AI
Friday, October 01, 2004 10:39:28 AM
WAR ROOM '04 -- September 30, 2004
Stewart's big scoop
Leave it to Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" to get the big scoop on debate night. What was John Kerry intently scribbling on his note pad while President Bush was speaking? The enterprising Stewart got his hands on the pad after the debate and revealed Kerry’s words to "The Daily Show" audience: "I'm so crushing him."
-- David Talbot
[23:43 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Sullivan: The kids aren't alright with Bush
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan writes that he saw the debate "among a group of Dartmouth college students who were mainly pro-Kerry but who included a solid pro-Bush presence," and the kids weren't at all happy with Bush. In a lengthy, articulate critique of Bush's performance, Sullivan writes [ http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_09_26_dish_archive.html#10966034742507191... ]: "Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was 'hard work,' who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night.
"In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he'd seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he's voting for Kerry."
-- Farhad Manjoo
[23:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
About that legion of new Iraqi forces…
Twice during Thursday night's debate President Bush proclaimed that Iraq now has 100,000 of its own troops ready to protect the country, and that the number will go to 125K by the end of the year, and 200K the following. Sounds like great news -- but it's not accurate.
According to the Department of Defense's own documents, obtained by Reuters [ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26391545.htm?_lite_=1 ], "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training."
Moreover, "of the nearly 90,000 currently in the [Iraqi] police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as 'untrained,' and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.
"Six Army battalions have had 'initial training,' while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or 'awaiting equipment.' Just eight Guard battalions have reached 'initial (operating) capability,' and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been 'uneven.'"
-- Jeff Horwitz
[23:06 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Restless in the GOP's corner...
Weekly Standard chief Bill Kristol, on the Fox News Channel: "I talked to a half dozen Republican officials tonight and they're all a little bit deflated. They were hoping for a knockout of Kerry and they didn't get it. It's still a race."
-- Mark Follman
[22:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
"Boondocks" cartoonist rates Bush
While pundits on the left, right, and center agreed that John Kerry beat George Bush in the opening debate, none was more emphatic than “Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder. “Bush got his ass whupped,” McGruder told CNN’s Aaron Brown.
But the outspoken McGruder, who was relegated to “The Contrarian” segment of Brown’s news show, was not finished. “The elephant in the room” that no TV pontificators will dare acknowledge, he observed, is that Bush “is incredibly dumb...he can’t articulate, he can’t complete a full sentence, and he’s our president.”
Brown, being a member in good standing of the pontificator class, rushed to challenge McGruder, asserting that Bush was a man of strong beliefs, blah, blah, blah. But McGruder was unimpressed. Convictions don’t mean a thing if you’re just plain stupid, he pointed out.
And with that, Brown bade The Contrarian farewell.
-- David Talbot
[22:08 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Bush avoids the question
When Dick Cheney warned recently that if America voted the wrong way in November we'd "get hit again" by terrorists, there was such an outcry that the Bush campaign backtracked a bit, saying Cheney must have chosen the wrong words. And yet, Bush surrogates ever since have made similarly appalling insinuations -- and some have even suggested that al-Qaida wants nothing more than to see Kerry elected.
The New York Times [ http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092704F.shtml ] and Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-kerry28sep28,1,684193.story ] editorial pages have noted that this tactic marks a new low in American politics, calling it despicable, polarizing, and even "un-American." The LA Times said Bush was a coward for letting his surrogates climb into the gutter on his behalf and "refus[ing] to take responsibility for it or to call point-blank for it to stop."
Thursday night, Bush had a chance to show America he doesn't believe choosing John Kerry in November will make them more likely to "get hit again." He deflected the question. "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" Jim Lehrer asked.
"No, I don't believe it's going to happen," Bush said -- very clearly referring to a Kerry win in November. "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead."
What Bush showed the American people with that non-answer is that he's not willing to end the scare tactics.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[22:00 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Score six for Kerry in Ohio
You’ve seen the TV scene a hundred times: A network news station corrals six undecided voters -- three women, three men, two of whom are black, three white, and one seemingly of Middle Eastern origin -- in a library in Small Town, America. Mr. Correspondent then asks about the Big News Event.
You don’t want to seem cynical but these staged town hall meetings sure do seem to spur predictable answers from our good neighbors, The Undecided.
But not this time.
Who are the faces behind the early polls that show Kerry won the debate? They are these six folks in Massillon, just outside of Canton, in swing state Ohio, speaking with NBC correspondent Ron Allen.
So why are you, Jennifer Bauer, an executive assistant, still undecided?
"I’m not convinced George Bush is doing the right thing over in the war," Bauer says. "And I think John Kerry has a good knowledge of foreign policy."
And you, Phillip Elum, small business owner, you voted for George Bush in the last election -- what did you think of Bush’s performance in the debate?
"His performance was fine," Elum says. "But John Kerry gave me a higher comfort level in his capability of being commander in chief and in homeland security."
Julie Farley, dental office manager, you are a "security mom." Who do you think will keep the country safer?
"I think John Kerry will."
John Kerry?
"Yes. I think President Bush puts fear in us. And I think John Kerry is a leader and is basically just going to handle it."
Bob Phillips, you are a Persian Gulf veteran and now work at the veterans’ administration. Who do you think has a better plan for Iraq, for getting the troops home the soonest?
"I think John Kerry does, just for the simple fact that he wants to make it a coalition ideal, where everybody gets involved. Where George Bush is making our troops more involved."
So who had the stronger night?
All six: "John Kerry."
-- Kevin Berger
[21:49 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
CBS "insta-poll" shows Kerry scoring big
Using some new online technology, CBS tracked the reactions of roughly 200 undecided voters during and right after the debate. Dan Rather acknowledged that the polling system was "unscientific" -- but even so, the results of the quick pulse-taking look pretty great for John Kerry.
On the question of "who won?":
Kerry: 44%
Bush: 26%
tie: 30%
On the question of "who has a clearer plan for iraq?":
Kerry: 51%
Bush: 38%
And 52% of the undecideds said that their "opinion of Kerry improved" from the debate.
The network that has taken a beating for its mistakes in the forged documents debacle wasn't afraid to offer a couple of quick opinions, either. In discussion with Dan Rather, chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said that President Bush "seemed pretty defensive" in the beginning, adding that he thought Kerry came out strong.
UPDATE: An ABC News insta-poll showed similar results, with Bush faring just a bit better. Of 531 people polled, 35% of them Republicans (ABC didn't indicate the breakdown of the other 65% with regard to Dem or indie): "Who won?":
Kerry: 45%
Bush: 36%
tie: 17%
UPDATE 2: Insta-polling may be a blunt instrument, but there seems to be a pattern forming here. CNN's survey of 615 registered voters on "who won?":
Kerry: 53%
Bush: 37%
-- Mark Follman
[20:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cha-ching
So far, even typically hostile TV pundits -- and some Republicans, including John McCain just now on CNN -- are saying John Kerry more than held his own against Bush tonight. And apparently Kerry's strong performance has many Americans digging into their pockets. The Kerry campaign just sent this one line email to reporters: "As of 10:41 p.m., the Democratic National Committee is receiving 5 online donations per second."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[20:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Joe Scarborough agrees with Atrios
Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough calls it for Kerry...
-- Joan Walsh
[19:36 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Halfway through, pro-Kerry bloggers are very happy
Wondering who's winning? At the halfway mark, pro-Kerry bloggers were thrilled with their candidate's debate performance. At Atrios [ http://atrios.blogspot.com/ ], the regulars were feasting on the observation "The Rolling of Eyes is the New 'Sighs'" -- a reference to Bush's strange cutaway-camera eyerolling this year, which was as off-putting as Al Gore's sighs four years ago. Likewise at Daily Kos [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/30/213658/970 ] posters concluded that Kerry seemed more comfortable and prepared than Bush. "Holy shit, [Bush is] winging it, and it's painful," declared Kos. "Can't take my eyes away from THIS trainwreck," kvelled one poster. Stay tuned.
