Armageddon, anyone? I really don't think this is what those who voted for Bush had in mind. --Politex, 11.09.04

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
--George W. Bush, 12.18.00

Editorial: The Liarfuhrer of the combined forces of unfettered corporate greed and undemocratic theocracy has led his thoughtless followers to the promised land of arrogance, thought-control, and selfishness run amock. Our country can ill-afford four more years of the kind of Bush domestic and foreign policy that we have already experienced. There is no reason to suspect that Bush will not continue to harm us, both here and abroad. His economic polices are calculated to reward the rich, destroy the social safety nets of the poor and the middle-class, and drive up the massive national debt that will punish the nation for decades to come. Bush's neocon-hawk-driven foreign policy is isolating us from our traditional allies all over the world, is responsible for the deaths and suffering of hundreds of thousands of U.S., Iraqi, and world citizens, and is exposing us to the whims of terrorists and the authoritarian deceits of both foreign and American fundamentalists. It is up to us, every one of us, to fight this corrupt and disreputable administration every day of our lives and to demonstrate our dissatisfaction and moral concern to our fellow citizens as often as we can. --Politex, 11.03.04

Bush (total 261) wins: Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska (4), Wyoming, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, Arkansas, Missouri, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Alaska, Nevada, Iowa

Kerry (total 252) wins: Vermont, Illinois, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, Maryland, Maine (3), Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island. Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin Hawaii

Undecided: Ohio (20), New Mexico (5)CNN

Sinclair's television group includes 20 FOX, 19 WB, 6 UPN, 8 ABC, 3 CBS, 4 NBC affiliates and 2 independent stations and reaches approximately 24% of all U.S. television households. Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations, some of which are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin, to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" during prime-time hours next week.

According to the Washington Post, "Sinclair's top executives, including members of the controlling Smith family, have been strong financial supporters of Bush's campaign. The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest." Sinclair also is one of the few station-group owners that puts corporate opinion on its local newscasts. Hyman delivers conservative commentaries called "The Point." The "Stolen Honor" documentary, which was released in early September, raises many of the same issues brought up by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group that has run ads in battleground states criticizing Kerry's wartime record and antiwar activities, especially his 1971 testimony."

According to the BBC, "The decision to air the documentary on the 62 stations that Sinclair either owns or supplies programmes for has been criticised not only by the Kerry campaign but also by media analysts, who say showing the one-sided film [on the public airwaves] so close to the election is unfair...Its move is highly unusual and may breach federal regulations requiring stations to give equal time to major candidates in an election campaign."

"'This is an abuse of the public trust,' Federal Communications Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, said in a statement yesterday. "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."

Is there a Sinclair TV station in your town?

Have you seen the STOP SINCLAIR PETITION? To be sent to Sinclair, its advertisers, and the FCC.

Christine: What do you think of Dick Cheney's remark yesterday that in the third debate John Kerry should not have brought up Mary Cheney's lesbianism in an answer to the question, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"

Jerry: You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, and I am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father. As a father, I'm angry that Dick Cheney has chosen to use his own daughter as a polilitical football in an attempt to distract the nation from the fact that Kerry won the third debate. My first sentence, of course, is yesterday's Dick Cheney quote. I know why I'm angry, but I don't know why Dick Cheney's angry, because he never said. Neither did his wife, Lynn Cheney, who said, "I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. [Kerry] is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick. Like her husband, she never explained what the trick was. I hope they get around to doing so, but I'm not holding my breath.

After all, both Dick Cheney and Lynn Cheney have publicly stated that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay branch of the GOP, has publicly stated that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, and Dick Cheney thanked John Edwards for his remarks during last week's Veep debates when Edwards mentioned, in response to a question dealing with homosexuality, that Mary Cheney, who happens to hold a political position in the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, is a lesbian. Unlike Republican Senatorial candidate Alan Keyes, who blasted Mary Cheney as a "selfish hedonist," John Kerry was saying good things about both Mary Cheney and the Cheney family. Is Kerry the only one who can't mention that Mary Cheney is a lesbian in a relevant context? Smells like Karl Rove to me, and the Cheney's should be ashamed to buy into his smear tactics. These people will say anything and exploit anyone to get elected.

Christine: Any other response to the third debate?

Jerry: Bush continued on his liar's tour, but this time on a new topic. In answer to a question about the Bush vaccine scandal, he said, "We relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizens and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country." The offending company was an American company working out of a factory in England, England took the action against the contaminated medicine, not the U.S., and the Bush FDA has known about the problem for a year and has done nothing.

