NationStates Jolt Archive

Brinkley: Navy Probe Could Doom Kerry Campaign

Sen. John Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley said Sunday that if an ongoing Navy investigation into Kerry's military decorations turns up evidence of "purposeful" deception, it could spell doom for the top Democrat's White House bid.

Praising reporter Thomas Lipscomb, who broke news of the Navy investigation on Friday, Brinkley told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, "Journalists are going to have to see whether there's a discrepancy on [the citations posted to Kerry's] Web site - whether there's something wrong that's said there or not."

"If so," said the "Tour of Duty" author, "Kerry would have to fix it immediately - and it does raise some questions as to why that would happen."
"Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?" Brinkley wondered.

He said that while questions raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's war record have been very damaging, "so far they haven't been lethal." But Brinkley predicted that a discrepancy with Kerry's medals could seriously escalate his political problems.

Asked if inconsistencies uncovered by the Navy probe could be the "death knell" for Kerry's campaign, Brinkley told Malzberg, "It could."

In the next breath he hastened to add, however: "Right now it's unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to."

The presidential historian called on Kerry to authorize the release of his full military file, saying, "Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/5/132437.shtml

Kerry Fled

Except you have nothing yet. Nice FUD bill.

Kerry is a liar, and his record proves that.

Kerry Fled

Kerry is a liar, and his record proves that.

Kerry Fled
Glad to hear it Bill. Of course, you have no evidence to back it up.

Your credibility is dwindling to nothing Bill.

Kerry is a liar, and his record proves that.

Kerry Fled

And you're a troll. You post history proves that.

And you're a troll. You post history proves that.
Just becuae I am not one of the sheeple like you, and believe everything you believe, does not make me a troll, troll.

Kerry Fled

Just becuae I am not one of the sheeple like you, and believe everything you believe, does not make me a troll, troll.

Kerry Fled

Sure, whatever Bill.

Bill Trolls

Bill, stop making threads about Kerry's military record. Nobody cares any more.

I don't think this is the first time I've called you boring.


Bill Trolls

Just becuae I am not one of the sheeple like you, and believe everything you believe, does not make me a troll, troll.

Kerry Fled
for the love of god, just explain kerry fled already.... if you even can


Bush Is A Cokehead

I don't know what this forum is about, but I saw Doo-Doo so I came a-runnin'.

Just becuae I am not one of the sheeple like you, and believe everything you believe, does not make me a troll, troll.

Kerry FledIt's not smart to mess with a mod, FoB. Even though you're a major pain in the ass who rarely adds anything to any discussion, I'd hate to see you deleted.

Let's see anything intresting?

Nope

Bill Trolls

Ignoring the Swiftees for a second...

What's up with Kerry and records? He refuses to release his tax returns, which is standard procedure for people running for political office. He refuses to sign a Navy records release form. Does he have something to hide?

Ignoring the Swiftees for a second...

What's up with Kerry and records? He refuses to release his tax returns, which is standard procedure for people running for political office. He refuses to sign a Navy records release form. Does he have something to hide?
Evidently, he does. This guy practices more subterfuge than the CIA. He is hiding the fact that he has zero record to run on.

He refuses to release his tax returns, which is standard procedure for people running for political office.He released them a while ago. Teresa didn't, at least not by the end of April.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/
"When Geraldine Ferraro was selected in '84 by Walter Mondale she released her tax returns but didn't want to release her husband's tax returns. You are now in a situation where you released yours but your wife has not released hers."

He released them a while ago. Teresa didn't, at least not by the end of April.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/
"When Geraldine Ferraro was selected in '84 by Walter Mondale she released her tax returns but didn't want to release her husband's tax returns. You are now in a situation where you released yours but your wife has not released hers."

Thanks. Looks like he's the richest presidential candidate in a while.

Ignoring the Swiftees for a second...

What's up with Kerry and records? He refuses to release his tax returns, which is standard procedure for people running for political office. He refuses to sign a Navy records release form. Does he have something to hide?

Why do the Swities hide theirs?

The Shrub hasn't release all of his.

So why should Kerry have to?

Thanks. Looks like he's the richest presidential candidate in a while.
And this is relevant because...?

Why do the Swities hide theirs?

The Shrub hasn't release all of his.

So why should Kerry have to?

As a 527, the Swiftees' records can be obtained by anybody.

Bush released all his military records in the 2000 election.

He released them a while ago. Teresa didn't, at least not by the end of April.


That's a very important distinction to make. The Pickle Queen has every right to not release her tax records.

However, if she has nothing to hide, why not release them?

In fact, the same applies to both GW Bush and Jean Francois Kerry's FULL military records. Hand-picked pages in PDF format in obscure sections of a website don't help the so-called "controversy."

And this is relevant because...?

Simply an observation. Despite their rhetoric, Democrats tend to rake in the big individual contributions.

As a 527, the Swiftees' records can be obtained by anybody.

Bush released all his military records in the 2000 election.

Being in a 527 doesn't make you have to release your military records.

I asked the swifties why they didn't release theirs and they said they felt they didn't have to.

Using the very same logic; why not? what do they have to hide?

The Shrub didn't release all of his records since the fact of the AWOL Debate continues.

Simply an observation. Despite their rhetoric, Democrats tend to rake in the big individual contributions.
Another good point. Here's a nice article (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9587617.htm?1c) that illustrates just how big they rake it in.

That's a very important distinction to make. The Pickle Queen has every right to not release her tax records.

However, if she has nothing to hide, why not release them?



Well I don't know. Maybe she doesn't want to hear "She's tyring to buy the election crap."

Or the fact that she does liberal causes and that would just fuel more crap about liberals.

It's BS. Leave the fight to the two men. Why bring in the wives....

Being in a 527 doesn't make you have to release your military records.

I asked the swifties why they didn't release theirs and they said they felt they didn't have to.

Using the very same logic; why not? what do they have to hide?

