I am sure once they have something other than tv ads to show as proof they will do something.

I don't mean to be rude and try to hijack the debate here, but I'm trying to figure out what the 60-day prohibition on issue advertising that's built in to McCain-Feingold really means, and why it doesn't look like it's being enforced anywhere, particularly with respect to the CBS infomercial.

Details here.

If anybody can help me figure this out, I'd sure appreciate it.

If you're feeling up to it, it might be nice to have a "It's been X many days and y many hours since John Kerry last sat down for an interview with a serious media outlet" counter as well. I'd do it myself, but, well, I'm a musician.

Isn't this the same 60 minutes that recently showed the Princess Di autopsy photos?

Politics aside, it'd be great to see another MSM outlet point out that the once proud network of Murrow and (pre-war) Cronkite is fast becoming the National Enquirer of the major networks. Well, in all fairness, the Nat. Enq. is probably a lot more entertaining.

Don't hold your breath for 60 Minutes to turn its guns on Kerry or his "Little Me" John Edwards. Ain't gonna happen. I once wrote to 60 Minutes regarding why -- after having Richard Clark, Woodward and Clinton plugging their books and bashing Bush -- they didn't have Gen. Tommy Franks on their bogus news show. It was a rhetorical question since I know why. The closest the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth got to a fair deal from anyone in the media was when Bill O'Reilly interviewed John O'Neill last yesterday. Of course, today he had Ralph Nader on his show calling Bush a Chicken Hawk and a former Clinton DoD political hack who believes George Bush would not be so quick to go to war if he'd been in Vietnam. But at least O'Reilly gave O'Neill a chance to tell viewers the truth about the great war-hero John F. Kerry.

Katie:

Polipundit is keeping track of the days Kerry's been AWOL. One month, eight days and counting.

I'm confused. You mean all the negative stuff about Kerry's military history might be wrong? Is that why 60 Minutes is required?

Mike Adamson is absolutely right. We need to investigate the Christmas in Cambodia smears. I personally believe John Kerry when he says his brain was seared in Cambodia. I mean doesn't the various positions he takes on issues, like Iraq say, prove he is a man with a seared brain?

But you have to ask yourself why a man with a seared brain is running for the Presidency instead of seeking help?

--==--

Why did John Kerry meet with the representatives of the Viet Cong and Communist North Vietnam on his honeymoon in Paris?

I guess selling out his home country was more exciting than his new wife.

New Soldier html

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records

Just wanted to suggest that you make the counter Y10K compliant so we can still check it is running in 8000 years.

I would, at least where the NYTimes is concerned, take them a taaad more seriously -- seriously, if at all is more like it -- if they would AT LEAST publish the counter truth and information to their own partisan spin.

For instance, Bush has consistently spoken out about the fact that he believes Kerry served honorably when he was enlisted.

To read the Left media last evening and this morning, there is a preponderance of gloating from the Left that, to the effect, "Bush should now squirm" and/or "it's Bush's turn to squirm" and the like (just read something like that in The Guardian)...referring to what they write was some harm inflicted by Bush upon Kerry's "war record" or thereabouts.

Which completely defies the reality of what took place, of what is on camera, in print, everywhere. But you'd never know that by reading the Left media, where this issue is concerned, in their recent insistence that the two individual "service records" be compared (and insistence that Kerry's must be superior...actually, it turns out that Bush put in more service HOURS than Kerry ever did or has but no one but a conservative site is publishing those statistics, while the Left is continuing to focus on the LIE that Bush somehow used Kerry's military record to harm Kerry, which Bush did not do).

Another thing this morning and last evening is the Left "news" that Kerry's now claiming (but hasn't he always?) that the Iraq War money was money that should have been spent in the U.S. for domestic issues. And yet, Kerry JUST SAID ON "Meet the Press" that the U.S. "should spend whatever is necessary" or "whatever it takes" to "win" in Iraq.

The Media isn't making that last and very important point about Kerry's reasoning known. Or even writing about it. And, the mere fact that Kerry voted against providing fully for U.S. military in Iraq and yet has the nerve to say he "supports the troops" while he voted first to deny them then to fund them but to deny their provisions....Kerry's legacy of statements defy explanation and yet the Left continues to pound on and on about complete fantasies about "Kerry" as if he was a work of fiction.