Christine: You seem worked up about the vaccine shortage. Why do you call it a "scandal"?

Because it's typical of life in the U.S. under Bush. Bush said "I haven't gotten a flu shot, and I don't intend to because I want to make sure those who are most vulnerable get treated." Yet, asurvey reported that over 40% of the drug distributors who have contacted 2500 hospitals are charging $32 for a $8 flu shot, and an additional 10% are charging $80. Bush is doing nothing to stop such inhumane price-gouging. "The price-gouging is an "immoral thing," Dr. Julie Gerberding, director at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), told CNNfn's Fred Katayama. "Shame on the people who are price-gouging," she added." Calling for shame is not enough to stop such behavior.

It's no secret that Bush favors corporations over people, because corporations have put him in power, and it's no secret that he weakens government safeguards over corporations every chance he gets. He has created a climate in which corporations feel encouraged to see how far they can go to make a buck in the face of weakened consumer protections. "Dr. Schaffner, a member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee,...questioned whether Chiron had been truthful in reassuring everyone that the contamination problem was being resolved." The Chiron Corporation's production of contaminated medicine is just the latest in a long line of examples Of weak Bush oversight. Meanwhile, Bush and the CEO's call for even more liability protections. According to a recent New York Times editorial, because of the resulting vaccine shortage throughout the nation, people will die. That's a scandal and Bush and his corporate buddies should answer for it. --10.14.04

see NYT, Oct.9,2004

see Seattle PI, Oct.9,2004

see NYT, Oct.6,2004

see Judy Robson, Oct.6,2004

see NYT ed, Oct.6,2004

Twelve Big Cheney Debate Lies (...and counting)

edited by Jerry Politex

1. Mr. Edwards accused the vice president of having justified the invasion of Iraq by saying a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Cheney declared: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." What Mr. Cheney said was only partly true, because while he has never explicitly made the link, he has on several occasions strongly suggested that evidence pointed to such a connection.(NYT, 10/6/04)

2. Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official -- even after that theory was largely discredited....On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (WP, 10/6/04)

3. In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.(WP, 10/6/04)

4. Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that "the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate." While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in "direct aid." Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived. Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have "taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent." The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded. (NYT, 10/6/04)

Editor's Note: The discussion of casualties was in the context of Bush's "coalition of the willing." Iraq was never a part of that coalition.

5. Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had repeatedly voted against spending for military weapons systems in the last years of the cold war. That is true. But Mr. Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, opposed some of the systems himself, including the Apache helicopter and the F-14 aircraft.(NYT, 10/6/04)

6. Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. No question, he cast votes for higher taxes. But the number Mr. Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry had voted against the overall legislation because the benefits went largely to the wealthy.(NYT, 10/6/04)

7. Mr. Cheney said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000. The Tax Policy Center found that only about 5 percent of small businesses would be affected by the Kerry plan and that much of the income of the business operators who would be affected came from sources other than their businesses.(NYT, 10/6/04)

8. Mr. Cheney referred to a suspected ricin facility in Iraq as evidence of support for terrorism by Saddam Hussein's regime. It was in an area controlled by a group linked to Al Qaeda operating in northern Iraq at a time when that region was controlled by Kurdish forces, and not patrolled by Mr. Hussein's forces.(NYT, 10/6/04)

9. Mr. Cheney was correct in saying that the nation has added about 1.7 million jobs in the past year. What he did not say is employment has yet to return to its level before the recession of 2001 and the sharp decline in manufacturing employment that continued nearly two years after the recession officially ended in November 2001. More importantly, in the view of many economists, employment growth has lagged even further behind the growth in population. The nation's adult work force climbs by more than a million people every year. So even if the number of jobs returns to its level in January 2001, as many as three million more people would still be unemployed or underemployed than they were at that time. (NYT, 10/6/04)

10. Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets. (WP, 10/6/04)

11. Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org -- a nonpartisan group Cheney cited during the debate as a fair data checker -- says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions. (WP, 10/6/04)

12. Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program. (WP, 10/6/04)

Twenty Big Bush Debate Lies

edited by Jerry Politex

1. "Bush hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a "phenomenal statistic." But Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions." (WP, 10/1/04)

2. "On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations. But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer." (WP, 10/1/04)