-- Joan Walsh
[19:04 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Warning lights, orange skin -- and hopefully some substance
The fight over lectern lights just hours before the first presidential debate was pretty symbolic of how substance-averse the agreed upon rules for tonight's event are. George W. Bush's debate team pushed to have signal lights alert the audience at home and in the auditorium when the candidates run over their allotted miniscule moments for explaining their positions. The conventional wisdom is that this will do damage to John Kerry, who is "known for favoring long sentences and statements," as the AP puts it [ http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1180.html ]. (The horror!) Bush's team won on this point, as they did with many of the terms of the debate. We're surprised they didn't get the commission to shock long-winded candidates with cattle prods.
Today, the Kerry campaign complained about the warning lights actually being placed on the lecterns -- it will make the room "look like a game show," Joe Lockhart said on CNN. Late this afternoon, the debate commission wasn't budging on the lectern lights.
We're trying to reserve cynicism about tonight's "debate" and hold out hope that somehow a substantive discussion will break out during and after the 90-minute forum -- and that Americans will get more from their media and politicians than they got four years ago with the Bush-Gore debates, when pundits and campaign advisers wrung their hands over the tint of Al Gore's skin and the volume of his sighs.
After all, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq -- 34 children among the dead just today. There's a lot for the candidates to talk about. Lynne Cheney is making jokes about John Kerry's "tan," [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4523817,00.html ] perhaps trying to resuscitate the Orange Democrat meme from four years ago. But let's hope everyone (the media) gets down to business tonight and dwells on the substance of the debate.
And yet, those strict rules and regs -- all 32 pages of them [ http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/deb04main/deb092004st.html ], in all their nitpicking glory -- are designed to strip substance from the proceedings and compel us to listen to the typical talking points from the candidates.
According to the ground rules, there will be no opening statements. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS will ask the first question, and the first candidate to speak will have 2 minutes to answer. The other candidate will then get 90 seconds to respond. The moderator can then at his discretion "extend" discussion for 60 whole seconds, but he must first call on the candidate who originally took the question. "To the extent that the moderator opens extended discussion, the moderator shall use his best efforts to ensure that each candidate has a maximum of approximately 30 seconds to comment in the extended discussion period," the rules state.
Also: The candidates cannot move from behind the podium, cannot address each other with anything but rhetorical questions and cannot propose pledges.
Some rules could well be broken tonight, however. The TV networks have already said they plan on ignoring some of the commission regs dictating what images can be broadcast. The official rules prohibit shots of Bush or Kerry while the other one speaks. Fox News is running the "pool" coverage, feeding multiple streams of video to the other networks -- and also feeding suspicion in the liberal blogosphere that somehow the choice of images shown would be biased toward Bush -- but it's up to each control room what shots to show. Reuters reports [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6370562 ]: "CNN executive vp and general manager Princell Hair criticized the agreement worked out between the campaign managers for President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry. 'The level of restrictions is unprecedented, as far as I can tell,' Hair said. ' ... we're just not going to comply."
So, we won't get any interaction between Bush and Kerry, but maybe there will be some spontaneity after all! Stay tuned to the networks for their bold choices in cutaway shots.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[15:21 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cheney's big flip-flop on Iraq
Throughout the presidential race the Bush campaign has ceaselessly ridiculed John Kerry for allegedly changing his position on the Iraq war and other issues of national security, including the funding of U.S. military weapons systems. No one in the administration has been more ruthless (or disingenuous) than Vice President Cheney in the attempts to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper" who would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future attack.
But while Bush and Cheney keep pounding the podium and claiming that Kerry was both for and against the war on Iraq, Cheney himself was adamantly against going after Saddam in 1992. Yesterday the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nati... ] dug up the text of a speech Cheney gave in Seattle in August 1992, while serving as secretary of defense for the first President Bush. Back then Cheney argued that taking over Iraq wouldn't be worth the cost in U.S. lives, and would lead to a quagmire. In light of the turmoil there now, the irony of his words is as rich as vast fields of Iraqi crude. Ditto regarding Cheney's timing on the threat Saddam may have posed: The Iraqi dictator, as we now know, was much closer to wielding nuclear weapons at the time of the first Gulf War -- when Cheney said Baghdad was a no-go -- than when the Bush administration launched the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
"[T]he question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney asked during the 1992 speech. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
What, back then, did Cheney think those problems would look like?
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place?" Cheney asked. "You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
When Cheney and his colleagues in the second Bush White House did apparently decide to "accept the responsibility for governing Iraq" in 2003, it seems they would've been wise to consider the prescient analysis of the former defense secretary... Dick Cheney:
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."
-- Mark Follman
[13:10 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
In the polls
Several new national polls released within a day of the first debate show President Bush either tied or leading the race.
A Los Angeles Times survey [pdf] [ http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-09/14455239.pdf ] gives Bush a four-point lead over Kerry among registered voters, an Economist poll [pdf] [ http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovM.pdf ] calls the race even at 46 percent among registered voters, and a Harris Interactive internet poll [ http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=499 target= ] of likely voters splits the difference, finding Bush up by two.
In addition to the horse race numbers, Harris also provides an interesting breakdown of how voting intentions correspond to educational background: It turns out the more education a person has received, the more likely he or she is to support Kerry. Bush's numbers are best in the lowest category, "high school or less," where he gets 51 percent of the vote. But he's an underachiever among those with a college degree (45 percent), and flunks out with a solid F-minus (37 percent) among those with graduate degrees.
The LA Times poll also covered expectations for the debate. While pundits often joke about Bush as a fumbler at the podium, and Kerry as a plodding erudite, voters seems to have a different view. Forty-eight percent of likely voters think Bush will demonstrate "strong character," compared to only 20 percent that have faith in Kerry -- and by a slight margin, 33-31, likely voters think Bush will appear more knowledgeable than his opponent.
The poll's good news for Kerry is that a segment of Bush supporters are open to persuasion: Twenty-three percent of Republicans said "the debate could have an effect" on the way they vote, compared to only 13 percent of Democrats.
Though the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they plan on voting for, an Annenberg study [ http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_voter-have-much-to-learn_09-29_pr.pdf ] released this week shows that a hefty percentage of them lack a basic understanding of the candidates' positions. Forty percent of Americans didn't know Bush was the candidate in favor of permanently implementing the tax cuts, 53 percent couldn't identify Bush as the candidate who favors partially privatizing social security, and a full third of Americans were unaware that Bush is in favor of laws making it tougher for a woman to get an abortion.
Those surveyed were also in the dark about Kerry, with nearly half unaware of Kerry's position on laws making it easier for unions to organize, and for drugs to be imported from Canada. A majority had no idea that Kerry is in favor of ending tax breaks for corporations' overseas profits.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:19 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Real Voices get shut out by news networks
So far in this campaign, the surest way for political advocacy groups to grab some TV exposure is to create commercials (the more emotional the better), buy airtime in a handful of swing states and then hold a press conference to announce the spots. The first Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad that argued Sen. John Kerry lied about his war medals won free airtime for weeks on cable television. More recently, an anti-Kerry ad mixing a grainy picture of Kerry in among notorious Islamic terrorists was dutifully noted by most major news organizations.
The latest ad buy entry came yesterday when families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce two new emotional anti-Bush ads that are set to run in the crucial swing states of Florida, New Mexico and Nevada. Calling themselves RealVoices.org [ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/30/realvoices/index.html ], the mothers of slain soldiers appear in the two ads, often in tears as they describe their loss and their anger over the war in Iraq.
