Anti-Kerry movie to air in primetime

[EPSkis]

Oh now, now - Don't think the Dems are going to allow it without a Federal Probe of the people airing it:

"Illegal Contribution of airtime?" McAuliffe is at (her) best when (she) gets hysterical. (Maybe us taxpayers could call an unwarranted Federal probe an illegal allocation of funds?)

Dems seek Federal probe

[Greydon Clark]

It's certainly not like Dan Rather using the highest rated news magazine to push blatantly forged documents regarding Bush's National Guard service.

I would agree that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film commercial free is certainly not like Dan Rather’s sloppy journalism. Additionally, CBS has given ample coverage to both sides as they attempt to discredit the other based on ancient history. On the other hand, would you support some other national media corporation broadcasting “Up River” uninterrupted or a semi-libelous documentary on President Bush’s fortunate son past—complete with interviews of the mother’s of Texan soldiers who couldn’t get into the air guard and subsequently died in Vietnam?

[mr_gyptian]

hey I'm just pasting what Evan thomas said.

I can see what you're saying, though. I mean utilizing the top rated TV news magazine to attack a candidate, falsely, mind you is exactly the same as writing what is deemed to be a joke. Fox corrected the article within 24 hours. Dan Rather took two weeks.

Imagine if Brit Hume had taken forged doc's from a someone that had been hounding Kerry for over a decade.

As I've said before, this place would have gone apeshit.

But as Rather said "The documents I based my story upon were false, but the accusation that Bush didn't serve honorably is true." You all believe that, so what Rather did is OK. Well Bush has done everything he can to open his service records to the public. Has Kerry done the same?? you wish.

Also, notice how most of the media did nothing to rebut the false letters Rather used. It was the webloggers that did this weird thing called attacking the supporting evidence rather than specifically focusing on the dipshit that gave the forged doc's to CBS. It's an interesting tactic.

Now, look at how Kerry defended himself against the SBVT. he did not have concrete evidence stating he was in Cambodia, or evidence to contradict the SBVT's commercials. He weakly attacked the supposed supporters and their connections to the Bush campaign. again, you all deem this to be an effective defense.

[mr_gyptian]

I would agree that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film commercial free is certainly not like Dan Rather’s sloppy journalism. Additionally, CBS has given ample coverage to both sides as they attempt to discredit the other based on ancient history. On the other hand, would you support some other national media corporation broadcasting “Up River” uninterrupted or a semi-libelous documentary on President Bush’s fortunate son past—complete with interviews of the mother’s of Texan soldiers who couldn’t get into the air guard and subsequently died in Vietnam?

No I don't think it is proper use of free speech specifically because networks don't pay for their access to airwaves.

CBS has not given ample coverage. They are a willing shill. Jesus, even Don Hewitt said Dan Rather should have gotten a pink slip for running that story.

[Will]

I can see what you're saying, though. I mean utilizing the top rated TV news magazine to attack a candidate, falsely, mind you is exactly the same as writing what is deemed to be a joke. Fox corrected the article within 24 hours. Dan Rather took two weeks..

Dan Rather got fooled, reviewed the evidence, then apologized. He and 60 minutes are getting the beating they deserved. (and the right are using his mistake to claim that any attack on Georgie's war record is without merit)

Cameron lied directly and purposefully to the public, got caught, passed it off as a "joke" and has not been punished.

As for the SBVT, maybe Kerry thought he shouldn't dignify blatant lies with a response? And I'm sorry that all you've seen is attacks on the people producing these lies, perhaps that's because you've been ignoring the substantive debunking? (start here)

We've been down this road before and the only leg your argument has left to stand on was that in 1979 John Kerry mistated what the year was when he was in Cambodia. Oooohhhhh, now that's a character flaw!

------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and for those of you who want to do something about this sinclair bullshit here's an idea:

If so go here. It's a list of stations Sinclair owns. Google a station name (preferably in a swing state) and get their website. From their website get a list of their advertisers and their sales manager. Call the sales manager and tell him you're calling the local advertisers to complain (mention them by name) about Sinclair's decision (at this point he may start begging, stay strong). Then follow through and call the advertisers. Be polite, be respectfull, but be firm.

God bless capitalism, and make it work for you this time.

[Dexter Rutecki]

(Maybe us taxpayers could call an unwarranted Federal probe an illegal allocation of funds?)

Yes, I'm waiting for Ken Starr to refund the $80 million he wasted on his useless, Republican funded fishing expedition that managed to uncover a lie about a blow job.

[Mountain Junkie]

The scary thing is I remember hearing somewhere that 75% of people ages 18-25 said that they get their news from the daily show

That's were I get my daily news from. If you're going to watch bullshit news (ie any news network), it should at least be humorous. Besides, they get some good guests on the show.

And I think Stewart is a Repub. He hinted as much in an interview I recently read.