3. "In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: "Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan. But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. Yesterday, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan." (WP, 10/01/04)

4. "Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But in his first budget, he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress." (WP, 10/1/04)

5. "Bush said "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming." Yet Iraq asserted in its filing with the United Nations in December 2002 that it had no such weapons, and none has been found. The Bush administration invaded Iraq because it believed Hussein was concealing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Some post-invasion reports have argued that Hussein retained the capability to restart his weapons programs, but many experts consider that doubtful as long as he remained under U.N. sanctions and inspections." (WP, 10/1/04)

6. "Bush also overstated the case when he corrected Kerry by saying that the senator forgot to mention that Poland supplied forces when the invasion began. Kerry said there were three countries that did -- Britain, Australia and the United States -- and Bush said, "actually he forgot Poland." Poland later supplied troops and commanded a zone in Iraq. But, except for a few commandos, Polish troops were not part of the original ground invasion." (WP, 10/1/04)

7. " As part of his case that Kerry has sent mixed messages, Bush asserted that "he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it." While Bush meant it as a jab, this was an accurate description of the Senate process. Kerry supported a different version of the bill, which was opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line. In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground, but he faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction." (WP, 10/1/04)

8. "Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the US is "spending reconstruction money," when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for US officials. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Sept. 24 that only $1.2 billion in reconstruction money had actually been spent so far , out of the total of $18 billion that was appropriated last December in "emergency" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. (FC, 10/01/04)

9. "Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as "shake-and-bake" forces. Only 8,000 of the total are police who have received a full eight-week course of training." (FC, 10/1/04)

10. "The President misquoted Kerry's position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said "I'll have them out of there in six months," which is false. Kerry complained, "he's misled us again." What Kerry actually said was that he believed he could "significantly reduce" US troop levels in Iraq within six months of taking office -- not at all the same thing as having all troops "out of there." (FC, 10/1/04)

11. "The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries." (FC, 10/1/04)

12. "The president suggested that the war in Iraq was connected to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying, "The enemy attacked us." The federal Sept. 11 commission, however, said that so far, it found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." In addition, Defense Intelligence Agency analysts concluded in several papers in 2002 that even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was unlikely to give them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups." (KR, 10/1/04)

13. "Kerry was correct that while Bush promised he'd plan carefully for a war in Iraq, his administration ignored a huge State Department "Future of Iraq" project, ignored intelligence warnings that the country could descend into chaos and failed to include enough troops to secure the country's borders, nuclear plants and ammunition dumps. Kerry also was right that the only government building in Baghdad that was guarded by American troops after the city fell was the oil ministry." (KR, 10/1/04)

14. "Bush's main line of attack all evening was his charge that Kerry keeps changing positions on Iraq. In fact, while Kerry admitted Thursday night that he hasn't always expressed himself clearly, he's never backed away from his vote authorizing the war and he's always said that Bush should have sought more international help. When he voted for the war resolution in October 2002, Kerry made it clear that he favored a "multilateral effort" if diplomacy failed." (KR, 10/1/04)

15. "The Claim: The difficulties facing the U.S. in Iraq are a product of foreign terrorists showing up to fight the America there.

Reality Check: The U.S. military on the ground says that the overwhelming majority of the insurgents fighting the U.S. in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners." (TIME, 10/1/04)

16. "The Claim: President Bush says he tried diplomacy in Iraq, and went to war only when it failed.

Reality Check: Numerous accounts from within the U.S. and allied governments suggest the Bush Administration had decided to invade Iraq even before it went to the UN in the fall of 2002, and had gone back to the international body only under pressure from moderates in its own ranks and from Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. The termination of the UN inspection process had nothing to do with its progress; it was based primarily on the window of opportunity for an invasion presented by the seasonal calendar." (TIME, 10/1/04)

17. "The Claim: Saddam Hussein would have grown stronger had the invasion not occurred. Reality Check: The decrepit state of the Iraqi military, its negligible pursuit of prohibited weapons, and the widespread internal rot of the regime that emerged after it collapsed showed that, in fact, containment had succeeded in weakening Saddam Hussein  although an enormous cost to Iraq's civilian population." (TIME, 10/1/04)