Sounds like some pretty gripping stuff, right? Apparently not to TV news outlets. So far they've been overwhelmingly MIA on the story. Here's an up-to-the-minute tally of the mentions that RealVoices.org has received:
CNBC: 0
CNN: 0
CNN Headline News: 0
Fox News: 0
MSNBC: 1
ABC: 0
CBS: 0
NBC: 0
-- Eric Boehlert
[11:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
AP embarrasses itself over Guard story
At this point, it's possible the White House could tell reporters that George W. Bush earned a Purple Heart during the Vietnam War and the press would simply print it as fact. That's how badly the press has fallen down on the National Guard story. Clearly spooked by the recent controversy at CBS over the questionable memos "60 Minutes II" used for its story on Bush's National Guard service, the press has essentially abandoned the Guard story, despite the fact obvious unanswered questions remain about Bush's mysterious military service. Worse, when it is forced to address the issue, the press has simply morphed into stenographers, dutifully recording every absurd answer the White House gives and completely ignoring the established facts from Bush's own military record.
The latest, most egregious example came in yesterday's Associated Press story [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60936-2004Sep29.html ], which declares from the very outset, "President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said Wednesday."
The key, of course, is the final phrase, "the White House said." What else is the White House going to say? And why is it news that the White House once again repeated its National Guard talking points? The actual news was that for the fourth time since February when White House aides told reporters it had released "absolutely everything" about Bush's' service, it once again came up with yet another document. In this case it was a copy of Bush's resignation in 1974.
Elsewhere, the AP simply let the White House roll out whopper after whopper:
-- "The White House said Bush fulfilled his Guard duty completely, even after ending his pilot's career to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign."
"After ending his pilot's career" makes it sounds as though Bush fulfilled his obligation. The fact is, in April of 1972 with 770 days remaining of flight obligation, Bush simply refused to fly again. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity" in Alabama and fulfilled his commitment doing administrative tasks, the White House said."
Of course "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity.'" Despite owing the military years more in flight duty, Bush specifically requested a transfer to an Alabama Guard unit that had no planes. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The president's written evaluations demonstrate a good record as a pilot; the pay and points records demonstrate his complete fulfillment of his obligations; and the records demonstrate that he followed the proper procedures and worked through the chain of command to receive approval to perform equivalent duty in Alabama," the White House said."
First of all, Bush received no "written evaluations" for 1972 and 1973 because he showed up for duty so infrequently his commanders couldn't rate him. The AP failed to mention that.
Secondly, "proper procedures" for a transfer to Alabama required Bush to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling, that he receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit, sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander, receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general, and receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. Bush did none of those things. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The [White House's] answers also addressed why Bush skipped a required physical in the summer of 1972, prompting the termination of his pilot status. "The president was transferring to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying capacity, making a flight physical unnecessary," the White House said."
Guard regulations made it perfectly clear that every member had to take an annual physical, regardless of whether they were flying or not. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The White House said, "The president did not ask his father or family friends for assistance" in getting into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
In 1999, former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, caught up in a lawsuit and forced to address the issue, admitted that in 1968 a wealthy Houston businessman approach him and asked that he try to secure a coveted slot for Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes said he acted on the request. Barnes told the same story to CBS earlier this month. The AP failed to mention that.
-- Eric Boehlert
[08:36 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Documents reveal gaps in Bush's service
Once again, The Onion comes through with the real story [ http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4039 ]:
"Freshly unearthed public documents, ranging from newspapers to cabinet-meeting minutes, seem to indicate large gaps in George W. Bush's service as president, a spokesman for the watchdog group Citizens for an Informed Society announced Monday ... the most damning documents were generated at roughly one-day intervals during a period beginning in January 2001 and ending this week."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Republican pollster canned at MSNBC
Upon hearing that MSNBC planned for Republican pollster Frank Luntz to conduct on-air focus groups as part of the cable network's debate coverage tonight, David Brock of the media watchdog group Media Matters sent MSNBC executive Rick Kaplan a letter of complaint. It looks like Kaplan listened.
Media Matters [ http://www.mediamatters.org/ ] links to this Roll Call article today showing Luntz got canned. It's sub only, so here's the text:
By Mary Ann Akers
Roll Call Staff
September 30, 2004
The watchdog organization Media Matters for America was none too pleased that MSNBC had scheduled GOP pollster Frank Luntz conduct on-air focus groups following tonight's presidential debate.
In a letter to MSNBC President Richard Kaplan, Media Matters President David Brock (who used to call himself a conservative), said he hoped the network would disclose Luntz's "partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology."
Brock cited a number of examples, including Luntz's work on the 1994 Republican "Contract with America," pointing out that Luntz was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to disclose data on how he surmised that 60 percent of Americans supported the Contract. Brock also noted Luntz's published remarks counseling swing-state Republicans on what to say about Iraq and homeland security.
Looks like the letter had an impact. Although MSNBC did not respond to Brock, a spokeswoman for the network told HOH late Wednesday that the network has decided "not to go with Frank for the debate." In fact, MSNBC won't conduct polling at all now, she said. Brock was delighted to hear the news. "It is encouraging that MSNBC responded to criticism in a constructive way. Clearly they realized that employing a partisan pollster does not reflect well on them as a responsible media outlet."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:08 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Thursday's must-reads
Manchester Union Leader [ http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657 ]: Why Ike's son recently changed his party registration and intends to vote for Kerry.
New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/politics/campaign/30EDWARDS.html?oref=login&oref=login ]: "He knew." John Edwards reams Dick Cheney for 1992 speech in which he warned against getting "bogged down" in trying to take over and govern Iraq.
Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ]: In "unusual public relations effort" by Bush administration in Iraq, U.S. sending Iraqi Americans to deliver "good news" about Iraq to U.S. military bases, but is curtailing reports showing increasing violence.
Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll30sep30,1,2202089.sto%20ry?coll=la-home-headl... ]: Poll has Bush ahead by five points among likely voters -- but one-fifth say debates could affect their decision.
Wall Street Journal [ http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109650545264132111,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature ]: A guide for watching tonight's debate, by the issues. Bush and Kerry have very different world views, but when it comes to policy specifics, the two men aren't as far apart as the rhetoric may suggest.
Reuters [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6369927 ]: Surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:51 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
CBS's Ed Bradley talks. A little.
Reports of turmoil inside CBS News continue to reach our ears, following the disastrous decision to rush a “60 Minutes Wednesday” segment onto the air Sept. 8 featuring dubious documents about President Bush’s failure to fulfill his National Guard duties. This week came news that CBS News president Andrew Heyward decided to spike an unrelated report by Ed Bradley that laid bare the Bush administration’s deliberate lies -- or, if you’re feeling generous -- unbelievably credulous pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein was close to building a nuclear weapon.
It turned out, of course, that Saddam didn’t even have a nuclear program, much less a weapon. And Bush’s frightening talk of an Iraqi "mushroom cloud" about to explode over America, the now-shelved Bradley piece would have made clear, was just another means of terrifying the public into supporting an invasion. But the heart of the report was a critical examination of how forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger had been used by the administration -- despite doubts about their authenticity -- to help justify an invasion. With anchor Dan Rather having admitted he’d likewise relied on unauthenticated documents about Bush’s Guard duty, Bradley’s solid report was a casualty of the furor around the Rather story, which conservatives blamed on anti-Bush bias at CBS.
Salon reported Wednesday about the contents of the spiked report, though without the benefit of Bradley’s input; the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent did not return phone calls placed to him on Monday and Tuesday. We tried again Wednesday. This time, Bradley took the call.