Err, actually, now that I think about it, perhaps the point IS that Kerry is a work of fiction.

And that the Left has no point other than it makes no sense and can lie accordingly...but for what purpose? Why? The behavior by the Left in our world this morning appears to be one of confusion to the point of complete annihilation.

Because, surely, the Left cannot hope to create an effective means of government by this scorched truth policy. The fearful conclusion to that is, then, WHAT will be delivered? Even the French are nearly rioting about the idea of having to "only" receive two weeks' annual vacation and to work, OMGosh, a forty hour week. The outrage!

What will it take to please the Left? If they have a Kerry in the White House? No, that's not going to change their course...their course is set for destruction, based upon what I read lately, destruction of democracy, hail the Red Dawn. Scary.

Edwards = a Kerry-ette with a personality implant...

Nice idea. However, I suggest you add a little logic to display the word "day" rather than "days", where appropriate (e.g. on the first day of a clock's activation).

I have to say, I am in hushed awe at the ferocity with which the mainstream media is going about the business of destroying its credibility. The umpteenth regurgitation of the Bush/Guard story gets this kind of coverage?? Good god, I am almost embarassed for them (but not quite). I just can't believe that they are willing to go to bat like this for a slug like JF'nK. Is anybody ever again going to believe something they read in the NY Times or watch on SeeBS?

Great idea, Kevin! You continue to turn out cool ideas!

I would also recommend linking the counter to the new "Stolen Honor" documentary that came out today (http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/samples.asp). Those guys are Medal of Honor recipients, not policital hacks. Perhaps sending some viewers their way might help to discredit the shameless Kerry apologists like your first commenter above.

But you have to ask yourself why a man with a seared brain is running for the Presidency instead of seeking help?

The whole Kerry campaign looks to me like a cry for help.

Great idea. But... "it's been 1 dayS?" Sloppy, very sloppy. As a programmer, I disapprove. Sure, it won't be an issue after tomorrow, but still.

The Swift Boat Veterans first press conference was held on May 4, 2004.

It's been 128 days that CBS News and 60 Minutes have failed to air an unbiased report about their charges.

Since it's clear the Swifties and the President's men who are behind (and among them) have engaged in a campaign of lies and distortions that is the hallmark of the Atwater-designed, Rove-built political slime machine, I see no reason whatsoever to kowtow to them. They would tell any lie they could get away with. The Bush records dump demonstrates not ony that Bush skipped out on his obligations (about which, I do not care in the slightest!) but also (and importantly) that Bush has lied to cover up that failing -- numerous times and for years. You got that? This is PROOF that Bush has lied again & again. The Swifties' claims HAVE been all over the "media" and they have nothing but suspicions and partisn claims. Many of their claims have been demonstrated as bald-faced lies or have been contradicted by other accounts. The Swifties process of developing their charges has also been demonstrated to be dishonest and run by political operatives.

We know they are liars and so there is no reason to pursue their slime further. We know the President is a liar so there is no justifcation for reelecting him.

Ta Ta!

It's been 128 seconds since oldradus made a fool of himself.

Hurts, don't it ??

oldradus: "Ta Ta!"

That must be French for "let me outta here before someone responds with something unnecessary, like the facts."

I would also be interested in knowing who their "document expert" was that signed off on the obvious forgeries they used as "evidence" for this production.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

Old Media business as usual I guess.

Oldradus, the Swiftees stung Kerry on the very first try. Don't believe me? OK, where was Kerry the night of 24 December 1968?

And why did his citations change twice? And why is his 214 wrong? And did the other 4 boats leave when the boat hit the mine, or just his?

And why hasn't he taken open media questioning in over a month?

Oldradus, the only reason your side can throw these stones is because Bush signed SF180 releasing ALL of his records. Why won't your rich girl boy toy do the same?

I consider 60 Minutes to be false advertising because it's not really 60 minutes long. If you take out commercials and promotions for other news shows, it's more like 42 minutes.

"Contents measured by weight, not by volume." ought to run at the bottom of the screen.