The Shrub didn't release all of his records since the fact of the AWOL Debate continues.
The swifties are not running for president, therefore, it is not in yours or anyone elses what is in there records other thatn the fact that they served with Kerry. If they didn't, and they lie about it, then string them up, but if they did, they have every right to deny their record to you.

Well I don't know. Maybe she doesn't want to hear "She's tyring to buy the election crap."

Or the fact that she does liberal causes and that would just fuel more crap about liberals.

It's BS. Leave the fight to the two men. Why bring in the wives....

I'm more interested in the amount of soft money her Tides Foundation gave to Democratic attack groups than her tax returns.

Well I don't know. Maybe she doesn't want to hear "She's tyring to buy the election crap."

Or the fact that she does liberal causes and that would just fuel more crap about liberals.

It's BS. Leave the fight to the two men. Why bring in the wives....
Agreed. However, since it is accepted practice for the spouses of the candidates to release their own tax records (to show they have no conflicts of interest,) T. Heinz-Kerry's refusal to release her records doesn't quite inspire confidence in her forthrightness.

That, plus her demonstrated support for the TIDES Foundation (which funds scores of leftist organizations,) makes a lot of people uneasy about her.

The swifties are not running for president, therefore, it is not in yours or anyone elses what is in there records other thatn the fact that they served with Kerry. If they didn't, and they lie about it, then string them up, but if they did, they have every right to deny their record to you.

Ahh a swifie supporter.

I hang out on that site so I recognise the verbage.

No it actually does matter. They are making claims that does affect the direction of the country. The fact they have lept into the political arena makes them open to scrutiny.

If they had nothing to hide; then why not show them.

If they were model soldiers with great service records, it only adds a great deal of weight to their claims.

It is a powerful claim to say "Here is my record, now why doesn't Kerry show his?"

Ahh a swifie supporter.

I hang out on that site so I recognise the verbage.

No it actually does matter. They are making claims that does affect the direction of the country. The fact they have lept into the political arena makes them open to scrutiny.

If they had nothing to hide; then why not show them.

If they were model soldiers with great service records, it only adds a great deal of weight to their claims.

It is a powerful claim to say "Here is my record, now why doesn't Kerry show his?"

I hope everything gets released. Kerry has already been caught in a lie, so chances are some of the other Swiftee claims are true as well.

Agreed. However, since it is accepted practice for the spouses of the candidates to release their own tax records (to show they have no conflicts of interest,) T. Heinz-Kerry's refusal to release her records doesn't quite inspire confidence in her forthrightness.

That, plus her demonstrated support for the TIDES Foundation (which funds scores of leftist organizations,) makes a lot of people uneasy about her.

Actually it is a fair claim. I want to know why my leaders make and pay.

I have to admit Ignorance to TIDES so can't make a statement about it.

Some of the "lefty" causes I support. Primatology kind makes me an environmentalist. ;)

Actually it is a fair claim. I want to know why my leaders make and pay.

I have to admit Ignorance to TIDES so can't make a statement about it.

Some of the "lefty" causes I support. Primatology kind makes me an environmentalist. ;)
We continue to agree. The right to privacy (which is nowhere in the Constitution, yet it seems to have materialized sometime in 1973) has to be second to the right of the public to know about any "skeletons in the closet."

Another good point. Here's a nice article (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9587617.htm?1c) that illustrates just how big they rake it in.

Care to post the article? I don't want to make a new user.

I hope everything gets released. Kerry has already been caught in a lie, so chances are some of the other Swiftee claims are true as well.

Fully agree on that.

I know men who have seen combat and were decorated for their efforts. Some are heavily.

There is one big difference between them and Lurch. They don't talk about it. They don't brag about it.

The men of my families have seen a great deal of combat and most don't even talk about it. To them it was a job that needed to be done.

The case of the swift boat guys would take a big hit if a bunch of them were written up for stuff.

But I doubt we will ever see full disclosure.

I hope everything gets released. Kerry has already been caught in a lie, so chances are some of the other Swiftee claims are true as well.
I am sure some of what they say is embellished, stretched, or just flat out false. That is the country that I (and many others here) live in. However, these claims need to be investigated. We cannot allow a commander in chief who may have been AWOL, may have been a war criminal, may have lie about his military record. Go ahead and dismiss me imeediaetly as a swiftie supporter because I think there is a basic truth behind these allegations if you want, the wool over some people's eyes is exceedingly thick.

Care to post the article? I don't want to make a new user.

Me too. ;)

Me too. ;)
Here it goes, but only 'cause you asked for it (hint to the Mods.) Bolding added by me.


State acts as giant ATM for politics

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen

CONTRA COSTA TIMES

California tilts so far toward the Democrats that presidential candidates rarely campaign here, but its residents continue to lay the golden eggs that fund the nation's hottest political races.

The state tops the nation's approximately $1 billion donor list with $156 million in contributions through August to political parties, presidential and congressional candidates. It outstripped New York, its nearest competitor, by $41 million.

"We're the ATM for the campaigns, the gold rush state," said Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies and author of the state's political reform act. "We have a great many wealthy individuals from Hollywood to the Silicon Valley, and candidates have been coming here for years."

With few competitive congressional contests at home, the Golden State finances presidential hopefuls as they battle in Oregon, Nevada, and other swing states, as well as places where congressional seats are up for grabs.

Eight dollars of every $10 that Californians gave in campaign donations left the state, with more than 60 percent of the exported cash going to Democrats.

Only six states sent a larger percentage of their donations outside their boundaries, according to a Times analysis of data provided by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a nonpartisan firm that tracks campaign spending.

Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry netted $27.3 million from Californians, while the GOP's President Bush collected $15.7 million.

Those figures don't include the $20 million its residents donated to political action committees, such as those formed by unions, corporations and advocacy groups.

