Kerry and Edwards have not made it to a Senate vote in 2-3 years- unless, of course, a DC fundraiser is simultaneously scheduled. Now that the Democrats have more money, why has the press not spent three months in a lather about the evil influence of money on elections?
Why is the complete lie about Kerry’s Iraq ‘plan’ not questioned? Which countries are going to support a President Kerry witrh additional troops? How is he goingto train Iraqi security forces ‘faster?’ Why has he not been called to task for blatant attempts to destroy the existing coalition? Why has it not been mentioned that even the 1991 coalition was not good enough for Kerry? Why is it not trumpeted acrss the headlines every day that the ‘allies’ Kerry wants to rely on were being paid off by Saddam Hussein? Why is it that everyone believed Saddam had WMD prior to the war, yet only Bush is supposed to be punished for being wrong- even when he is the only one who acted in good faith on what turns out to be faulty information. Kerry and crew thought there were WMD- and wanted to do nothing.
Why are the Democrats allowed to lie daily about the economy. Why is it not mentioned every day that the unemployment rate is lower than it was during the Clinton landside victory over Dole. Why are discussions of the economy always missing the damage caused by an inherited recession and the devestating impact that 9/11 had on the economy. Do you guys forget what happened to travel? Hotel services? Restaurants? The entertainment sector? The airline industry? Do they just forget how bad the attacks hurt the economy, or is it just because they want Kerry to win that they ignore this information? Why is it not mentioned that the tax cuts worked, and the economy be would be much worse if Kerry had his way? Andwhat exactly is Kerry’s economic plan? Tax hikes, increased government spending, more regulation, more of everything that we don’t need.
I could go on and on and on and on with questions that should have been asked of Kerry and the Breck Girl, but the press is too busy climbing up Cheney’s ass with a flashlight and a baseball bat, distorting his statements so they can call him a liar. There is a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That doesn’t mean Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but it does mean that Iraq had to go. Period. Why is it that Kerry and Edwards are allowed to lie about Cheney and Halliburton on a daily basis? Why?
The Democrats may win this election, but it will cost them dearly. They are going to lose more seats in the House, probably 2-3 more seats in the Senate, and they are going to have a Democratic president that even most Democrats don’t like. And personally, I can’t wait. It might be fun to give the Democrats a dose of their own medicine. Nw that we know that the out and out lies from Michael Moore are references for the Kerry/Edwards critique of the Bush foreign policy, I can say pretty much anything I want, and still remain in the new boundaries for decorum that have been constructed by the Democrats. The Democrats have half their base convinced Bush and Cheney went to war for oil, so I shouldn’t take any heat for suggesting Kerry is a Manchurian Candidate.
A Kerry victory might be fun.
*** Update ***
Is it conceivable that President Bush can survive the media onslaught, unprecedented in American history, that has been unleashed against him?
This is weird:
The friction between the Cubs and Sosa, following an injury-plagued season in which Sosa hit 35 home runs and batted only .253 — his lowest average since 1997 — has led to speculation Chicago will try to trade him. Sosa spent time this season on the DL with back problems brought on by a violent sneeze. His 80 RBI ended his run of 100-RBI seasons at nine.
I seem to remember a pitcher slipping in the shower inuring his wrist. Anyone else remember any weird injuries like this?
SpaceShipOne captain Brian Binnie will be on Letterman tonight, 11:30 EST, CBS.
Careful not to question the sincerity of Mr. Bush’s faith or to criticize the mobilization of conservative religious forces on his behalf, Mr. Kerry nonetheless suggested his opponent’s campaign had gone over the line with the way it frames some issues.
“I think you have to draw that line, so the answer is yes, they reached beyond that line, and in my judgment they’re trying to exploit certain issues,” he said. “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they’re out there misleading people and exploiting it.”
Sullivan somehow thinks Bush sold him out, and pretends to fool himself that the democrats are the answer to his now sole political issue of importance- gay marriage. I used to think Andy was a bright fellow, but boy does he have the blinders on for this one.
Quite frankly, there is no real grass roots support for homosexual marriage. Perhaps 30% of the population is in favor of it, 20-30% are indifferent, and thiswould explain the polls that give Andy false hope, but Andy might want to look into a little thing called Social Desirability Bias. There is a reason that polls in California might show 50+% support for homosexual marriage, yet Proposition 22 passes by a 61%-39% margin. It ain’t vote fraud, either.
Virtually every time gay marriage is put on a ballot anywhere, it is demolished, and it is only in the courts that any ‘progress’ is made. Of course, this progress is eventually overturned by higher courts, leaving the homosexual community worse off than they were before. By trying to ram things through the courts, they end up alienating many voters who previously had been indifferent regarding the issue.
At any rate, back to Sullivan and his new-found hatred for Bush and Rove. If for one minute you think Kerry is going to lead you to the promised land, you are wrong. Not only has he no stated desire to do what you wish legislatively, the Democrats find the homosexual community to be too valuable a voting bloc for them to give you what you want. The Democratic party is much better seved by talking loudly about advancing homosexual marriage and doing nothing, all the while playing fools like Andy off the ‘bigoted’ GOP.
It is so clear and obvious it hurts to watch.
*** Update ***
Sullivan responds (not to me, of course), sort of.
It has been a banner week for the French. First there was this:
The government of Charles de Gaulle held hundreds of foreigners, including at least three Britons, in an internment camp near Toulouse for up to four years after the second world war, according to secret documents.
The papers, part of a cache of 12,000 photocopied illegally by an Austrian-born Jew, reveal the extent to which French officials collaborated with their fleeing Nazi occupiers even as their country was being liberated. They also show that, when the war was over, France went to extraordinary lengths to hide as much evidence of that collaboration as possible.
Then there was this:
SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.
Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France – having been granted oil contracts – would veto any American plans for war. . . .
Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions – which stopped him acquiring weapons – were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.
To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China – three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.
Finally, the Coup de Grace, to borrow a phrase:
French President Jacques Chirac is calling on the European Union to lift a long-standing arms embargo against China.
“France supports lifting the embargo,” Chirac said in an interview with China’s official news agency, Xinhua, adding it no longer reflected present day realities.
Today, European countries are divided over lifting the embargo, with Sweden and the Netherlands opposed to doing so. The United States is also against it.
Chirac noted “stong reservations” on the part of Washington, but said Paris would push for a swift lifting of the embargo. His remarks were posted on the French presidency’s Web site, and came ahead of Chirac’s trip to China on Friday.
Our allies the French. These are the people who John Kerry thinks we should work with. Instructive.