Archive for the ‘2004 election’ Category

"one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism"

May 28, 2008

Kyle Drennen correct points out that would be former CBS News anchorDan Rather, using fraudulent National Guard memos to attempt to smear President Bush just prior to the 2004 election.”

Advertisements

Democrat Party election officials in Ohio convicted of vote fraud

November 6, 2007

Now, democrats committing vote fraud is hardly news, neither is what NewsBusters points out, which that none of the MSM media outlets report that the two people convicted of vote fraud in the 2004 election in Ohio are “Democrat Party election officials in Cuyahoga County, one of Ohio’s most Democratic counties”.

Let us review DNC/MSM Journalism ethics…

May 17, 2005

The following was sent to Michelle Malkin:

Just for the sake of argument let’s say the Newsweek article was true. No one’s pointing out that Newsweek is the same publication that had a non-disclosure agreement with the Kerry campaign last fall. The editors agreed that anything their reporters discovered while “embedded” with Kerry/Edwards would not be published until after the ’04 election. So let me get this straight… Agreeing not to air Kerry’s dirty laundry during a political campaign is fine and dandy. But not airing Gitmo’s dirty laundry during the War on Terror would be a compromise of journalistic ethics. Got it.

As a wise woman said, “They win in the dark; we win in the light.”

Reporting the truth is obviously not a priority at CBS.

January 13, 2005

There’s more. From DGCI, Howard Kurtz chimes in on Rathergate and the CBS “investigation”.

If there is one line in the 224-page report on CBS News that has set critics aflame, it is that there is no “basis” for concluding that Dan Rather and his colleagues had a “political bias” in pursuing their badly botched story about President Bush’s National Guard service.

What, they say? No evidence?

“In any fair-minded assessment of how CBS performed and why they so badly butchered their own standards, that has to be part of the explanation,” said former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a professor at George Washington University. “It’s not just that they wanted to be first, they wanted to be first with a story that was critical of the president.”

Still more…Austin Bay deals with a damn good quesiton:
“If it was common knowledge that Mr.Burkett was something of a Bush-hating crank, why would someone of Ms. Mapes/Mr. Rather [ed: ilk? position?] accept information passed to him?”

This is Harsh!

December 21, 2004

Far left extremist Kos jumps on the blame Kerry bandwagon with both feat!

But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang’s inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fuck it — they should be lined up and shot. There’s no reason they should’ve lost to this joker. “I voted for the $87 billion, then I voted against it.” That wasn’t nuance. That was idiocy. And with a primary campaign that consisted entirely of “I’m the most electable”, Kerry entered the general without a core philosophy or articulated vision for the job.

A Kerry presidency would’ve been an unmitigated disaster

Kos then advises the democrats to try and win back the American public by LYING! (hey, why change horses in midstream?)

The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won’t be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don’t worry about them becoming law

It’s a workable theory…

December 16, 2004

From the Grand Lake Marquee fotolog comments section:

It was not so much a vote FOR bush, but a vote AGAIST the likes of michael moore, tourette`s syndrom afflicted teresa kerry , the hollywood crowd, bruce springsteen, george soros and moveon.org and the rest of the looney bin

Translating Liberal speak…

November 4, 2004

“So, George W. Bush won. And he’s done so by a solid margin. The Democrats’ attempted coup managed to last all of eight hours. Not only is the President the first candidate to win a majority of the vote in a Presidential Election since 1988, but he also won more popular votes than any other candidate in history. The Democrats spent months telling us that high voter turnout would equal a win for them but, as it turns out, when 60% of the electorate showed up at the polls it translated into a Bush lead of nearly four million votes. In short: take that, you sons of bitches. The Democrats are now talking about how this is a signal that Bush should ‘bring the country together’. Translated into American, this means ‘now that you’ve won, you should surrender to us.’ The hell with that. We’ve won. Winning means not having to say you’re sorry… ” – Adam Yoshida

In other words, Mr. Yoshida is advising the President to take a page from the Clinton playbook…

democrats plan to disenfranchise the Military in Pennsylvania is defeated

October 31, 2004

Junkyard Blog has the story:

Gov. Ed Rendell tried to use the last minute confusion in Pennsylvania over Ralph Nader’s ballot status as a way to “legally” deny military absentee voters the right to vote for the remaining candidates. Now he has chad on his face for his shameless attempt to deny absentee voters a deadline extension. It took PA’s other politicians, local radio talk shows and eventually national talk radio/TV to force him to rethink committing political suicide for John Kerry. But it was only after he was sued by military members that he finally caved in.

Orson Scott Card on the behavior of the left…

October 31, 2004

Here are some highlights of his column, The Death of Shame:

Then in the campaign of 2000, I became increasingly angry over the truly vicious lies that were being told to African-American groups about George W. Bush. The solemn warnings of a return to Jim Crow if Bush were elected made it sound as if Bush were Strom Thurmond of 1948, when they knew perfectly well that Bush was one of the few Republicans who actually deserved — and, in Texas, got — a higher than normal percentage of the black vote.

And the Leftist-dominated media, instead of exposing the racially charged language being used by Gore’s supporters — as they would certainly have done if a Republican had used identical, but racially reversed, language to all-white audiences — let it go on and on virtually unmentioned.

Of course, after nearly four years of Bush’s presidency, it should be obvious to black voters that the terrible warnings they were given in 2000 were completely false. But the race-baiting is already under way, albeit on a smaller scale, as the Democrats piously warn of “voter intimidation.”

Then in Florida, during the so-called “recount,” the Left shamelessly sprayed out accusations of how the Republicans had “disenfranchised” poor voters, though in fact all they ever showed was the normal error rate that had been accepted for many years in elections throughout America — an error rate that was always assumed to apply equally to both sides.