They also don't reflect the $35 million that Californians paid through June to controversial independent campaign fund-raising groups called 527s, so-named after the Internal Revenue Service code that governs political organizations. The groups do not directly support candidates, but can spend unlimited amounts in campaign ads aimed at influencing voter views on issues and candidates.

Among other key findings in the data:

• On average, the state's 12 million-plus registered voters donated nearly $13 each, fifth-highest in the country. Connecticut topped the list at $14.39 each, followed by Nevada, New York and Virginia.

• Californians sent more than twice as much cash to all Democratic presidential candidates as they did GOP hopefuls, with the bulk of the money going to Kerry. But Howard Dean, the Vermont presidential candidate, didn't do badly in California, collecting $4.4 million.

• In addition to $50 million in donations to national parties, Californians sent checks to political parties in 35 other states. Democrats, for example, sent $95,150 to their party brethren in the battleground state of New Hampshire. GOP donors proffered $108,350 to Virginia, where a close race was anticipated between Republican Rep. Edward Schrock and challenger Democrat David Ashe. Schrock abruptly dropped out of the race Monday for unspecified reasons; state delegate Thelma Drake will face Ashe.

• Californians sent the largest amount of non-presidential campaign money, $1.6 million, to South Dakota, home of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. He faces a tough re-election bid against GOP challenger and former Rep. John Thune. No other state received more from California except those states that presidential candidates called home, such as Kerry's Massachusetts and Bush's Texas.

Back home, politically minded Californians with money to spend will find little to excite them among the congressional and presidential races.

And spending it here would be a waste of money, said state Democratic Party adviser Bob Mulholland.

Kerry holds a commanding lead over Bush in California polls, as does U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer over GOP challenger Bill Jones. Only one of the state's 53 House seats, a contested seat being vacated by Cal Dooley, D-Fresno, appears competitive.

"The Republicans spent $15 million on California congressional races in 2000 ... but the Democrats still picked up four GOP seats, including three with incumbents," Mulholland said. "The public wishes less money would be spent on campaigns. Well, there's going to be less spent on (California) campaigns this year."

That may be true in California contests, but with Bush and Kerry running neck-and-neck two months before Election Day, the state could pour millions more into the national scene by Nov. 2.

The key to how much more may rest with 527s, which gained in popularity after Congress in 2002 banned soft money in federal campaigns, said Steven Weiss, spokesman for the nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Soft money describes funds used for generic party activities such as get-out-the-vote drives that allowed rich donors, candidates and parties to skirt federal campaign contribution restrictions.

Under the revised law, soft money is no longer permitted.

An individual may contribute a maximum of $95,000 per election cycle within these limits: up to $25,000 each to a political party and up to $5,000 each to a political action committee per calendar year; and up to $2,000 each to presidential candidates and $4,000 each to congressional candidates per election cycle.

And presidential candidates can no longer collect money after they accept public campaign financing.

They become eligible for the funds, about $70 million each, after they accept their party's nominations. Kerry and Bush have accepted the money. Candidates come under pressure to use the money or else appear overly beholden to campaign donors.

Faced with these restrictions, individuals formed or expanded 527s specifically to influence the presidential race, including anti-Bush groups such as Moveon.org and the Joint Victory Fund, and the GOP-leaning Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

These groups may collect as much cash as they want and spend it how they please, although they must report the contributions to the Internal Revenue Service.

Los Angeles screenwriter and movie producer Stephen Bing, for example, has contributed $85,000 in conventional campaign donations, all of it to Democrats.

But Bing has donated millions of dollars to 527s, becoming the third-highest individual contributor in the nation. As of June 30, he had paid $6.9 million to the Joint Victory Fund and nearly $1 million to Moveon.org.

On the other hand, Weiss added, wealthy Californians promoting their ideals or seeking access to the highest levels of government have not flocked to 527s at the old, soft money levels.

"It's not a direct contribution," Weiss said. "Individuals or companies give money for a reason. Donors can't be guaranteed that a candidate or party will respond to a 527 donation in the same way as a direct one."

Lisa Vorderbrueggen covers politics. Reach her at

And yet no mention of the tens of millions that Pete Coors or Richard Mellon Scaife have provided for right-wing think tanks and attack organizations. No mention of the millions that Sun Myung Moon loses in the Washington Times every year or that Rupert Murdoch drops into the NY Post so they can serve as right-wing rags posing as newspapers. No mention of the virtual stranglehold the right-wing has on talk radio. Please spare me the "Democrats are outspending the Republicans" crap. It's not even close.

I am sure some of what they say is embellished, stretched, or just flat out false. That is the country that I (and many others here) live in. However, these claims need to be investigated. We cannot allow a commander in chief who may have been AWOL, may have been a war criminal, may have lie about his military record. Go ahead and dismiss me imeediaetly as a swiftie supporter because I think there is a basic truth behind these allegations if you want, the wool over some people's eyes is exceedingly thick.

I didn't dismiss you. Just pointing out what I have read on the site.

War Criminal? Didn't he already say he did things that were considered such?

AWOL? Rather stretching on that one.

Finally, the "image" of the commander and chief is basiclaly a myth.

If you evaluate the past Presidents, several lacked "moral" character. The current and previous President are draft dodgers. One took college deferment(perfectly legal) and the other hid in the guard(another legal move).

The willi Hortan strategy is still quite usuable after all these years.....

I didn't dismiss you. Just pointing out what I have read on the site.

War Criminal? Didn't he already say he did things that were considered such?

AWOL? Rather stretching on that one.

Finally, the "image" of the commander and chief is basiclaly a myth.

If you evaluate the past Presidents, several lacked "moral" character. The current and previous President are draft dodgers. One took college deferment(perfectly legal) and the other hid in the guard(another legal move).

The willi Hortan strategy is still quite usuable after all these years.....
I just love it when people say that serving in the Guard or reserve is dodging the draft. It allows me to dismiss anything they have to say completely.