Asked if he was "agitating" inside CBS to reverse Heywood’s decision to kill the segment, as sources have told Salon, Bradley said simply: "You heard wrong." He added: "It’s not my decision about why it’s not running. You should talk to the people who made that decision," he said, explaining that he meant Heyward.
"I reported the story. I certainly understand their decision not to air it," Bradley added.
Did that mean he agreed with the official reason Heyward gave for spiking the report, that it would be "inappropriate" to air a critical examination of the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq so close to the Nov. 2 election? Bradley demurred.
"Like I say, I’m not going to be pulled into this. I’ve said all I’m going to say," the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent said, weaving carefully to protect both his relationships at CBS and his professional integrity.
-- Mary Jacoby
[16:29 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Beating back Ohio's own dirty trickster
All signs indicate that Ohio Democrats are poised to flood the state's voting booths in record numbers on Nov. 2. Not surprisingly, a worried GOP is clutching for any kind of last-minute lifeline. As War Room noted yesterday, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is up to some dirty tricks [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/28/ohio/index.ht... ] -- blatantly unethical if not illegal -- aimed at fortifying against the tsunami of new Democratic voter registrations.
Get-out-the-vote group America Coming Together is now circulating a petition to stop Blackwell's egregious attempts to obstruct the democratic process and tilt the election in his party's favor. You can sign the petition here [ http://static.act04.org/act/paperstock.htm ].
-- Mark Follman
[13:04 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Misery loves company
Tom Coburn, the beleaguered Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, has done a number of things that cast doubt on his political instincts, but his decision in 2000 to make himself the lone congressional endorser of Alan Keyes' presidential campaign may take the prize:
"Like Abraham Lincoln, Alan Keyes has the capacity to ignite among us another rebirth of freedom," Coburn said [ http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:38I-qWED7PQJ:www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2000_Jan_28/5903... ] in January 2000. "Alan Keyes will be a great President because the Presidency is not merely a matter of issues and policies but of moral leadership."
"Ambassador Keyes," Coburn added, "has shown repeatedly that he has a better grasp on the issues -- the foreign policy, the fiscal policy, the social policy and all the rest of it -- than any other candidate."
One wonders if Coburn realized then what "all the rest of it" would entail: Did he imagine Keyes would suggest that legalizing automatic weapons would allow Americans to fight the war on terror at home? Or would propose that the IRS should give the descendants of slaves lifetime exemptions from federal income tax as reparations? Or would state that "Christ could not vote for Barack Obama"?
Now that the Illinois Senate race is more a lopsided comedy than anything else (the most recent poll showed Obama beating Keyes by a 68-17 margin), Obama has begun to campaign outside the state to help fellow Democrats. Maybe Keyes should follow suit and make a few trips to stump for his old friend Coburn in Oklahoma.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:45 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
The cost of Bush's "spiritual" war
On Sept. 13, Sgt. Ben Isenberg was riding through Taji, Iraq, when his Humvee struck a roadside bomb. He was killed. Earlier this week National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" included a moving report from a memorial service for Isenberg in his hometown of Sheridan, Oregon. Isenberg, who was 27, came from a patriotic, devout Christian family with a long history of military and community service. After graduating college, he worked for the Oregon Department of Forestry before being deployed to Iraq with his unit from the Oregon National Guard.
With the continuing conflict in Iraq weighing heavily on the presidential race, the report from Isenberg's memorial is also a striking glimpse of how one American family, in the context of ultimate sacrifice, views President Bush's pivotal choice to take the nation to war.
"This war is not about Iraqis and Americans, [or] oil," said Robert Isenberg, Ben's father. "This is a spiritual war, and the people who don't understand that, they just need to dig into their bible and read about it. It's predicted, it's predestined."
Isenberg's father also told NPR that criticism of the war and its costs bothered his son, "because Benjamin understood that this was a spiritual war, and he understands that our current serving president is a very devout Christian also. Ben understood the calling was to go because the president had the knowledge and understood what was going on, and it's far deeper than we as a people will ever really know. We don't get the information that the president gets."
President Bush, who has never attended the funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, can listen to the full report here [ http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=27-Sep-2004&prgId=3 ]. Ben Isenberg, it continues, had planned to return to university after serving in Iraq to earn a credential so that he could teach high school science. He leaves behind his parents, a sister, two brothers, his wife and their two sons, ages four and two.
-- Mark Follman
[10:41 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Ask the candidates ...
War Room readers responded in droves to our request for suggested debate questions for the presidential candidates. Here [ http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/29/debate_questions/index.html ] is a compilation of questions, a sample of the several hundred you sent us.
Stay tuned -- but don't hold your breath -- to the debate tomorrow night to see if Jim Lehrer uses any of your ideas!
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:36 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
What Kerry needs to do
The latest Democracy Corps memo from Democratic strategists/pollsters Stan Greenberg and Matt Hogan (via Political Wire [ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/09/28/what_kerry_must_do.html ]) puts a positive spin on a trend that is worrisome for John Kerry. "On the eve of the debates," the pollsters say, "John Kerry and the Democrats are rich with targets that could be consolidated or persuaded, despite the intense polarization of the presidential election."
Among these "targets," however, are voters John Kerry should have a lock on already. The bad news, the pollsters say, is that Kerry has yet to "consolidate" traditionally Democratic-leaning voters who should be in his column in even stronger percentages. The "good news," though, is that Kerry has room to gain ground in the polls if he can do better wih these voters. From the memo:
"One reason why Kerry is likely to make gains after the debate is the unconsolidated vote of a number of groups that are important to the Democratic base. All these groups are supporting Kerry with good margins, but they could do better given historic performance and their own current party inclinations and feelings about Bush. The reasons vary by group: some, like African Americans, are simply looking for a more intense engagement with Bush and stronger focus on domestic issues; others, like the college educated women, are looking for a broader issue discussion, as well as a plan for Iraq and a greater sense of conviction from Kerry; and finally, the union households want engagement and economic issues but also greater evidence of personal strength and resolve against the terrorists."
"White single women (14 percent). Women on their own -- single, divorced and widowed -- still hold great potential for Democrats. Kerry is already winning them by 11 points (51 to 40 percent), but they are desperate for an election about the issues facing these economically vulnerable women: an astonishing 58 percent want to move in a significantly different direction. They are strongly against the Iraq war and want to see action on health care.
"Well-educated white women (16 percent). The biggest drop off in support after the Democratic conventions has come with white college educated women -- from a 13-point lead down to a single point deficit. The drop was even more true for women with a post-graduate degree. The latter are still giving Kerry a big lead (26 points), but Kerry's vote dropped from 66 to 58 percent. But these college educated voters are strong change voters (by 8 points) and align with the Democrats (by 6). Kerry can make important gains here. These voters strongly oppose the Iraq war, think the middle class is squeezed, and care about health care and education.
"White union households (17 percent). In September, Kerry was carrying these voters by 9 points (50 to 41 percent), but that trails their party alignment by 6 points and their desire for change by even more: 59 percent want to go in a significantly different direction. These voters are deeply upset about the economy, and also Iraq, but they are less certain of Kerry's strength.
"African Americans (10 percent). Kerry is getting 82 percent of the vote and their interest in the election is very high. They will no doubt respond strongly to the engaged campaign that takes up domestic, as well as international issues."
The memo concludes: "This is an unusual landscape of opportunity because of the course the race has taken and Kerry's difficulties in fully consolidating Democratically inclined groups. The bad news is those patterns have kept Kerry a few points behind Bush in the race. The good news is that Democrats are clearly underperforming and can make gains in the race, and indeed win."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[08:11 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Archived War Room: [F6 note -- links appear at this location on the page; use link below]
----------
Copyright 2004 Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Stewart's big scoop
Leave it to Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" to get the big scoop on debate night. What was John Kerry intently scribbling on his note pad while President Bush was speaking? The enterprising Stewart got his hands on the pad after the debate and revealed Kerry’s words to "The Daily Show" audience: "I'm so crushing him."