18. " The Claim: A free Iraq will help secure Israel. Reality Check: The bulk of Iraq's Arab majority, both Sunni and Shiite, hold the same hostile view of Israel as their brethren throughout the Arab world. While elements of one particular faction of the formerly exiled opposition (Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress) have suggested that ties with Israel could be established, there's no evidence to support the claim that an Iraqi government reflective of the popular will would be any warmer toward Israel than any of its neighbors." (TIME, 10/1/04)

19. " The Claim: We have 30 nations in our coalition; our coalition is strong. Reality Check: There isn't a single Arab country in the coalition, in contrast to the wide Arab participation in the Gulf War. And the U.S. and Britain between them provided more than 90 percent of the troops. Moreover, eight of the countries that initially joined the U.S. have since pulled out their soldiers, and more are expected to follow. Efforts to persuade Muslim countries to send troops have foundered." (TIME, 10/1/04)

20. "Striving for emotional effect rather than precision, he seemed at times to conflate Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked a Russian school into a single adversary." (BDC, 10/1/04)

Christine: Everyone's giving John Kerry advice on the day of the first debate. Do you have any to offer?

Jerry: Sure, Kerry should JUST SAY "NO." OR "YES." Last night in his only pre-debate TV interview, he was asked, point blank, if we should have invaded Iraq. His answer was, and I paraphrase, It depends upon how we do in Iraq in the future. He then went on to further muddy the water, then he threw the muddy water up in the air and it came down on his head and dripped into his eyes. Won't the man ever learn? Also, Kerry needs to put more space between himself and Bush on Iraq policy, if he can.

Over a month ago Kerry was asked a simple question, and if he loses the election it will come back to haunt him...and us: Knowing what you know now, would you still vote to give authority to Bush to go to war with Iraq? Kerry's answer should have been a slam-dunk: "NO." When he said, "Yes," my initial thought was he was selling out a viable political position, one that, I believe, most Democrats hold, because he couldn't get out of a lock-step defense of the way most congressmen see things in Washington: you don't want to undercut the power of the President if you want to be President some day. My next thought was that he must have known the question would come up and determined that he would get more middle-of-the-road votes by answering as he did, since those Democrats who disagree with him, the majority, I believe, would have no place to go if they really wanted to defeat Bush.

Christine: Circumstances have proven Kerry wrong, haven't they?

Jerry: I know he has lost some of the enthusiasm of part of his base, lost middle-of-the-road votes because he's seen as not being much different on Iraq than Bush, and he is still being accused of being a flip-flopper by the Rove propaganda machine. My own problem with Kerry's Iraq position is that I would never have given Bush the power to go to war with Iraq in the first place. First, by that time Bush had given the nation more than enough indication that he was running an administration willing to lie through its teeth to get what it wanted, and the evidence being presented and methods being used to defend its position was highly questionable, at best. And, let's face it, Kerry wasn't born yesterday: he knows what neocons are, he knows who they are in the Bush administration, and he knows the track records of ultra-conservative hawks such as Cheney and Ashcroft.

Finally, I can't agree with Kerry's premise that the value of going to war with Iraq is yet to be decided. We went to war with Iraq for the wrong reasons, we harmed our standing in the world by doing so, we created new rules of conduct that could cause blowback, and we strengthened, not weakened, the hand of terrorism by so doing. Morality aside, given the reality of the situation in Iraq, I can't imagine any realistic scenario that will undo the harm Bush has caused, and Kerry is wrong to go along with it. --09.30.04

Christine: Who do you think will win the debates?

Jerry: Debates? What debates. Those who have read the rules say there's less spontaneity than ever before. The candidate can't ask follow-up questions about what his opponent says, and neither can the moderator, so there aren't going to be any debates. What we'll hear are canned comments going by like freight trains in response to intial questions by the moderator. That's what Bush-Rove got as a "compromise" in order for Kerry to have three debates rather than two. Bush-Rove didn't want to have a town meeting debate format, because that would involve questions from citizens.

Of course, somewhere in the 32 pages of rules for the debates, there are rules for carefully screening the citizens who ask the questions, just like party plants who ask questions at Bush campaign stops: the Gallup poll, which has used more Republicans than Democrats in its polls, will select an equal number of "soft" Bush supporters and "soft" Kerry supporters, and "ABC's Charles Gibson, who's moderating [the forum], is supposed to pre-select written questions and then "cut off" anyone who changes the wording submitted," notes one observer.

Christine: That figures. As one reporter said on Lou Dobbs the other evening, the only possibility for any shift in the poll numbers based upon the content of the debates is if one of the candidates makes a mistake in a canned respones.