And yet no mention of the tens of millions that Pete Coors or Richard Mellon Scaife have provided for right-wing think tanks and attack organizations. No mention of the millions that Sun Myung Moon loses in the Washington Times every year or that Rupert Murdoch drops into the NY Post so they can serve as right-wing rags posing as newspapers. No mention of the virtual stranglehold the right-wing has on talk radio. Please spare me the "Democrats are outspending the Republicans" crap. It's not even close.


Well the article did only mention the 527s which the Demos have used rather well to fit their needs.

Soft money is rather hard issue to solve.

Which a great amount of money is involved, there always seems to be loop holes to the rules.

And yet no mention of the tens of millions that Pete Coors or Richard Mellon Scaife have provided for right-wing think tanks and attack organizations. No mention of the millions that Sun Myung Moon loses in the Washington Times every year or that Rupert Murdoch drops into the NY Post so they can serve as right-wing rags posing as newspapers. No mention of the virtual stranglehold the right-wing has on talk radio. Please spare me the "Democrats are outspending the Republicans" crap. It's not even close.

Oh, cry me a fucking river. Take a look at the circulation numbers for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Washington Times and the NY Post (did I get all the conservative papers? Oh yeah, there's the Wall Street Journal) and well, all the other major newspapers in the US.

Let's not even get started on the news networks. Talk radio might be dominated by conservatives, but you've got CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/PBS. Then there's the wire services. AP, AFP, and the worst one of all, Reuters.

And that's just the American media... let's not get started on al-bibicya and Le Monde.

I didn't dismiss you. Just pointing out what I have read on the site.

War Criminal? Didn't he already say he did things that were considered such?

AWOL? Rather stretching on that one.

Finally, the "image" of the commander and chief is basiclaly a myth.

If you evaluate the past Presidents, several lacked "moral" character. The current and previous President are draft dodgers. One took college deferment(perfectly legal) and the other hid in the guard(another legal move).

The willi Hortan strategy is still quite usuable after all these years.....
Why feed the troll that cannot bring forward any "facts".

I just love it when people say that serving in the Guard or reserve is dodging the draft. It allows me to dismiss anything they have to say completely.

That's ok Bill, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

Fact is the Guard didn't see combat. Fact is the shrub was a mediocre student at best. One screw up and you found yourself drafted. I know two people that happened to them.

Joining the Guard was a way to avoid going to Viet Nam.

You can belive what ever you want but the fact remains true.

And yet no mention of the tens of millions that Pete Coors or Richard Mellon Scaife have provided for right-wing think tanks and attack organizations. No mention of the millions that Sun Myung Moon loses in the Washington Times every year or that Rupert Murdoch drops into the NY Post so they can serve as right-wing rags posing as newspapers. No mention of the virtual stranglehold the right-wing has on talk radio. Please spare me the "Democrats are outspending the Republicans" crap. It's not even close.
Absolutely right. No mention either of the millions spent by George Soros, or the millions spent by Teresa Kerry's TIDES Foundation, nor all the money that comes to the Dems from Hollywood, nor all the free publicity the Dems get from the news media (and if you think ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNBC/CNN are "fair, balanced and impartial," do I have a real estate deal for you! Just imagine, your very own oceanfront property in Montana.)

Then again, I understand the print edition of the Contra Costa Times did have a very detailed table that showed, by name, and by party, who gave how much to which party.

Oh, cry me a fucking river. Take a look at the circulation numbers for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Washington Times and the NY Post (did I get all the conservative papers? Oh yeah, there's the Wall Street Journal) and well, all the other major newspapers in the US.

Let's not even get started on the news networks. Talk radio might be dominated by conservatives, but you've got CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/PBS. Then there's the wire services. AP, AFP, and the worst one of all, Reuters.

And that's just the American media... let's not get started on al-bibicya and Le Monde.I see by your post that you're a moron, since you consider the big three, CNN and MSNBC to be liberal and since you seem to think that there are only 4 conservative papers out there. Also, you have no idea how the AP works. Complain a little louder when you understand the world of the press, little man. Buh bye now. Mommy's calling you to bed.

Why feed the troll that cannot bring forward any "facts".

True! However my granddad did point out that in Religion and Politics, if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will start beliving it.

People like Bill should be hit with facts so people that are lazy(don't research it themselves) can see a differing opinion.

I know full well that he will continue to parrot the same diatribe no matter what! ;)

Absolutely right. No mention either of the millions spent by George Soros, or the millions spent by Teresa Kerry's TIDES Foundation, nor all the money that comes to the Dems from Hollywood, nor all the free publicity the Dems get from the news media (and if you think ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNBC/CNN are "fair, balanced and impartial," do I have a real estate deal for you! Just imagine, your very own oceanfront property in Montana.)

Then again, I understand the print edition of the Contra Costa Times did have a very detailed table that showed, by name, and by party, who gave how much to which party.You might want to join Pan-Arab Israel at the little children's table. Heinz has no control over the TIDES Foundation--in fact, the money she provided them from her own foundation was earmarked for specific programs, none of which are political in nature. Check Snopes if you don't believe me.

And by the way--I don't think any of the news companies are fair, balanced and impartial--they're all corporate except for PBS (and their sponsorships are getting more and more intrusive all the time). But they're certainly not liberal in any sense of the word.

I see by your post that you're a moron, since you consider the big three, CNN and MSNBC to be liberal and since you seem to think that there are only 4 conservative papers out there. Also, you have no idea how the AP works. Complain a little louder when you understand the world of the press, little man. Buh bye now. Mommy's calling you to bed.

Jesus Christ, you want me to use ?

If you don't think there's a certain amount of bias in the big news networks, you're a fool. Check this shit out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060520841/qid=1094449569/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-2096516-9861730?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Perhaps you should enlighten us on the complex world of news wire services? Meanwhile, let me dig up the thousands of examples of bias I've seen with the Reuters "news" service.