-- David Talbot
[23:43 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Sullivan: The kids aren't alright with Bush
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan writes that he saw the debate "among a group of Dartmouth college students who were mainly pro-Kerry but who included a solid pro-Bush presence," and the kids weren't at all happy with Bush. In a lengthy, articulate critique of Bush's performance, Sullivan writes [ http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_09_26_dish_archive.html#10966034742507191... ]: "Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was 'hard work,' who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night.
"In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he'd seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he's voting for Kerry."
-- Farhad Manjoo
[23:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
About that legion of new Iraqi forces…
Twice during Thursday night's debate President Bush proclaimed that Iraq now has 100,000 of its own troops ready to protect the country, and that the number will go to 125K by the end of the year, and 200K the following. Sounds like great news -- but it's not accurate.
According to the Department of Defense's own documents, obtained by Reuters [ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26391545.htm?_lite_=1 ], "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training."
Moreover, "of the nearly 90,000 currently in the [Iraqi] police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as 'untrained,' and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.
"Six Army battalions have had 'initial training,' while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or 'awaiting equipment.' Just eight Guard battalions have reached 'initial (operating) capability,' and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been 'uneven.'"
-- Jeff Horwitz
[23:06 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Restless in the GOP's corner...
Weekly Standard chief Bill Kristol, on the Fox News Channel: "I talked to a half dozen Republican officials tonight and they're all a little bit deflated. They were hoping for a knockout of Kerry and they didn't get it. It's still a race."
-- Mark Follman
[22:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
"Boondocks" cartoonist rates Bush
While pundits on the left, right, and center agreed that John Kerry beat George Bush in the opening debate, none was more emphatic than “Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder. “Bush got his ass whupped,” McGruder told CNN’s Aaron Brown.
But the outspoken McGruder, who was relegated to “The Contrarian” segment of Brown’s news show, was not finished. “The elephant in the room” that no TV pontificators will dare acknowledge, he observed, is that Bush “is incredibly dumb...he can’t articulate, he can’t complete a full sentence, and he’s our president.”
Brown, being a member in good standing of the pontificator class, rushed to challenge McGruder, asserting that Bush was a man of strong beliefs, blah, blah, blah. But McGruder was unimpressed. Convictions don’t mean a thing if you’re just plain stupid, he pointed out.
And with that, Brown bade The Contrarian farewell.
-- David Talbot
[22:08 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Bush avoids the question
When Dick Cheney warned recently that if America voted the wrong way in November we'd "get hit again" by terrorists, there was such an outcry that the Bush campaign backtracked a bit, saying Cheney must have chosen the wrong words. And yet, Bush surrogates ever since have made similarly appalling insinuations -- and some have even suggested that al-Qaida wants nothing more than to see Kerry elected.
The New York Times [ http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092704F.shtml ] and Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-kerry28sep28,1,684193.story ] editorial pages have noted that this tactic marks a new low in American politics, calling it despicable, polarizing, and even "un-American." The LA Times said Bush was a coward for letting his surrogates climb into the gutter on his behalf and "refus[ing] to take responsibility for it or to call point-blank for it to stop."
Thursday night, Bush had a chance to show America he doesn't believe choosing John Kerry in November will make them more likely to "get hit again." He deflected the question. "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" Jim Lehrer asked.
"No, I don't believe it's going to happen," Bush said -- very clearly referring to a Kerry win in November. "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead."
What Bush showed the American people with that non-answer is that he's not willing to end the scare tactics.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[22:00 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Score six for Kerry in Ohio
You’ve seen the TV scene a hundred times: A network news station corrals six undecided voters -- three women, three men, two of whom are black, three white, and one seemingly of Middle Eastern origin -- in a library in Small Town, America. Mr. Correspondent then asks about the Big News Event.
You don’t want to seem cynical but these staged town hall meetings sure do seem to spur predictable answers from our good neighbors, The Undecided.
But not this time.
Who are the faces behind the early polls that show Kerry won the debate? They are these six folks in Massillon, just outside of Canton, in swing state Ohio, speaking with NBC correspondent Ron Allen.
So why are you, Jennifer Bauer, an executive assistant, still undecided?
"I’m not convinced George Bush is doing the right thing over in the war," Bauer says. "And I think John Kerry has a good knowledge of foreign policy."
And you, Phillip Elum, small business owner, you voted for George Bush in the last election -- what did you think of Bush’s performance in the debate?
"His performance was fine," Elum says. "But John Kerry gave me a higher comfort level in his capability of being commander in chief and in homeland security."
Julie Farley, dental office manager, you are a "security mom." Who do you think will keep the country safer?
"I think John Kerry will."
John Kerry?
"Yes. I think President Bush puts fear in us. And I think John Kerry is a leader and is basically just going to handle it."
Bob Phillips, you are a Persian Gulf veteran and now work at the veterans’ administration. Who do you think has a better plan for Iraq, for getting the troops home the soonest?
"I think John Kerry does, just for the simple fact that he wants to make it a coalition ideal, where everybody gets involved. Where George Bush is making our troops more involved."
So who had the stronger night?
All six: "John Kerry."
-- Kevin Berger
[21:49 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
CBS "insta-poll" shows Kerry scoring big
Using some new online technology, CBS tracked the reactions of roughly 200 undecided voters during and right after the debate. Dan Rather acknowledged that the polling system was "unscientific" -- but even so, the results of the quick pulse-taking look pretty great for John Kerry.
On the question of "who won?":
Kerry: 44%
Bush: 26%
tie: 30%
On the question of "who has a clearer plan for iraq?":
Kerry: 51%
Bush: 38%
And 52% of the undecideds said that their "opinion of Kerry improved" from the debate.
The network that has taken a beating for its mistakes in the forged documents debacle wasn't afraid to offer a couple of quick opinions, either. In discussion with Dan Rather, chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said that President Bush "seemed pretty defensive" in the beginning, adding that he thought Kerry came out strong.
UPDATE: An ABC News insta-poll showed similar results, with Bush faring just a bit better. Of 531 people polled, 35% of them Republicans (ABC didn't indicate the breakdown of the other 65% with regard to Dem or indie): "Who won?":
Kerry: 45%
Bush: 36%
tie: 17%
UPDATE 2: Insta-polling may be a blunt instrument, but there seems to be a pattern forming here. CNN's survey of 615 registered voters on "who won?":
Kerry: 53%
Bush: 37%
-- Mark Follman
[20:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cha-ching
So far, even typically hostile TV pundits -- and some Republicans, including John McCain just now on CNN -- are saying John Kerry more than held his own against Bush tonight. And apparently Kerry's strong performance has many Americans digging into their pockets. The Kerry campaign just sent this one line email to reporters: "As of 10:41 p.m., the Democratic National Committee is receiving 5 online donations per second."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[20:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Joe Scarborough agrees with Atrios
Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough calls it for Kerry...
-- Joan Walsh
[19:36 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Halfway through, pro-Kerry bloggers are very happy
Wondering who's winning? At the halfway mark, pro-Kerry bloggers were thrilled with their candidate's debate performance. At Atrios [ http://atrios.blogspot.com/ ], the regulars were feasting on the observation "The Rolling of Eyes is the New 'Sighs'" -- a reference to Bush's strange cutaway-camera eyerolling this year, which was as off-putting as Al Gore's sighs four years ago. Likewise at Daily Kos [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/30/213658/970 ] posters concluded that Kerry seemed more comfortable and prepared than Bush. "Holy shit, [Bush is] winging it, and it's painful," declared Kos. "Can't take my eyes away from THIS trainwreck," kvelled one poster. Stay tuned.