[non grata]

that may be the case but there are many repub converts voting for kerry this time around.

[EPSkis]

Yes, I'm waiting for Ken Starr to refund the $80 million he wasted on his useless, Republican funded fishing expedition that managed to uncover a lie about a blow job.

Right. That's the particular stink I made the reference about.

edit: That was the popular argument against it at the time, right? So as usual - the logic only works for ONE side. I get it.

[mr_gyptian]

Dan Rather got fooled, reviewed the evidence, then apologized. He and 60 minutes are getting the beating they deserved. (and the right are using his mistake to claim that any attack on Georgie's war record is without merit)

Cameron lied directly and purposefully to the public, got caught, passed it off as a "joke" and has not been punished.

As for the SBVT, maybe Kerry thought he shouldn't dignify blatant lies with a response? And I'm sorry that all you've seen is attacks on the people producing these lies, perhaps that's because you've been ignoring the substantive debunking? (start here)

We've been down this road before and the only leg your argument has left to stand on was that in 1979 John Kerry mistated what the year was when he was in Cambodia. Oooohhhhh, now that's a character flaw!

------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and for those of you who want to do something about this sinclair bullshit here's an idea:

If so go here. It's a list of stations Sinclair owns. Google a station name (preferably in a swing state) and get their website. From their website get a list of their advertisers and their sales manager. Call the sales manager and tell him you're calling the local advertisers to complain (mention them by name) about Sinclair's decision (at this point he may start begging, stay strong). Then follow through and call the advertisers. Be polite, be respectfull, but be firm.

God bless capitalism, and make it work for you this time.

nice link. I'm looking at the link and it doesn't have anything from Kerry debunking the SBVT. Oh and he has not released his records.

Actually the leg I have to stand on is that the Kerry campaign has admitted he was never in Cambodia. despite the experience being seared into his brain.

I guess it might be one thing for some wet behind the ears reporter to be "fooled" by the difference between Times New Roman and a 1972 typewriter. but Dan Rather used typewriters not unlike the one he was supposedly fooled by.

It's not surprising, Dan's always been a loose cannon. My favorite performance ever was on election night four years ago. He was like the Cory Haim True Hollywood Story on national fucking TV. I'm not surprised he wasn't yanked. 60 minutes has a retirement policy rivaled only by the US Supreme Court.

[shamrockpow]

The funny thing about this movie is that I think it might be more legit than the SBVT. Attacking Kerry's medals from a distance (as opposed to the people in the boat) was a crock of shit. But if these guys are legitimately POWs that saw Kerry's testimony used by the VC and feel hurt then they can say what they want. Of course, if any of them say that their torture was materially worse or better b/c of John Kerry's 1971 testimony I'll have to ignore it - but that's what our thinking caps are for. And the legality of this from Sinclair's POV is shaky - ad revenue for 1 hour on 62 stations is a lot more than federal limits on campaign contributions.

The Dems should have known this was gonna get dirty and been out in front on this with a movie showing Al Qaeda Arabic-language recruitment ads starring George Bush "THE #1 TERRORIST RECRUITER IN THE WORLD." That is basically the equivalent to insinuating that John Kerry is responsible for torturing our own POWs...

[PacRimRider1]

another shot of everclear for the fire:

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

n recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine
President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that
Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't site a source as it was emailed to me without one. I'm sure its out there though.

I live in Oregon...am I going to be able to see this? On a recent visit to my parents house (aka republican HQ) i picked through "Unfit for Command," the sbvt book about Kerry during and after Vietnam. I've got to say that while I can understand how these vets feel betrayed by Kerry, this happened 30 years ago. He was just some rich kid trying to make a name for himself in American politics. Let it go. Goddamn, if thirty years from now my employers (or employees) are drilling me for the shit I do now, I'll probably end up in jail.

Oh, and as long as we can take our news from who ever is the funniest, I choose cartoon network.

[vote griffin]

[tuffy109]

hahaha @ "Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win' [said on FOX NEWS SAYSIDE]... "

[KQ]

Its really important and hard work to be morel.

.........

[shamrockpow]

Right. That's the particular stink I made the reference about.

edit: That was the popular argument against it at the time, right? So as usual - the logic only works for ONE side. I get it.

This is in the FEC's job description. Ken Starr was a special prosecutor. I guarentee the FEC won't spend a disproportionate sum investigating this movie as it does investigating the legality of 527 groups (a complaint brought by Republicans). When there's a special prosecutor spending $80 million taxpayer dollars to investigate GWB's coke habit and whether he lied about it, then I think the situations could be called analagous

[mr_gyptian]

another shot of everclear for the fire:

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

n recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine
President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that
Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't site a source as it was emailed to me without one. I'm sure its out there though.