You might want to join Pan-Arab Israel at the little children's table. Heinz has no control over the TIDES Foundation--in fact, the money she provided them from her own foundation was earmarked for specific programs, none of which are political in nature. Check Snopes if you don't believe me.

And by the way--I don't think any of the news companies are fair, balanced and impartial--they're all corporate except for PBS (and their sponsorships are getting more and more intrusive all the time). But they're certainly not liberal in any sense of the word.

HAHAHAHA so all "corporate" news is tainted by association? Even if the owner is a big fucking liberal like Ted Turner? Buy yourself a clue and stop smoking the weed.

Jesus Christ, you want me to use ?

If you don't think there's a certain amount of bias in the big news networks, you're a fool. Check this shit out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060520841/qid=1094449569/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-2096516-9861730?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Perhaps you should enlighten us on the complex world of news wire services? Meanwhile, let me dig up the thousands of examples of bias I've seen with the Reuters "news" service.
You quote Bernie Goldberg--I'll quote Eric Alterman. Your mistake is that you assume news organizations have a political agenda--they rarely do. Fox is an aberration in the US, but they're a product of their owner, Rupert Murdoch. News organizations are corporate, concerned with the bottom line over everything else, so they'll favor, consciously or subconsciously, the most corporate friendly folks out there, and those happen to be Republicans right now.

I just love it when people say that serving in the Guard or reserve is dodging the draft. It allows me to dismiss anything they have to say completely.

30 years ago it was dodging. Today the Guard and Reserve are model military institutions.

HAHAHAHA so all "corporate" news is tainted by association? Even if the owner is a big fucking liberal like Ted Turner? Buy yourself a clue and stop smoking the weed.Ted Turner hasn't been associated with CNN for years--who's smoking the weed?

You might want to join Pan-Arab Israel at the little children's table. Heinz has no control over the TIDES Foundation--in fact, the money she provided them from her own foundation was earmarked for specific programs, none of which are political in nature. Check Snopes if you don't believe me.

And by the way--I don't think any of the news companies are fair, balanced and impartial--they're all corporate except for PBS (and their sponsorships are getting more and more intrusive all the time). But they're certainly not liberal in any sense of the word.
True to form, I see. When you run out of cogent arguments, you resort to insults. That's ok, I am used to it.

The fact is, all of them (including PBS) are extremely liberal in their coverage. You can deny it all you want, but the facts are irrefutable. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, et al, don't even bother trying to pretend they are fair or balanced, even though they proclaim to be neutral...which makes their blathering and whining about Fox News all the more laughable.

30 years ago it was dodging. Today the Guard and Reserve are model military institutions.

Exactly. If I came across as disparaging the institutions, it was not my purpose.

I respect the men who fought, I don't hate the men who used college and the guard to avoid it.

That's ok Bill, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

Fact is the Guard didn't see combat. Fact is the shrub was a mediocre student at best. One screw up and you found yourself drafted. I know two people that happened to them.

Joining the Guard was a way to avoid going to Viet Nam.

You can belive what ever you want but the fact remains true.
Actually, the name is Andy, Don't know where you got Bill from. People in the guard serve just as honorably as though serving in the active component. Fqct is the Guard serve honorably defending their nation, states, and helping out in humanitarian relief like the current crisis in Florida.

True to form, I see. When you run out of cogent arguments, you resort to insults. That's ok, I am used to it.

The fact is, all of them (including PBS) are extremely liberal in their coverage. You can deny it all you want, but the facts are irrefutable. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, et al, don't even bother trying to pretend they are fair or balanced, even though they proclaim to be neutral...which makes their blathering and whining about Fox News all the more laughable.And you're offering what as proof? Thought so. Buh bye now. Mommy's calling you too.

You quote Bernie Goldberg--I'll quote Eric Alterman. Your mistake is that you assume news organizations have a political agenda--they rarely do. Fox is an aberration in the US, but they're a product of their owner, Rupert Murdoch. News organizations are corporate, concerned with the bottom line over everything else, so they'll favor, consciously or subconsciously, the most corporate friendly folks out there, and those happen to be Republicans right now.

Eric Alterman is a radical leftist (then again, if you're writing for the Nation, you're a fucking nutjob by default) who has never worked for the mainstream American media. Bernie Goldberg has decades of experience with a news organization that caters to the saner portions of American society.

Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of the left-liberal magazine Newsweek opnely admits there is a massive liberal bias in the mainstream American media. He even said media bias accounts for about 15 points in the polls. That's pretty hefty.

In any case, the only reason you can say that there is no liberal bias in the media is because you are so far left out in Loonyland.

Ted Turner hasn't been associated with CNN for years--who's smoking the weed?

Indeed, since Ted Turner left CNN has become a little more moderate in its coverage. Still liberal though. :)

You quote Bernie Goldberg--I'll quote Eric Alterman. Your mistake is that you assume news organizations have a political agenda--they rarely do. Fox is an aberration in the US, but they're a product of their owner, Rupert Murdoch. News organizations are corporate, concerned with the bottom line over everything else, so they'll favor, consciously or subconsciously, the most corporate friendly folks out there, and those happen to be Republicans right now.
That must be why ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/PBS are constantly producing all those reports that are 100% favorable to Bush and bashing Kerry, right?

Oh wait...that's right, those reports on those networks NEVER happen! The typical network coverage usually goes something like this:
<Tom Brokaw>: In August, the economy produced 144,000 new jobs. Of course, since most economists had predicted 150,000 this really means the economy is sluggish.

<Dan Rather>: Unemployment rate went down to 5.4% However, minorities are still highly unemployed.

I can keep this up. After all, all I have to do is quote how bad news for Kerry and/or Dems somehow get turned into GOP conspiracies by ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/PBS.