-- Joan Walsh
[19:04 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Warning lights, orange skin -- and hopefully some substance
The fight over lectern lights just hours before the first presidential debate was pretty symbolic of how substance-averse the agreed upon rules for tonight's event are. George W. Bush's debate team pushed to have signal lights alert the audience at home and in the auditorium when the candidates run over their allotted miniscule moments for explaining their positions. The conventional wisdom is that this will do damage to John Kerry, who is "known for favoring long sentences and statements," as the AP puts it [ http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1180.html ]. (The horror!) Bush's team won on this point, as they did with many of the terms of the debate. We're surprised they didn't get the commission to shock long-winded candidates with cattle prods.
Today, the Kerry campaign complained about the warning lights actually being placed on the lecterns -- it will make the room "look like a game show," Joe Lockhart said on CNN. Late this afternoon, the debate commission wasn't budging on the lectern lights.
We're trying to reserve cynicism about tonight's "debate" and hold out hope that somehow a substantive discussion will break out during and after the 90-minute forum -- and that Americans will get more from their media and politicians than they got four years ago with the Bush-Gore debates, when pundits and campaign advisers wrung their hands over the tint of Al Gore's skin and the volume of his sighs.
After all, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq -- 34 children among the dead just today. There's a lot for the candidates to talk about. Lynne Cheney is making jokes about John Kerry's "tan," [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4523817,00.html ] perhaps trying to resuscitate the Orange Democrat meme from four years ago. But let's hope everyone (the media) gets down to business tonight and dwells on the substance of the debate.
And yet, those strict rules and regs -- all 32 pages of them [ http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/deb04main/deb092004st.html ], in all their nitpicking glory -- are designed to strip substance from the proceedings and compel us to listen to the typical talking points from the candidates.
According to the ground rules, there will be no opening statements. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS will ask the first question, and the first candidate to speak will have 2 minutes to answer. The other candidate will then get 90 seconds to respond. The moderator can then at his discretion "extend" discussion for 60 whole seconds, but he must first call on the candidate who originally took the question. "To the extent that the moderator opens extended discussion, the moderator shall use his best efforts to ensure that each candidate has a maximum of approximately 30 seconds to comment in the extended discussion period," the rules state.
Also: The candidates cannot move from behind the podium, cannot address each other with anything but rhetorical questions and cannot propose pledges.
Some rules could well be broken tonight, however. The TV networks have already said they plan on ignoring some of the commission regs dictating what images can be broadcast. The official rules prohibit shots of Bush or Kerry while the other one speaks. Fox News is running the "pool" coverage, feeding multiple streams of video to the other networks -- and also feeding suspicion in the liberal blogosphere that somehow the choice of images shown would be biased toward Bush -- but it's up to each control room what shots to show. Reuters reports [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6370562 ]: "CNN executive vp and general manager Princell Hair criticized the agreement worked out between the campaign managers for President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry. 'The level of restrictions is unprecedented, as far as I can tell,' Hair said. ' ... we're just not going to comply."
So, we won't get any interaction between Bush and Kerry, but maybe there will be some spontaneity after all! Stay tuned to the networks for their bold choices in cutaway shots.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[15:21 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cheney's big flip-flop on Iraq
Throughout the presidential race the Bush campaign has ceaselessly ridiculed John Kerry for allegedly changing his position on the Iraq war and other issues of national security, including the funding of U.S. military weapons systems. No one in the administration has been more ruthless (or disingenuous) than Vice President Cheney in the attempts to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper" who would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future attack.
But while Bush and Cheney keep pounding the podium and claiming that Kerry was both for and against the war on Iraq, Cheney himself was adamantly against going after Saddam in 1992. Yesterday the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nati... ] dug up the text of a speech Cheney gave in Seattle in August 1992, while serving as secretary of defense for the first President Bush. Back then Cheney argued that taking over Iraq wouldn't be worth the cost in U.S. lives, and would lead to a quagmire. In light of the turmoil there now, the irony of his words is as rich as vast fields of Iraqi crude. Ditto regarding Cheney's timing on the threat Saddam may have posed: The Iraqi dictator, as we now know, was much closer to wielding nuclear weapons at the time of the first Gulf War -- when Cheney said Baghdad was a no-go -- than when the Bush administration launched the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
"[T]he question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney asked during the 1992 speech. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
What, back then, did Cheney think those problems would look like?
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place?" Cheney asked. "You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
When Cheney and his colleagues in the second Bush White House did apparently decide to "accept the responsibility for governing Iraq" in 2003, it seems they would've been wise to consider the prescient analysis of the former defense secretary... Dick Cheney:
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."
-- Mark Follman
[13:10 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
In the polls
Several new national polls released within a day of the first debate show President Bush either tied or leading the race.
A Los Angeles Times survey [pdf] [ http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-09/14455239.pdf ] gives Bush a four-point lead over Kerry among registered voters, an Economist poll [pdf] [ http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovM.pdf ] calls the race even at 46 percent among registered voters, and a Harris Interactive internet poll [ http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=499 target= ] of likely voters splits the difference, finding Bush up by two.
In addition to the horse race numbers, Harris also provides an interesting breakdown of how voting intentions correspond to educational background: It turns out the more education a person has received, the more likely he or she is to support Kerry. Bush's numbers are best in the lowest category, "high school or less," where he gets 51 percent of the vote. But he's an underachiever among those with a college degree (45 percent), and flunks out with a solid F-minus (37 percent) among those with graduate degrees.
The LA Times poll also covered expectations for the debate. While pundits often joke about Bush as a fumbler at the podium, and Kerry as a plodding erudite, voters seems to have a different view. Forty-eight percent of likely voters think Bush will demonstrate "strong character," compared to only 20 percent that have faith in Kerry -- and by a slight margin, 33-31, likely voters think Bush will appear more knowledgeable than his opponent.
The poll's good news for Kerry is that a segment of Bush supporters are open to persuasion: Twenty-three percent of Republicans said "the debate could have an effect" on the way they vote, compared to only 13 percent of Democrats.
Though the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they plan on voting for, an Annenberg study [ http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_voter-have-much-to-learn_09-29_pr.pdf ] released this week shows that a hefty percentage of them lack a basic understanding of the candidates' positions. Forty percent of Americans didn't know Bush was the candidate in favor of permanently implementing the tax cuts, 53 percent couldn't identify Bush as the candidate who favors partially privatizing social security, and a full third of Americans were unaware that Bush is in favor of laws making it tougher for a woman to get an abortion.
Those surveyed were also in the dark about Kerry, with nearly half unaware of Kerry's position on laws making it easier for unions to organize, and for drugs to be imported from Canada. A majority had no idea that Kerry is in favor of ending tax breaks for corporations' overseas profits.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:19 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Real Voices get shut out by news networks
So far in this campaign, the surest way for political advocacy groups to grab some TV exposure is to create commercials (the more emotional the better), buy airtime in a handful of swing states and then hold a press conference to announce the spots. The first Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad that argued Sen. John Kerry lied about his war medals won free airtime for weeks on cable television. More recently, an anti-Kerry ad mixing a grainy picture of Kerry in among notorious Islamic terrorists was dutifully noted by most major news organizations.
The latest ad buy entry came yesterday when families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce two new emotional anti-Bush ads that are set to run in the crucial swing states of Florida, New Mexico and Nevada. Calling themselves RealVoices.org [ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/30/realvoices/index.html ], the mothers of slain soldiers appear in the two ads, often in tears as they describe their loss and their anger over the war in Iraq.
