Friday, September 17, 2004

Curious & Curiouser

CBS News revealed on Wednesday that they had SIX, not four, alleged Killian memos. We in the blogosphere have known this for a week. USA Today had all six memos in PDF format on their website. Strangely, USAT removed the “extra” memos from the file over the weekend; however, last time I checked, they had replaced one of them. What’s going on here?
Here’s what I think happened: instead of hiring one top-notch expert to look at all the memos, CBS News cherry-picked SIX experts, one for each memo. Three of the experts have confirmed this: Marcel Matley, Emily Will and Linda James. Matley only verified the accuracy of the signature, not the entire memo he was “assigned” to. Emily Will warned CBS News not to go on air with these memos.
Why would CBS News do it this way? Because they suspected the memos were forgeries. So they discarded the memos rejected by Will and James, but went with the other four. If someone gives you six twenty dollar bills and you discover that two of them are counterfeits, aren’t you going to suspect the other four?
This is no longer a question of CBS News and Dan Rather being duped. They are willing accomplices.
Earlier this week, Newsweek fingered one Bill Burkett as CBS News’ “unimpeachable source.” He’s harbored a long-standing grudge against Bush. Yesterday we learned that the memos were faxed to CBS News from a Kinkos in Abilene, TX. Burkett lives in Baird, TX, just 21 miles from Abilene. Burkett has a standing account at that particular Kinko’s.
Burkett’s attorney, David Van Os, denied his client had anything to do with the memos. Van Os is an interesting character. Here’s is bio. You’ll notice he has been an important official in the Travis County Austin), TX Democrat Party. By coincidence, Robin Rather, daughter of Dan, is a well-known political activist in Texas, and is also an official in the Travis county Democrat Party. She is also a likely candidate for Austin Mayor in 2006. Four years ago she invited her famous father to a fundraiser there, where he would almost certainly have met another top official in that local party: Ben Barnes.
Dan Rather failed to mention that Barnes has raised over $500,000 for the Democrat Party, and is the nation’s third largest individual Kerry campaign fundraiser. He is also vice-chairman of the Kerry campaign. (when it was discovered that the SwiftVets were partially funded by a Houston Republican, it was enough for the mainstream media, including Dan Rather, to dismiss the SwiftVets out of hand)
A few days ago I was about 75% sure that Karl Rove was behind all this. Now I think that’s highly unlikely. All leads point to the Travis County Democrats and, by extension, the DNC.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Three-Prong Attack On Bush Collapses

The NBC Today show is scheduled to feature Kitty Kelley's new Bush hit piece on three consecutive mornings starting on Monday. Kelley's reputation precedes her. She once claimed that Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan did the bad thing in the Oval Office. In her new book she accuses the current First Lady, Laura Bush, of using and selling drugs in her younger days. Only a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth liberal could possibly believe that.
Why would NBC give this woman even one day- let alone three- to plug her latest garbage? We all know the answer to that one, don't we?
Fortunately, NBC may have second thoughts. Kelley's biggest "bombshell" is that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his father was president. Kelley claims she got this nugget from Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush. Yesterday, Mrs. Bush flatly denied telling this story to Kelley, or anyone else.
The other two prongs involve Dan Rather, Ben Barnes and a couple of "damaging" memos that just happened to fall into Rather's lap. Ben Barnes is a former Texas Lieutenant-Governor, who now claims he helped Bush get into the Texas National Guard (TNG). What Rather failed to mention is that Barnes is a big Kerry fund-raiser, a personal friend and neighbor of Kerry's, and previously, Barnes swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting Bush into the TNG.
As you probably know by now, the supposedly damaging documents are forgeries; and very amateurish forgeries at that.
The most baffling thing about this three-pronged attack is how utterly inept it has been. Kitty Kelley! Cut me some slack! Are we expected to take this wretched woman seriously? And what about CBS News? Do they really believe Ben Barnes is credible? Back in the 1960's, Barnes was considered a rising star in Texas politics; a future president, perhaps. But by the early 1970's his career was over... because he was corrupt.
And finally, the forged documents. They are such obvious forgeries, I don't understand why the hot shot investigative reporters at CBS News could be taken in by them. Perhaps they weren't; perhaps they still don't understand the power of bloggers such as Powerline, who made short work of exposing these documents. A few years ago, CBS may have pulled this off.
It had occurred to me yesterday that the Bush campaign may have produced these forged documents in order to flush out the LMM (Liberal Mainstream Media). Today I've changed my mind. There was no percentage in it. Why would the Bush campaign take a chance that Dan Rather's obvious bias would get the better of him? Too risky. By the way, don't be surprised if CBS News internal investigation concludes that they've been had... by Karl Rove; whether it's true or not.
I have a feeling this three-pronged attack was supposed to be launched in late October, but the LMM panicked because of the Kerry campaign meltdown. The LMM decided to unload six or seven weeks early, with disastrous consequences.
Finally, I think it's time for Dan Rather to go. His 60 Minutes show is simply an extension of the Kerry campaign. What little remained of his credibility has been destroyed. Rather is 72 now and becoming more outrageous the older he gets. The CBS top brass should find the courage to show him the door.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

AOL Straw Poll

What's up with the AOL Straw Poll? According to this poll, Bush is winning 49 states, Kerry is only ahead in Vermont (barely) and D.C. It's an ongoing poll; so far 32,000 have voted. One theory is that since you are allowed one vote per month per username, many people are taking advantage of AOL's generous 7 usernames per account. But that goes for Republicans and Democrats. 32,000 is a very large sample, especially when compared to the average sample used by established polling firms such as Gallup and Zogby (about 1,000).
But I can't believe Bush is up 65-34. That would be by far the biggest landslide in U.S. history. Having said that, it would explain the abject panic of the Kerry campaign and their media buddies.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Democrats Election To Lose