Jerry: What a joke! Yet, the media would have us believe that our democratic debate process is still intact. With each passing election, the democratic traditons of a free society are slowly but surely being strangled, while the politicians and pundits pretend that everything's fine. That's why the thrust of the commentary on the debates has been about how style will decide the winner, because it's obvious that content will be propaganda, just like at the conventions and in the ads. Dobbs had a question for his viewers to call/e-mail a response to: What will most help you select your candidate, ads, the conventions, or the debates? How about "none of the above"?

Breaking News: The Debate Commission is refusing to sign the Bush-Kerry agreement and Bush has threatened to pull out if they don't, according to a story in today's NYT: "Officials of the debate commission said they were agreeing primarily to those things Mr. Bush's aides had emphasized as especially important to them: a strict time limit on candidate responses, an electronic warning when candidates exceed their speaking time that can be seen and heard by viewers at home, and a prohibition against the candidates' directly posing questions to each other.

One official said the commission would probably not abide by the agreement's stipulation that the audience at the Oct. 8 town-hall-style debate in Missouri be composed of people who are "soft supporters" of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, meaning they had not solidly made up their minds but were leaning one way or another. The commission had proposed that the audience be filled with strictly undecided voters....

Debate commission officials also said they could not and would not enforce the agreement's stipulation that network cameras refrain from showing Mr. Bush when Mr. Kerry was speaking, and vice versa. "There are certain things that are clearly beyond our control," said Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., a co-chairman of the commission. "We don't control the feed so we don't know what the networks are going to show; that's not within our purview." Paul Schur, a spokesman for the Fox News Channel, which is telecasting the first debate on Thursday for the major news networks planning to carry it, said, "Because of journalistic standards, we're not going to follow outside restrictions."

Christine: What do you make of today's NYT story about the minority Dems on the House-Senate conference committee agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts without "trying to pay for them" and without " either imposing a surcharge on wealthy families or closing corporate tax shelters"?

Jerry: It's generally agreed that the two biggest issues in the presidential campaign are Iraq and the economy, and the minority Dems have rubberstamped Bush initiatives on both, primarily because they didn't have the votes to stop them and they were more concerned about their own campaigns than principles. Kerry's still trying to get out from under his Senate vote to give Bush permission to go to war as a last resort, and now his party has cut his legs out from under him on the tax cut extensions.

On Iraq, Kerry says his later votes indicated that he didn't think the Bush decision to go to war was a last resort, now he's saying that he wanted to "roll back Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners, families with annual incomes above $200,000." Since polls suggest not enough voters understand Kerry's Iraq distinction, I wonder if voters will understand his tax cut distinction, given what his fellow Dem senators have done. No wonder Kerry hasn't been talking about the biggest scandal of the Bush economic policy, the growing massive deficit that will be used by Republicans for decades to come to destroy social services that benefit the poor and the middle class.

Take, for example, yesterday's NYT story about Bush seeking to cut housing aid to the poor: " The Bush administration has proposed reducing the value of subsidized-housing vouchers given to poor residents in New York City next year, with even bigger cuts planned for some urban areas in New England....The changes would affect most of the 1.9 million families who participate in the Section 8 program, the government's primary housing program for the poor."

Christine: Has the NYT's William Safire become a Democrat? His column today offers advice on how Kerry could turn his campaign around and beat Bush. This is coming from a partisan Republican propagandist who has absolutely no interest in a Kerry win.

Jerry: Other than his libertarian stance on free speech and media issues, Safire can be counted on to reflect the party line, and right now the party line is to call the election for Bush on the basis of national polls fabricated by Republican backers. In a Bush Watch reprint of a story by Steve Soto today, we learn that Bush has a 13% edge over Kerry in a Gallup poll oll of likely voters. However, 40% of those polled were Republicans and only 33% were Democrats. It turns out that this sampling bias has been used by Gallup on all of their national and state polls, and they don't plan to change. And it gets worse:

"The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup's CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats."

Christine: How does a Safire column giving Kerry advice on how to win mirror the party line that the polls show Bush has moved into a big lead?

Jerry: Safire's implicit premise is that Kerry is doing so poorly that a hidebound Republican like himself can afford to give Kerry advice just to be fair and make it a horse race. That gives Safire brownie points as an unbiased pundit, unafraid of the facts, which, of course, is far from the truth. --09.20.04 (previous)