Sounds like some pretty gripping stuff, right? Apparently not to TV news outlets. So far they've been overwhelmingly MIA on the story. Here's an up-to-the-minute tally of the mentions that RealVoices.org has received:
CNBC: 0
CNN: 0
CNN Headline News: 0
Fox News: 0
MSNBC: 1
ABC: 0
CBS: 0
NBC: 0
-- Eric Boehlert
[11:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
AP embarrasses itself over Guard story
At this point, it's possible the White House could tell reporters that George W. Bush earned a Purple Heart during the Vietnam War and the press would simply print it as fact. That's how badly the press has fallen down on the National Guard story. Clearly spooked by the recent controversy at CBS over the questionable memos "60 Minutes II" used for its story on Bush's National Guard service, the press has essentially abandoned the Guard story, despite the fact obvious unanswered questions remain about Bush's mysterious military service. Worse, when it is forced to address the issue, the press has simply morphed into stenographers, dutifully recording every absurd answer the White House gives and completely ignoring the established facts from Bush's own military record.
The latest, most egregious example came in yesterday's Associated Press story [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60936-2004Sep29.html ], which declares from the very outset, "President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said Wednesday."
The key, of course, is the final phrase, "the White House said." What else is the White House going to say? And why is it news that the White House once again repeated its National Guard talking points? The actual news was that for the fourth time since February when White House aides told reporters it had released "absolutely everything" about Bush's' service, it once again came up with yet another document. In this case it was a copy of Bush's resignation in 1974.
Elsewhere, the AP simply let the White House roll out whopper after whopper:
-- "The White House said Bush fulfilled his Guard duty completely, even after ending his pilot's career to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign."
"After ending his pilot's career" makes it sounds as though Bush fulfilled his obligation. The fact is, in April of 1972 with 770 days remaining of flight obligation, Bush simply refused to fly again. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity" in Alabama and fulfilled his commitment doing administrative tasks, the White House said."
Of course "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity.'" Despite owing the military years more in flight duty, Bush specifically requested a transfer to an Alabama Guard unit that had no planes. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The president's written evaluations demonstrate a good record as a pilot; the pay and points records demonstrate his complete fulfillment of his obligations; and the records demonstrate that he followed the proper procedures and worked through the chain of command to receive approval to perform equivalent duty in Alabama," the White House said."
First of all, Bush received no "written evaluations" for 1972 and 1973 because he showed up for duty so infrequently his commanders couldn't rate him. The AP failed to mention that.
Secondly, "proper procedures" for a transfer to Alabama required Bush to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling, that he receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit, sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander, receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general, and receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. Bush did none of those things. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The [White House's] answers also addressed why Bush skipped a required physical in the summer of 1972, prompting the termination of his pilot status. "The president was transferring to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying capacity, making a flight physical unnecessary," the White House said."
Guard regulations made it perfectly clear that every member had to take an annual physical, regardless of whether they were flying or not. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The White House said, "The president did not ask his father or family friends for assistance" in getting into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
In 1999, former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, caught up in a lawsuit and forced to address the issue, admitted that in 1968 a wealthy Houston businessman approach him and asked that he try to secure a coveted slot for Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes said he acted on the request. Barnes told the same story to CBS earlier this month. The AP failed to mention that.
-- Eric Boehlert
[08:36 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Documents reveal gaps in Bush's service
Once again, The Onion comes through with the real story [ http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4039 ]:
"Freshly unearthed public documents, ranging from newspapers to cabinet-meeting minutes, seem to indicate large gaps in George W. Bush's service as president, a spokesman for the watchdog group Citizens for an Informed Society announced Monday ... the most damning documents were generated at roughly one-day intervals during a period beginning in January 2001 and ending this week."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Republican pollster canned at MSNBC
Upon hearing that MSNBC planned for Republican pollster Frank Luntz to conduct on-air focus groups as part of the cable network's debate coverage tonight, David Brock of the media watchdog group Media Matters sent MSNBC executive Rick Kaplan a letter of complaint. It looks like Kaplan listened.
Media Matters [ http://www.mediamatters.org/ ] links to this Roll Call article today showing Luntz got canned. It's sub only, so here's the text:
By Mary Ann Akers
Roll Call Staff
September 30, 2004
The watchdog organization Media Matters for America was none too pleased that MSNBC had scheduled GOP pollster Frank Luntz conduct on-air focus groups following tonight's presidential debate.
In a letter to MSNBC President Richard Kaplan, Media Matters President David Brock (who used to call himself a conservative), said he hoped the network would disclose Luntz's "partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology."
Brock cited a number of examples, including Luntz's work on the 1994 Republican "Contract with America," pointing out that Luntz was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to disclose data on how he surmised that 60 percent of Americans supported the Contract. Brock also noted Luntz's published remarks counseling swing-state Republicans on what to say about Iraq and homeland security.
Looks like the letter had an impact. Although MSNBC did not respond to Brock, a spokeswoman for the network told HOH late Wednesday that the network has decided "not to go with Frank for the debate." In fact, MSNBC won't conduct polling at all now, she said. Brock was delighted to hear the news. "It is encouraging that MSNBC responded to criticism in a constructive way. Clearly they realized that employing a partisan pollster does not reflect well on them as a responsible media outlet."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:08 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Thursday's must-reads
Manchester Union Leader [ http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657 ]: Why Ike's son recently changed his party registration and intends to vote for Kerry.
New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/politics/campaign/30EDWARDS.html?oref=login&oref=login ]: "He knew." John Edwards reams Dick Cheney for 1992 speech in which he warned against getting "bogged down" in trying to take over and govern Iraq.
Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ]: In "unusual public relations effort" by Bush administration in Iraq, U.S. sending Iraqi Americans to deliver "good news" about Iraq to U.S. military bases, but is curtailing reports showing increasing violence.
Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll30sep30,1,2202089.sto%20ry?coll=la-home-headl... ]: Poll has Bush ahead by five points among likely voters -- but one-fifth say debates could affect their decision.
Wall Street Journal [ http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109650545264132111,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature ]: A guide for watching tonight's debate, by the issues. Bush and Kerry have very different world views, but when it comes to policy specifics, the two men aren't as far apart as the rhetoric may suggest.
Reuters [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6369927 ]: Surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:51 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
CBS's Ed Bradley talks. A little.
Reports of turmoil inside CBS News continue to reach our ears, following the disastrous decision to rush a “60 Minutes Wednesday” segment onto the air Sept. 8 featuring dubious documents about President Bush’s failure to fulfill his National Guard duties. This week came news that CBS News president Andrew Heyward decided to spike an unrelated report by Ed Bradley that laid bare the Bush administration’s deliberate lies -- or, if you’re feeling generous -- unbelievably credulous pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein was close to building a nuclear weapon.
It turned out, of course, that Saddam didn’t even have a nuclear program, much less a weapon. And Bush’s frightening talk of an Iraqi "mushroom cloud" about to explode over America, the now-shelved Bradley piece would have made clear, was just another means of terrifying the public into supporting an invasion. But the heart of the report was a critical examination of how forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger had been used by the administration -- despite doubts about their authenticity -- to help justify an invasion. With anchor Dan Rather having admitted he’d likewise relied on unauthenticated documents about Bush’s Guard duty, Bradley’s solid report was a casualty of the furor around the Rather story, which conservatives blamed on anti-Bush bias at CBS.
Salon reported Wednesday about the contents of the spiked report, though without the benefit of Bradley’s input; the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent did not return phone calls placed to him on Monday and Tuesday. We tried again Wednesday. This time, Bradley took the call.