The Left only dreams that Bush squirms for he has no regard for their smears and I fully intend to follow his example. The REAL story is how far Old Liberal MSM will go to control the flow of information and try to tilt a national election in favor of their candidate and their agenda.

Digging up Bush's teenaged driving record while ignoring the fact that Kerry refuses to sign Form 180 just says it all. They are so far beneath contempt and have once again over-played their hand. Kerry refuses to listen to Clinton even and I suspect the new smear campaign will have the opposite effect than intended. Their sense of fair play is non-existent and this like all their other lame attempts is going to produce a tremendous backlash. Americans do not like being jerked around like this and will not take them seriously for their exaggeration and hyperbole is just too excessive and one-sided.

Clinton tried to warn Kerry but like the nutcase Kerry is, he cannot turn loose of VN. Someone needs to adjust his meds and quickly! While the feeding frenzy over all Bush's records is taking place, not a single one of Kerry's has even been released. Do they REALLY want them released days before the election which is now going to happen? Stupid strategy.
~

Not entirely threadjacking, but this is a "flood the zone" moment. The docs posted on the 60 Minutes website are forgeries. Saw it on Powerline Blog first:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

I totally agree - the docs were done on a laser printer. In 1973!

You know and I know that whatever Kerry does, it will not be enough for you.

The Kerry Swiftie story made it to the frontpage of the Star Tribune here in Minnesota (The "Strib" is regarded as a left-leaning paper btw). The Bush story made it all the way to ... page 8!

The Bush White House just said last week that "that's all ... everything is out" and then yesterday they release two more documents! GOTCHA!

It really hurts when what goes around comes around, doesn't it? The newly discovered documents are fair game for reporting. If you are waiting for Kerry to answer for Cambodia, I am waiting for Bush to answer for not showing up, in Alabama and Massachusetts. By the way, I was not so subtly solicited for a bribe by an Army Reserve colonel to get into the National Guard. I was shocked and walked away immediately, and regret to this day that I didn't have the courage to report it (although thankfully he was later convicted on a similar charge). Bush bribed his way into the Guard, ahead of hundreds of others who were not the sons of an ambassador and congressman, not through money but through political influence and backscratching, which to me is the same as bribery for the rich and powerful. Indeed, Bush's entire education and career were the result of political and economic influence of family and friends, from getting into Yale, then the Guard, then (failed) business ventures, then Harvard Business School (does anybodly have his grades?, then Governor of Texas, and finally as nominee for President as the most qualified Republican candidate capable of being controlled by the business elite including the criminals of Enron, and the far right in general. George Bush is the least distinguished president since Warren Harding (which is perhaps an over-endorsement of Calvin Coolidge).

Now that I see the difference the amount of issue advertising CBS News is doing with its 60 minutes show, should they have to certify themselves as a 527 organization?

They certainly cannot use being a journalistic organization as an excuse.

The Bush White House just said last week that "that's all ... everything is out" and then yesterday they release two more documents! GOTCHA!

Sorry, but the Bush White House doesn't "release" anything at their leisure. Form 180 authorizes release of records that are in the military's possession, and it's quite conceivable that not all records are going to be in one nice, neat pile in some government warehouse someplace.

Genius...

But the clock should have started long ago. Maybe when 60 Minutes fronted Paul O'Neill's book? Or Richard Clarke's? Or Bill Clinton's? How bout Anthony Zinni's? Maybe Abu Ghraib?

The CBS News division doesn't even make a pretense of objectivity anymore...

Well Ira, that's some assessment!

Let me get some cups for some more kool-aid.

Ira, maybe you can help me out as I am trying to decide who to vote for:

Where is your positive proof that Bush didn't show up. Saying he can't prove he did is not the same thing as proving he didn't, right?

You sound certain that Bush bribed his way into the Guard. Can you cite anything other then the partisan quoted on CBS to back up this claim?

To save time and space, can you just prove ONE of the things you are saying without resorting heresay or conjecture?

Me thinks that the panic has set in. The donks are on the wrong side of a landside in the making. Oh, and by the way, did we ever hear much about Gore's failed divinity school tenure? Nooo, because there is no such thing as a dumb democrat, they are so intellectual, thoughtful, and complex compared to the barbarian Republicans. Which doesn't explain why so many democrats had problems with the commonly used butterfly ballot - a real brain teaser if there ever was one.