Absolutely right. No mention either of the millions spent by George Soros, or the millions spent by Teresa Kerry's TIDES Foundation, nor all the money that comes to the Dems from Hollywood, nor all the free publicity the Dems get from the news media (and if you think ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNBC/CNN are "fair, balanced and impartial," do I have a real estate deal for you! Just imagine, your very own oceanfront property in Montana.)

Then again, I understand the print edition of the Contra Costa Times did have a very detailed table that showed, by name, and by party, who gave how much to which party.

For all the money you say the dems have, I remember hearing that the prez had the largest war chest for an election in history. If Kerry's fundraising is shady then Bush's must be shady with a side of fries.

And you're offering what as proof? Thought so. Buh bye now. Mommy's calling you too.

Haven't you ever watched Bill Moyers? If you think he's a conservative or neutral you're a lot crazier than I thought... the least you could do is admit you're a radical leftist, anything less is intellectually dishonest.

For all the money you say the dems have, I remember hearing that the prez had the largest war chest for an election in history. If Kerry's fundraising is shady then Bush's must be shady with a side of fries.
Check it out. Bush has complete disclosure of who's given money to his campaign on his website. If that is "shady with a side of fries," make mine super-sized, please. And none of it collected from White House offices, either.

Haven't you ever watched Bill Moyers? If you think he's a conservative or neutral you're a lot crazier than I thought... the least you could do is admit you're a radical leftist, anything less is intellectually dishonest.
I'll give a point to Incer in that. He/she (I'm not sure what gender we're dealing with here) IS a radical lefty and he/she admits it.

I'll give a point to Incer in that. He/she (I'm not sure what gender we're dealing with here) IS a radical lefty and he/she admits it.

Oh good. What a freak.

True! However my granddad did point out that in Religion and Politics, if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will start beliving it.

People like Bill should be hit with facts so people that are lazy(don't research it themselves) can see a differing opinion.

I know full well that he will continue to parrot the same diatribe no matter what! ;)
Well I wasn't really referring to Bill, although I do find him easy to ignore. I was suggesting the newest troll with the cute captions. I doubt someone like Kerry would even allow him to carry his jock strap. :eek:

Eric Alterman is a radical leftist (then again, if you're writing for the Nation, you're a fucking nutjob by default) who has never worked for the mainstream American media. Bernie Goldberg has decades of experience with a news organization that caters to the saner portions of American society.

Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of the left-liberal magazine Newsweek opnely admits there is a massive liberal bias in the mainstream American media. He even said media bias accounts for about 15 points in the polls. That's pretty hefty.

In any case, the only reason you can say that there is no liberal bias in the media is because you are so far left out in Loonyland.
Preech on, my brother, preech on!

Ignoring the Swiftees for a second...

What's up with Kerry and records? He refuses to release his tax returns, which is standard procedure for people running for political office. He refuses to sign a Navy records release form. Does he have something to hide?

whats up with bush not letting UN inspectors to see the prisoners? Whats up with appointing colin powells son so that he can make companies like Clear Channel take up the entire USA industry for radio and newspaper? :fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

whats up with bush not letting UN inspectors to see the prisoners? Whats up with appointing colin powells son so that he can make companies like Clear Channel take up the entire USA industry for radio and newspaper? :fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

:rolleyes:

Well I wasn't really referring to Bill, although I do find him easy to ignore. I was suggesting the newest troll with the cute captions. I doubt someone like Kerry would even allow him to carry his jock strap. :eek:

I am wondering if this person is Bill.....

Actually, the name is Andy, Don't know where you got Bill from. People in the guard serve just as honorably as though serving in the active component. Fqct is the Guard serve honorably defending their nation, states, and helping out in humanitarian relief like the current crisis in Florida.

Ok you post like Friends of Bill. So....

As a previous poster pointed out. 30 years ago, it was a way to avoid serving in Nam. It's a fact.

This does not take away from the Guard does for people.

That must be why ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/PBS are constantly producing all those reports that are 100% favorable to Bush and bashing Kerry, right?

Oh wait...that's right, those reports on those networks NEVER happen! The typical network coverage usually goes something like this:
<Tom Brokaw>: In August, the economy produced 144,000 new jobs. Of course, since most economists had predicted 150,000 this really means the economy is sluggish.

<Dan Rather>: Unemployment rate went down to 5.4% However, minorities are still highly unemployed.

I can keep this up. After all, all I have to do is quote how bad news for Kerry and/or Dems somehow get turned into GOP conspiracies by ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/PBS.

Yeah, they do that all the time. In every administration. Its called reporting the news. They always say if the jobs created exceeded or failed to exceed expectations. Its important data.

Reporting the news properly is not 'liberal'. Its the normal, non-biased approach they are supposed to do. They are supposed to present relevant information, good and bad, and enough of it to present a clearer picture of the world. That's why they say which stocks went up and down. Since when do companies send nasty letters to news agencies for reporting their stocks fell? Companies know the score (besides they can't hide that info legally :p )

News agencies thrive on bad news more than good news. Always have, always will. You'll never hear the headline "Good News! Nothing happened today!"

A clear sign of bias is when they report only the good things about the president. And if there is bad news that must be reported, positive images are pumped in afterwards to counteract the bad. Welcome to Fox News.

Where's that reporter's son when you need him. I know we can get some better info if we ask him. I would love to hear some of his Dad's anecdotes. What was his name again...

You can't blame Kerry for a typo when he didn't even type up the document.

Blame the clerk, not the squid.

My military record has an extra "n" in my middle name, a clerical error I have never bothered to have corrected.

Would you blame me for that?

Typos happen. However, you have now opened yourselves up to allowing every single typing error you make to be scrutinized and scorned. Yet, you will decry that such errors don't matter.

Go shove your heads back up your asses. We're tired of you leaking shit everywhere.

Yeah, they do that all the time. In every administration. Its called reporting the news. They always say if the jobs created exceeded or failed to exceed expectations. Its important data.