Despite the recent bounce in the polls for Bush/Cheney, the majority of Americans still feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Why do they feel this way? Simple. They have been bombarded with disinformation from the Democrats and an increasingly biased Old Media. Because of this, George W. Bush ought to be staring defeat in the face, but he isn't. The Democrats have blown a golden opportunity; they nominated the worst political candidate I have ever seen in my life: the "electable" John Forbes Kerry.
John Edwards may have won, even though he's nothing more than a vacuous pretty boy and political lightweight. Joe Lieberman would have won; hell, Howard Dean would be doing better than Kerry!
So on behalf of the Republican Party, I would like to thank the Iowa Democrats for ensuring John Kerry's nomination. You have, unwittingly, performed a great service to your country. Just like those Florida Democrats who accidently voted for Pat Buchanan four years ago.

Kerry Does It Again!

At a rally in Canonsburg, PA yesterday, John Kerry told the literally dozens of party faithful that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." This is just unbelievable! Another flip-flop on Iraq. Not even the most partisan Democrat can deny that this man is the Heavyweight flip-flop champion of the world. There are only two explanations for this: either John Kerry is an absolute cretin, or he believes the American people are cretins. As I said, there are no other alternatives.
A few weeks ago, Kerry shocked his base when he declared that he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he knew then what he knows now. Now he's saying it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
How can anybody even contemplate voting for this clown?

Monday, September 06, 2004

Time To Put More Pressure On David Brinkley

We were told that John Kerry couldn't release his Vietnam journals because his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, has exclusive access to them. Not true, says Brinkley; Kerry can show his journals to anyone he likes. The only stipulation is that anyone who uses them must cite Brinkley's book.
Of course. it is scandalous that the Old Media aren't howling for Kerry to not only release the journals, but also sign an SF-180, which would authorize the Navy Department to make all his military records available to the public.
But there is another opening here: why doesn't Brinkley call Kerry's bluff and release all relevant notes in his possession. Kerry would be in no position to complain.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

So Much For The Experts

Back in June, I thought John Kerry would win the election. You see, I believed the "experts." The Kerry campaign were confident. they believed the election was "in the bag." Pollster John Zogby stated that the election was Kerry's to lose. Traditionally, undecided voters broke two to one for the challenger on election day. Historically, polling data shows there is usually a mini-surge towards the Democrat candidate during the dying days of the campaign.
The war in Iraq was going badly, the Abu Ghraib scandal dominated the news for weeks. And last, but not least, the mainstream media was (and still is) astonishingly biased towards Kerry.
Given all this, I believed Kerry would win all the states Al Gore won in 2000, and would also pick up Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Maine and a few other states besides.
The Democrat National Convention in Boston was more like a victory rally than a convention. The TV talking heads talked about Kerry "hitting a home run" and "closing the deal with the American people." Kerry's acceptance speech was declared a "grand slam" by excited TV anchors such as Dan Rather Biased, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings (The Three Stooges).
Everyone waited for the expected big bounce for Kerry.
There was no bounce.
At this point I should have learned my lesson: don't listen to these so-called experts. But they quickly recovered their composure, and began to rationalize what happened. It had already been a long campaign, they said. The Democrat nomination battle had been decided in early March. Most voters had already made up their minds; the bases were already solidified. Very few undecided voter remained for the two campaigns to fight over. In conclusion, the "experts" assured us that the GOP convention would yield a small bounce or no bounce at all.
On Friday - the day after the GOP convention ended - a Time poll gave Bush an 11 point lead. Just to show this was no fluke, a Newsweek poll released yesterday also gives Bush an 11 point lead (and a 13 point bounce).
The "experts" got it spectacularly wrong... again. From now on, I will listen to my instincts. Never again will I believe the TV talking heads. In fact, I think they should stop talking.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Kerry's Campaign Strategy

This is basically an extension of my previous post.
Why was the Kerry campaign so unprepared for the SwiftVets? Why were they in such total disarray? Answer: they thought the Liberal Mainstream Media (LMM) would protect them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually received assurances from the LMM top brass that they wouldn't touch the SwiftVet story with a ten feet pole. The LMM had already ignored the emotional SwiftVet press conference held in Washington D.C. on May 4th. The Kerry people were probably somewhat concerned when it became apparent that the veterans hadn't given up, but I doubt if they lost any sleep over it.
The SwiftVets managed to scrape together enough money to run a TV ad in three battleground states; Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The LMM ignored it for a couple of weeks, but talk radio, Fox News and the blogosphere practically bullied them into covering the story.
You know the rest.
The SwiftVets managed to destroy the carefully planned strategy formulated by the Kerry campaign and the DNC back in late winter. Here's how I think it went down: Kerry has an abysmal senate voting record on national security issues, and the country is at war. What to do? First, attack Bush's National Guard service. The national and Texas media had already thoroughly investigated it several times, but the LMM would be more than happy to do it all again. Second, make Kerry's Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. This would help portray Kerry as a tough guy who was capable of taking on Al Q'aeda. Kerry had already taken steps in this direction by hiring historian Douglas Brinkley to write a glowing biography of him. This was to be a major component of his campaign (unfortunately for him, it was to be his undoing. The SwiftVets read it).
Kerry's Vietnam combat record would serve another important purpose. It would be a shield to deflect any criticism of Kerry's senate record. Any time a Republican questioned that record, Kerry would simply respond with "How dare you question my patriotism! I served in Vietnam. Bush and Cheney didn't. I've got three Purple Hearts. Yadda-yadda-yadda..."
The strategy seemed to be working... until the SwiftVets destroyed it.