Ira, maybe you can help me out as I am trying to decide who to vote for:

Where is your positive proof that Bush didn't show up. Saying he can't prove he did is not the same thing as proving he didn't, right?

You sound certain that Bush bribed his way into the Guard. Can you cite anything other then the partisan quoted on CBS to back up this claim?

To save time and space, can you just prove ONE of the things you are saying without resorting heresay or conjecture?

Me thinks that the panic has set in. The donks are on the wrong side of a landside in the making. Oh, and by the way, did we ever hear much about Gore's failed divinity school tenure? Nooo, because there is no such thing as a dumb democrat, they are so intellectual, thoughtful, and complex compared to the barbarian Republicans. Which doesn't explain why so many democrats had problems with the commonly used butterfly ballot - a real brain teaser if there ever was one.

As Kevin Drum notes this morning:

This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.

I find the attacks about an opponents' military service by each side to be absolutely repulsive. And I'm not so naive to think that the Bush and Kerry campaigns aren't behind these attacks in some way. But people need to be consistent. The "Equal Time Clock" implies that the two attacks are roughly equivalent. Therefore, if you've spent *any* time defending the Swifties making unsubstantiated allegations to the media, then you have to be quiet and watch how this whole circus turns out as well. Apparently, so long as *one* allegation arising from this National Guard issue turns out to be true (like the "Cambodia in Christmas" question), then the whole line of attack is valid.

Well, I was expecting the attack dogs, and here you all are. I appreciate one person's offer of kool aid, and I will ask the White House for some of Bush's white powdery substance for you in return.

How does George Bush prove that he was there? Just produce one witness who swears that he was in either of both states. Produce this one witness, and then I'll think about it. Read my post again -- I'm also waiting for Kerry to answer about Cambodia.

I'm also waiting for someone to defend Warren Harding. I mentioned him because he, too, didn't show up. Will Rogers said of Harding that “he didn’t do anything, but that’s what the people wanted done.”

Ira

Hey, thanks for the link!

Ira, read this.

And it bears pointing out about "waiting for Kerry on Cambodia" that he has changed his story several times, and that the story "seared in his memory" was contradicted within his own authorized biography.

And he still won't release his military records.

It also bears repeating that Kerry has made his Vietnam experience the entire focus of his campaign.

Ken,

1. Your statement is false. Vietnam has been _a_ focus, admittedly, but "entire" focus is a ridiculous charge ... I'd say there are three focii:
A) Vietnam (personal comparsion to Bush);
B) Bush's bad policies; and
C) Bush mismanagement of his bad policies.

That's not a robust set of principles on which to base a campaign and it certainly can be criticized -- but typically the flacks on your side even what to distort that into some whaked out perversion of reality ..

2. Even if Vietnam is a focus, surely that does entitle people to pass on outrageous lies in response. If it did, someone would be entitled to respond to Bush's alleged moral clarity and decency with discussions of his involvement in bribing judges, drug-traffiking, child molestation, numerous sexual assaults, etc.

I mean, could you prove the guy is not a rapist???

Ira and the rest of the "gothcha" fantasizers posting here kill me. Yeah, everything newly revealed about the Swift Veteran’s indicates they are all liars and everything newly revealed about Bush’s National Guard service, as long as it is negative, has to be the Gospel truth indicates that this person and his ilk have truly discriminating powers of discernment (or is it discerning powers of discrimination?) Good God! If I am ever on trial I hope that someone as obviously challenged in weighing evidence as the likes of Ira is not sitting on the jury – well, let me amend that. I suppose if I am guilty and there are 250 witnesses who testify against me and there is one witness who is for me, although he admits under cross examination that I may have done it, then perhaps it would be good if Ira were on the jury.

OHH WOW!

Headline: DOC SAY BUSH IS LOSING HIS MIND

Now here's a REELY REELLY AMAZIN PIECE OF DEDUCTION & REMOTE DIAGNOSIS (from a Letter to the Atlantic Monthly) ... YOU GOTTA READ THIS!!!!