Reporting the news properly is not 'liberal'. Its the normal, non-biased approach they are supposed to do. They are supposed to present relevant information, good and bad, and enough of it to present a clearer picture of the world. That's why they say which stocks went up and down. Since when do companies send nasty letters to news agencies for reporting their stocks fell? Companies know the score (besides they can't hide that info legally :p )

News agencies thrive on bad news more than good news. Always have, always will. You'll never hear the headline "Good News! Nothing happened today!"

A clear sign of bias is when they report only the good things about the president. And if there is bad news that must be reported, positive images are pumped in afterwards to counteract the bad. Welcome to Fox News.

Where's that reporter's son when you need him. I know we can get some better info if we ask him. I would love to hear some of his Dad's anecdotes. What was his name again...

Please, read the book I linked to. It contains excellent examples of left-liberal bias in the mainstream media.

In any case, the only reason you can say that there is no liberal bias in the media is because you are so far left out in Loonyland.

Or could the only reason you can say that there is no conservative bias in the media is because you are so far right out in Looneyland?

And may I add, so insecure that denial is not enough and you must exaggerate the flaws of others to make you feel superior.

Or could the only reason you can say that there is no conservative bias in the media is because you are so far right out in Looneyland?

And may I add, so insecure that denial is not enough and you must exaggerate the flaws of others to make you feel superior.

Insecure? Not at all. If I can withstand 6 years of ultra-liberal mindfuckery at an Ivy League college and still hold onto my principles, I'd say I'm pretty secure if my beliefs.

And if it clarifies anything, I consider Foxnews to have a conservative bias.

From that link you gave me Pan, I'm beginning to think the news stations have a 'lawyer' bias and not a 'liberal' one.

The reviews shown there note that the author may have an axe to grind with his former employer, Dan Rather. He's not exactly coming off emotionally stable.

Easy read, apparently. I would really like an in-depth one. Anecdotal stories won't cut it.

From that link you gave me Pan i'm beginning to thin think the news stations have a 'lawyer' bias and not a 'liberal' one.

The reviews shown there note that the author may have an axe to grind with his former employer, Dan Rather. He's not exactly coming off emotionally stable.

Easy read, apparently. I would really like an in-depth one.

Well, read it and find out. I thought Bernie was pretty level-headed. And he does provide plenty of great examples of bias.

Well, read it and find out. I thought Bernie was pretty level-headed. And he does provide plenty of great examples of bias.

Heh, love to but I already have a stack of books I've bought and never read.

Got an electronic version? PDF? I wonder if there's one on eMule...

..fuck it i'll do it tomorrow..its 4Am :P

time for bed (3 hours ago!)

Insecure? Not at all. If I can withstand 6 years of ultra-liberal mindfuckery at an Ivy League college and still hold onto my principles, I'd say I'm pretty secure if my beliefs.

And if it clarifies anything, I consider Foxnews to have a conservative bias.


Hmm. The institutions that bring together the best and brightest minds are all accused of being liberal. The only conclusion I can make from that is that the more information a person is exposed to, the more likely one is to become liberal. Gee. No wonder conservatives prefer to keep us uninformed.

Please, read the book I linked to. It contains excellent examples of left-liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Don't end sentences with prepositions.

Well, read it and find out. I thought Bernie was pretty level-headed. And he does provide plenty of great examples of bias.

Don't start sentences with "and".

Haven't you ever watched Bill Moyers? If you think he's a conservative or neutral you're a lot crazier than I thought... the least you could do is admit you're a radical leftist, anything less is intellectually dishonest.

There needs to be a comma between those two words.

Indeed, since Ted Turner left CNN has become a little more moderate in its coverage. Still liberal though

Red: Need a comma there.
Blue: Incomplete sentence.

I could go on, but I won't. It just goes to show that typos happen and sometimes corrections do not get made. It's not Kerry's fault that some clerk typed up his documents wrong.

I'll give a point to Incer in that. He/she (I'm not sure what gender we're dealing with here) IS a radical lefty and he/she admits it.I'm a he and I'm not a radical. I am a dyed in the wool liberal and proud of it, but I'm no radical. I'm an economic moderate who believe sin balanced budgets and regulated capitalism (although I think corporations should not have legal personhood) and a social libertarian who thinks that the government ought to stay out of individuals' personal lives. I'm a realist in that politically I know there are certain inviolable expenditures--Social Security, Medicare and national defense--and that since there's literally no way any of those programs are going to be seriously cut, we're looking at higher taxes in order to balance the budget. I don't like porkbarrel politics, but the fact is that what we spend on them is a pittance in comparison to the overall budget. I believe the federal government has shirked its regulatory responsibility over the last 25 years in favor of corporate donors and lobbyists, and I absolutely defend the rights of workers to organize. I favor the separation of church and state, not because I worry about religion's influence on government, but because I worry about the potential for government's influence on religious choice and freedom. If that makes me a radical to you, then you're so conservative that you've lost touch with reality.

Hey, I'm not the one bitching about Kerry's combat V typo. Leave my shit alone. :)

What is "Pan-Arab Israel" supposed to mean?

I'm a he and I'm not a radical. I am a dyed in the wool liberal and proud of it, but I'm no radical. I'm an economic moderate who believe sin balanced budgets and regulated capitalism (although I think corporations should not have legal personhood) and a social libertarian who thinks that the government ought to stay out of individuals' personal lives. I'm a realist in that politically I know there are certain inviolable expenditures--Social Security, Medicare and national defense--and that since there's literally no way any of those programs are going to be seriously cut, we're looking at higher taxes in order to balance the budget. I don't like porkbarrel politics, but the fact is that what we spend on them is a pittance in comparison to the overall budget. I believe the federal government has shirked its regulatory responsibility over the last 25 years in favor of corporate donors and lobbyists, and I absolutely defend the rights of workers to organize. I favor the separation of church and state, not because I worry about religion's influence on government, but because I worry about the potential for government's influence on religious choice and freedom. If that makes me a radical to you, then you're so conservative that you've lost touch with reality.