Asked if he was "agitating" inside CBS to reverse Heywood’s decision to kill the segment, as sources have told Salon, Bradley said simply: "You heard wrong." He added: "It’s not my decision about why it’s not running. You should talk to the people who made that decision," he said, explaining that he meant Heyward.
"I reported the story. I certainly understand their decision not to air it," Bradley added.
Did that mean he agreed with the official reason Heyward gave for spiking the report, that it would be "inappropriate" to air a critical examination of the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq so close to the Nov. 2 election? Bradley demurred.
"Like I say, I’m not going to be pulled into this. I’ve said all I’m going to say," the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent said, weaving carefully to protect both his relationships at CBS and his professional integrity.
-- Mary Jacoby
[16:29 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Beating back Ohio's own dirty trickster
All signs indicate that Ohio Democrats are poised to flood the state's voting booths in record numbers on Nov. 2. Not surprisingly, a worried GOP is clutching for any kind of last-minute lifeline. As War Room noted yesterday, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is up to some dirty tricks [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/28/ohio/index.ht... ] -- blatantly unethical if not illegal -- aimed at fortifying against the tsunami of new Democratic voter registrations.
Get-out-the-vote group America Coming Together is now circulating a petition to stop Blackwell's egregious attempts to obstruct the democratic process and tilt the election in his party's favor. You can sign the petition here [ http://static.act04.org/act/paperstock.htm ].
-- Mark Follman
[13:04 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Misery loves company
Tom Coburn, the beleaguered Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, has done a number of things that cast doubt on his political instincts, but his decision in 2000 to make himself the lone congressional endorser of Alan Keyes' presidential campaign may take the prize:
"Like Abraham Lincoln, Alan Keyes has the capacity to ignite among us another rebirth of freedom," Coburn said [ http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:38I-qWED7PQJ:www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2000_Jan_28/5903... ] in January 2000. "Alan Keyes will be a great President because the Presidency is not merely a matter of issues and policies but of moral leadership."
"Ambassador Keyes," Coburn added, "has shown repeatedly that he has a better grasp on the issues -- the foreign policy, the fiscal policy, the social policy and all the rest of it -- than any other candidate."
One wonders if Coburn realized then what "all the rest of it" would entail: Did he imagine Keyes would suggest that legalizing automatic weapons would allow Americans to fight the war on terror at home? Or would propose that the IRS should give the descendants of slaves lifetime exemptions from federal income tax as reparations? Or would state that "Christ could not vote for Barack Obama"?
Now that the Illinois Senate race is more a lopsided comedy than anything else (the most recent poll showed Obama beating Keyes by a 68-17 margin), Obama has begun to campaign outside the state to help fellow Democrats. Maybe Keyes should follow suit and make a few trips to stump for his old friend Coburn in Oklahoma.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:45 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
The cost of Bush's "spiritual" war
On Sept. 13, Sgt. Ben Isenberg was riding through Taji, Iraq, when his Humvee struck a roadside bomb. He was killed. Earlier this week National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" included a moving report from a memorial service for Isenberg in his hometown of Sheridan, Oregon. Isenberg, who was 27, came from a patriotic, devout Christian family with a long history of military and community service. After graduating college, he worked for the Oregon Department of Forestry before being deployed to Iraq with his unit from the Oregon National Guard.
With the continuing conflict in Iraq weighing heavily on the presidential race, the report from Isenberg's memorial is also a striking glimpse of how one American family, in the context of ultimate sacrifice, views President Bush's pivotal choice to take the nation to war.
"This war is not about Iraqis and Americans, [or] oil," said Robert Isenberg, Ben's father. "This is a spiritual war, and the people who don't understand that, they just need to dig into their bible and read about it. It's predicted, it's predestined."
Isenberg's father also told NPR that criticism of the war and its costs bothered his son, "because Benjamin understood that this was a spiritual war, and he understands that our current serving president is a very devout Christian also. Ben understood the calling was to go because the president had the knowledge and understood what was going on, and it's far deeper than we as a people will ever really know. We don't get the information that the president gets."
President Bush, who has never attended the funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, can listen to the full report here [ http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=27-Sep-2004&prgId=3 ]. Ben Isenberg, it continues, had planned to return to university after serving in Iraq to earn a credential so that he could teach high school science. He leaves behind his parents, a sister, two brothers, his wife and their two sons, ages four and two.
-- Mark Follman
[10:41 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Ask the candidates ...
War Room readers responded in droves to our request for suggested debate questions for the presidential candidates. Here [ http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/29/debate_questions/index.html ] is a compilation of questions, a sample of the several hundred you sent us.
Stay tuned -- but don't hold your breath -- to the debate tomorrow night to see if Jim Lehrer uses any of your ideas!
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:36 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
What Kerry needs to do
The latest Democracy Corps memo from Democratic strategists/pollsters Stan Greenberg and Matt Hogan (via Political Wire [ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/09/28/what_kerry_must_do.html ]) puts a positive spin on a trend that is worrisome for John Kerry. "On the eve of the debates," the pollsters say, "John Kerry and the Democrats are rich with targets that could be consolidated or persuaded, despite the intense polarization of the presidential election."
Among these "targets," however, are voters John Kerry should have a lock on already. The bad news, the pollsters say, is that Kerry has yet to "consolidate" traditionally Democratic-leaning voters who should be in his column in even stronger percentages. The "good news," though, is that Kerry has room to gain ground in the polls if he can do better wih these voters. From the memo:
"One reason why Kerry is likely to make gains after the debate is the unconsolidated vote of a number of groups that are important to the Democratic base. All these groups are supporting Kerry with good margins, but they could do better given historic performance and their own current party inclinations and feelings about Bush. The reasons vary by group: some, like African Americans, are simply looking for a more intense engagement with Bush and stronger focus on domestic issues; others, like the college educated women, are looking for a broader issue discussion, as well as a plan for Iraq and a greater sense of conviction from Kerry; and finally, the union households want engagement and economic issues but also greater evidence of personal strength and resolve against the terrorists."
"White single women (14 percent). Women on their own -- single, divorced and widowed -- still hold great potential for Democrats. Kerry is already winning them by 11 points (51 to 40 percent), but they are desperate for an election about the issues facing these economically vulnerable women: an astonishing 58 percent want to move in a significantly different direction. They are strongly against the Iraq war and want to see action on health care.
"Well-educated white women (16 percent). The biggest drop off in support after the Democratic conventions has come with white college educated women -- from a 13-point lead down to a single point deficit. The drop was even more true for women with a post-graduate degree. The latter are still giving Kerry a big lead (26 points), but Kerry's vote dropped from 66 to 58 percent. But these college educated voters are strong change voters (by 8 points) and align with the Democrats (by 6). Kerry can make important gains here. These voters strongly oppose the Iraq war, think the middle class is squeezed, and care about health care and education.
"White union households (17 percent). In September, Kerry was carrying these voters by 9 points (50 to 41 percent), but that trails their party alignment by 6 points and their desire for change by even more: 59 percent want to go in a significantly different direction. These voters are deeply upset about the economy, and also Iraq, but they are less certain of Kerry's strength.
"African Americans (10 percent). Kerry is getting 82 percent of the vote and their interest in the election is very high. They will no doubt respond strongly to the engaged campaign that takes up domestic, as well as international issues."
The memo concludes: "This is an unusual landscape of opportunity because of the course the race has taken and Kerry's difficulties in fully consolidating Democratically inclined groups. The bad news is those patterns have kept Kerry a few points behind Bush in the race. The good news is that Democrats are clearly underperforming and can make gains in the race, and indeed win."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[08:11 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Archived War Room: [F6 note -- links appear at this location on the page; use link below]
----------
Copyright 2004 Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