@@@@@@@@

James Fallows's description of John Kerry's debating skills ("When George Meets John," July/August Atlantic) was interesting, but what was most remarkable was Fallows's documentation of President Bush's mostly overlooked changes over the past decade-specifically, "the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills." Fallows points to "speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech-a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder," but correctly oncludes, "The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate."

I, too, felt that something organic was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush's problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, "artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects," who "did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones." Consider, in contrast, the present: "the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid," "Bush's recent faltering performances," "his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions," "his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot," "speaking more slowly and less gracefully."

Not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush's problem cannot be "a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia," because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is "presenile dementia"! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer's situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age. It runs about the same course as typical senile dementias, such as classical Alzheimer's — to incapacitation and, eventually, death, as with President Ronald Reagan, but at a relatively earlier age. President Bush's "mangled" words are a demonstration of what physicians call "confabulation," and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia. Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.

Joseph M. Price, M.D.
Carsonville, Mich.

When Kerry opened his convention with "reporting for duty" he opened his own can of worms. And yes, indeed, it has been the entire focus of his campaign. Or was it his distinguished Senate record of always being...wrong? He kicked off his campaign surrounded by veterans. He believes that because--and only because--he spent 4 months in Vietnam that he's qualified to be the commander in chief. Actually, that would be one month in training, one month on the USS Gridley off the coast of California and two months in Nam being a general pain in the ass to his superior officers and not following orders and fantasizing about becoming JFK. I wouldn't put him in charge of organizing a barbeque, he's so incompetent. He would be almost guaranteed the election right now if he hadn't been such a bonehead and brought up Vietnam every 30 seconds.

What a double standard...Bush has to release all his military records and the media still hounds him, but Kerry doesn't have to sign form 180 and the media hands him a pass. What's Kerry so afraid of us finding out about him? Heh.

Oh, and oldradus - could someone prove YOU are NOT a rapist? Nice understanding of the presumption of innocence.

Hey Old Radish,
I haven't heard about any of this- "discussions of his involvement in bribing judges, drug-traffiking, child molestation, numerous sexual assaults, etc.". Did you find about these 'discussions' at the tinfoil hat-making convention, after being abducted and probed by Visitors, or have you been spray-painting in an improperly ventilated area?

Just curious. You were really convincing up until then.

1. No, I could not prove I am not a rapist.

2. Yes, it was EXCESSIVE ... different in degree but not in kind from SOME of the despicable things flung around in this campaign ... if you look at the precise language I used you will see that I only used the English equivalent of potential subjunctive or contrary to fact ... I do not believe the President or Senator Kerry were or are rapists, assaulters, molestors, bribers, drug-traffickers, etc.

3. There is a logical method of carrying things to an extreme to demonstrate their viability -- non-viability ...

4. How did you know I was abducted?

John Kerry is probably a closet Muslim and thinks he is entitled to his 72 versions.

Does anyone here know wtf ole radius is talking about?

Great counter. I've added it to my site and added a link back to you which I meant to do a long time ago.

I'm the new guy here. I read this post for the first time today and I have been quite amused. I laughed out loud at some of the hilarious accusations posted by oldradus and Ira. By the way, Matt, the kool-aid crack was great. I am amazed at the complaining about mudslinging and reports of unfounded attacks on Kerry, with subsequent responses of the exact same ilk. Is it that hard to see that when JK refuses to sign 180 and changes his story and refuses to give interviews, and lashes out at the Vice President in Ohio saying that he questioned his (JK's) patriotism (when in fact he said the opposite) that Kerry is the one with something to hide? Why support a guy like this. Is Pres. W. that evil that he has to be stopped even if it means electing a guy who can't even stick to his own story? What part of this is so hard to understand? JK has proven through his own words that he can't keep his facts straight. Can you trust him? I keep hearing about how this election is about National Security. Great! If that is true I think that Mr. "I was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of '68" is clearly not the right man for the job. Even so, I can't imagine voting for this man to be an economic savior. Folks, the man said that he wants to raise taxes. Last time I checked even the great Pres. Clinton cut taxes. He seems to be the man by which all successful politicians are measured these days. So what is JK thinking? And what is the left thinking in even suggesting that he has the first clue about running this country?