I live in Oregon...am I going to be able to see this? On a recent visit to my parents house (aka republican HQ) i picked through "Unfit for Command," the sbvt book about Kerry during and after Vietnam. I've got to say that while I can understand how these vets feel betrayed by Kerry, this happened 30 years ago. He was just some rich kid trying to make a name for himself in American politics. Let it go. Goddamn, if thirty years from now my employers (or employees) are drilling me for the shit I do now, I'll probably end up in jail.

Oh, and as long as we can take our news from who ever is the funniest, I choose cartoon network.

[vote griffin]

based upon griffin's urban renewal program in the fine hamlet of Quahog. I couldn't agree more.

the Bremer Op-Ed is from last week's NY Times.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Right. That's the particular stink I made the reference about.

edit: That was the popular argument against it at the time, right? So as usual - the logic only works for ONE side. I get it.

Aside from the fact that in this case relevant laws are being broken, you would be right.

Also funny how everyone in the Dan Rather 'scandal' who wanted to claim a liberal bias forgot how all the networks ran with the 'Kerry had sex with an intern' story which was completely false and based on typically shoddy Drudge internet 'reporting'. At least Rather was right on the facts, even if the documents weren't real.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Firstly, everyone has a bias. Period. Consult various sources of media and develop your own version of truth and reality. The problem lies not so much in the media but the sheep that beleive the spew. The idea that the "average American" take the 5 o'clock news (or Rush or Moore) as gospel is sad. Conservative and liberal media both fuel the proaganda machine, deal with it. The idea that "the media", whatever that is, are somehow morally bound to present a balanced perspective is obserd. I certainly wouldn't expect a pro pinstripe perspective from Sean McDonough and Jerry Remy.

Secondly, This Sinclair Broadcasting Group appears to be a bit of an anomoly. I did some research and fullling expected a direct link to the moral right specifially Sinclair Broadcasting>Sinclair Oil>Earl Holden>Snowbasin. None of this is true. Its a widely held (all the big boy investment companies) public company run and started by brothers from MD. Interestingly their stock price has gone from $12 to $5 and change trading at its 1yr low today. Doesn't seem like their strategy makes much sense.

[fesser]

FEC = Federal Election Commission
FCC = Federal Communications Commission

I meant the FCC earlier.

At least I can admit when I wrong, which more than you can say for.........

[Spats]

The Republicans' plan is to end democracy in America. Anyone who doesn't see this isn't paying attention.

It's just like Orwell's 1984. Except instead of the government owning and controlling the media and the means of production, extremely rich Republicans control the media, the means of production, and the government.

For example, here's the "media control" part:

-Media corporations contribute big dollars to Republicans (and some Democrats). In return, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. gut the FCC's ownership and equal time rules so that our airwaves are concentrated in the hands of a few Republican-controlled large corporations.

-Now we're seeing the second stage: those large corporations openly using their power to re-elect Republicans. They have slanted the news for a long time, but only recently have corporations like Fox and Sinclair become so confident in their dominance that they can pre-empt regular programming to show naked propaganda.

[road trip]

1) didn't said media group offer the Kerry campaign equal time on their networks to debunk the "documentary" (which they refused)?

2) Comedy Central consulted with Nielsan (sp?) the rating service to get demographics on "The Daily Show" and it basically showed that its viewers were vastly more educated than viewers of "The O'Reilly Factor"

CNN article - The Daily Show vs. The O'Reilly Factor

[Tippster]

Its really important and hard work to be morel.

http://asm.wku.edu/pix/fungi/morel.jpg

[tuffy109]

FCC COMMISSIONER STATEMENT ON SINCLAIR AIRING OF ANTI-KERRY SHOW
Tue Oct 12 2004 13:39:02 ET

FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO PREEMPT LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST

Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.

Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”

END

[Potsy]

The Republicans' plan is to end democracy in America. Anyone who doesn't see this isn't paying attention.

It's just like Orwell's 1984. Except instead of the government owning and controlling the media and the means of production, extremely rich Republicans control the media, the means of production, and the government.

For example, here's the "media control" part:

-Media corporations contribute big dollars to Republicans (and some Democrats). In return, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. gut the FCC's ownership and equal time rules so that our airwaves are concentrated in the hands of a few Republican-controlled large corporations.

-Now we're seeing the second stage: those large corporations openly using their power to re-elect Republicans. They have slanted the news for a long time, but only recently have corporations like Fox and Sinclair become so confident in their dominance that they can pre-empt regular programming to show naked propaganda.

Werd!

And if that kind of shit and the Patriot Act are your thing, you're going to love tort reform.

[Tippster]

I will say this once to go on the record:

Tort reform will NEVER happen in this country.

There are plenty of Republican Trial Lawyers as well. Don't let the Shrub fool you on this one. It's one of those issues that gets raised every now and then, and promptly goes the way of the Dodo.