Hehehe. I sense a visceral hatred of the corporation. Otherwise, pretty normal.

I'll give a point to Incer in that. He/she (I'm not sure what gender we're dealing with here) IS a radical lefty and he/she admits it.

incertonia is a radical lefty in exactly the same way that i am a moderate member of the democratic party.

why is it that so many people on the right seem to be incapable of seeing distinctions finer than white and neon orange? not all things that are not neon orange are white, you know.

incertonia is a radical lefty in exactly the same way that i am a moderate member of the democratic party.

why is it that so many people on the right seem to be incapable of seeing distinctions finer than white and neon orange?

Must be all the leftie college kids so eager to define themselves. After a while I just started lumping together into the loony group. :)

So obviously you'd have no problems with any one of us calling you a Nazi?

So obviously you'd have no problems with any one of us calling you a Nazi?

You're dangerously close to violating Goodwin's Law, LOL!

I'll take that as a no.

Hehehe. I sense a visceral hatred of the corporation. Otherwise, pretty normal.Not a hatred of the corporation--just a feeling that the corporation has grown beyond its intended purpose, namely, to be a machine that makes money. Corporations are amoral, which is fine unless you give them the same rights as citizens have, because citizenship is supposed to be linked with a personal morality. That's why I favor regulated capitalism--a corporation will never voluntarily regulate itself if it costs more to do so, because to spend money unnecessarily violates its first law of being, namely, to make the largest profit possible. And since corporations generally have greater economic power than individual consumers, they're able to run roughshod over the rights of those consumers (and generally do) unless someone equally powerful stands up to them, and that someone is the government in the form of regulatory agencies.

That's why I get upset when people talk about "liberal media" and "conservative media," because with a few notable exceptions in the US, all media is corporate, and therefore looks at the bottom line first, last, and always when it comes to news coverage. My problem with most of the media isn't that they've got a bias--it's that they've 1)gotten lazy and 2)gotten cheap. The first problem can easily be solved--there are alwys eager young reporters who are looking to make a name and will if given a chance. The second is tougher, because good investigative reporting is expensive. It's a lot easier to put talking heads on tv and have them pontificate than it is to actually chase down a story that might not turn into anything at all. And newspapers are just as bad.

So much of the pre-war reporting was utter crap, and it didn't have to be that way. Why did it happen? Because it's easier and cheaper to get a story by taking talking points from the administration and getting a response from a member of the media whore opposition (notice I'm smacking around both parties here) than it is to actually check out the talking points and see if they're worth a damn. It happens to this day. The Swift Boat Vets story would never have gotten traction if one of the major news outlets had done the slightest bit of investigation into their backgrounds before they ran with the story of the attacks. All it would have taken was a little effort and time to run down the connections and the story would have died aborning and we wouldn't be talking about Vietnam 35 years after it meant anything at all.

And for every one of those stories, there are others that never get mentioned at all. Clinton's connections to the Miami Cubans have never been extensively reported on by anyone, for instance.

I suppose I am a radical in one way--I'm an idealist and a true believer that the world can work better than it does currently, but if I have anything to say about it, that point of view will eventually become mainstream as well.

My problem with most of the media isn't that they've got a bias--it's that they've 1)gotten lazy and 2)gotten cheap. The first problem can easily be solved--there are alwys eager young reporters who are looking to make a name and will if given a chance. The second is tougher, because good investigative reporting is expensive. It's a lot easier to put talking heads on tv and have them pontificate than it is to actually chase down a story that might not turn into anything at all. And newspapers are just as bad.

heh, corporate media as a market failure. sad but true.

heh, corporate media as a market failure. sad but true.
I have read media pundits who lay the blame at Rupert Murdoch's feet, although I can't say with any certainty that we wouldn't have gotten here on our own eventually, what with media consolidation being all the rage. But it seems no coincidence to me when I see the PIPA study showing that when it came to the run up to the Iraq war, the people most likely to have the story straight got most of their news from publicly funded news organizations, namely NPR and PBS. It's no surprise to me to see that the most indepth news coverage available regularly comes from the BBC or CBC, both state-funded organizations. Why? They don't have to please shareholders, so they'll spend money doing the job right.

There's enough vitriol in this thread to make a bomb.

There's enough vitriol in this thread to make a bomb.
You think? There's probably more in some of the other Kerry/Bush threads, especially the ones where Friends of Bill and I were going round and round last night. :D This one's tame by comparison.

You think? There's probably more in some of the other Kerry/Bush threads, especially the ones where Friends of Bill and I were going round and round last night. :D This one's tame by comparison.

This thread reminds me why I fled General.

Hey, I'm not the one bitching about Kerry's combat V typo. Leave my shit alone. :)

Hehehe ... sorry ... you just made a good example. :D

Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of the left-liberal magazine Newsweek opnely admits there is a massive liberal bias in the mainstream American media.
I always though Newsweek was pretty balanced. It was one of their writers who was the #1 man going after Michael Moore just as Fahrenheit 9/11 was released. I don't remember the guy's name, but I remember him even lying in order to discredit Michael Moore. Doesn't sound so liberal to me.

If the media was so liberal, why did they hate Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election campaign?

I am sure some of what they say is embellished, stretched, or just flat out false. That is the country that I (and many others here) live in. However, these claims need to be investigated. We cannot allow a commander in chief who may have been AWOL, may have been a war criminal, may have lie about his military record. Go ahead and dismiss me imeediaetly as a swiftie supporter because I think there is a basic truth behind these allegations if you want, the wool over some people's eyes is exceedingly thick.

Embelishments, stretched truths and outright falsehoods? AWOL? Lies about military records? Indeed, that wool is pretty thick. :rolleyes:

*cough*bush*cough*

That wool is in fact horrifyingly thick... it really scares me how easily led some people are.