In fact, that was the obvious basis of Richard Daley’s selective recount effort on behalf of Gore in Florida. If you only recount the most Democrat-dominated voting precincts, then, by finding the normal number of errors, the resulting increase in correctly counted ballots will be tilted strongly for the Democratic candidate.

It was a scam — which was exposed by Gore’s attempt to block the counting of the absentee ballots of American servicemen from Florida, since it is well known that the people who volunteer for the military tend to vote two-to-one in favor of the Republican presidential candidate.

And yet the Democrats piously continue to this day to treat the whole vote-count affair, not as an obvious attempt to steal an election by manipulating selected groups of ballots, but as some noble attempt to block the evil Republicans from depriving poor helpless minorities from having their ballots fairly counted.

Meanwhile, the Democrats engage in wholesale, flat-out lying, ranging from Kerry’s false charges against America’s soldiers in Vietnam, his phony claims about Christmas in Cambodia and what it was he threw over the fence when he said they were his medals, to present charges that Bush has blocked stem-cell research and that if Kerry were president, paralytics would rise up and walk.

If a Republican had said these things, the media would throw him into the flames, never letting us forget these ridiculous and contemptible lies for a second. Instead, we get the ABC News memo that makes it clear that Republican distortions are to be trumpeted, while Democratic ones are “not central” and therefore can be ignored.

The Left fancies that it has a monopoly on intellectuals. When an online magazine invites published authors to tell whom they’re voting for and why, out of dozens only four (including me) are voting for Bush. The most interesting thing is that the four pro-Bush authors offer clear reasons for their vote, but the pro-Kerry authors spew out invective against Bush or give cute or clever “reasons” that simply treat the question as being beneath serious discussion.

I get letters that are endless variations on the same theme: Mr. Card, I like your books and you seem so wise, but yet you’re supporting Bush. Why don’t you look at the evidence and realize that Bush is the devil and Kerry will save us from the disaster that Bush is leading us toward?

Yet when I choose to answer these letters and ask them to get specific, it becomes obvious that none — no, not one — of these people has actually examined the evidence at all.

So when the Left acts hypocritically, one can assume that they do feel shame, and for years I have made that mistake.

But I no longer believe it. Because the double standards of the Left today are not prompted by any sense that the lies and misbehavior they are concealing are wrong, but rather by the fact that the exposure of those lies and misbehavior would be politically inconvenient.

Indeed, the whole question of right or wrong is irrelevant to the thinking of the Left.

They speak the language of morality, declaring Bush to be evil (or variations on that theme), but in fact the Left lives in a moral universe in which there is only one moral virtue, and here it is:

It is good and right for power to be in the hands of the Left.

So when the Democrats lost Congress, they began to behave like big babies. When Republicans did to them what they had done to Republicans in Congress for forty years, suddenly it was unfair. The world had gone mad. The ruled-over were suddenly ruling. The Helots were in charge and the Spartans could not bear it.

Democrats had come to think of themselves as the ruling class.

That is the mindset that explains all the behavior of the Left since 1994. If they are not in power, then clearly something is deeply, disturbingly wrong with the world, and any means to restore the proper order of things is perfectly acceptable.

That’s why it’s OK to do selective recounts in Florida and try to disenfranchise American soldiers and sailors — all the while claiming that it’s the Republicans who are disenfranchising people.

That’s why it’s OK to filibuster in the Senate in order to block the president from appointing perfectly qualified judges — and why it’s OK to make ridiculously false attacks on those judicial appointees.

That’s why it’s fine for John Kerry to pretend that he’ll be tough on defense even though everybody on the Left is counting on him doing just the opposite in office — because any lie that restores the proper order of things is a good lie.

That’s why Kerry and Edwards can lie about Bush’s record on stem cell research and make hilarious and offensive claims that if they are elected, the crippled will rise up and walk. A Republican making such a claim would become a complete laughingstock in the media; but if it might sway a single voter to restore the proper order of things, then the Leftist media dare not to discredit the claim.

That’s why CBS throws journalistic ethics to the wind and runs with a story about Bush’s National Guard service that is based on obviously fabricated documents. That’s why ABC News has no problem with exposing only “distortions” by Bush and ignoring outright lies by Kerry

That’s why lawyers and politicians are already gearing up to attempt to steal the election after the fact by making false claims about intimidation of minority voters by evil Republicans — when they know perfectly well that it’s the Left that is openly using tactics of intimidation.

Like when they sent mobs of union workers to “demonstrate” inside the small local offices of the Bush campaign in Florida, terrifying a handful of Bush campaign workers with a Brown-shirt tactic that, if it had been carried out by, say, NRA members against Kerry headquarters, would now be the biggest story of the campaign season.

That’s why the intellectual Left feels perfectly justified in vilifying, slandering, scare-mongering, hating, intimidating, and cheating, all the while claiming a moral superiority.

The Left is firmly convinced that good is only possible in the world when they are in power; therefore they can do any number of unfair, indecent, or dishonest things in pursuit of that goal.

Without shame. Without guilt.

Because they don’t believe there is such a thing as “sin.” Only power. And whoever gets the power, makes the rules. To the Left, the only shameful act in 2004 is voting Republican.

And if we vote for candidates who show themselves to have no shame, then we deserve the government that they will give us.

There is more and it’s worth your time to read the whole thing.

democrats can’t handle the truth.

September 24, 2004

Daniel McKivergan points out:

YESTERDAY, John Kerry repeated what has become a standard Kerry-Edwards campaign talking point: Saddam’s Iraq had “no ties to al Qaeda,” or, as Kerry recently told Time, Saddam Hussein had “nothing to do with al Qaeda.”

These statements are false.

Numerous reports, ranging from those of the September 11 Commission to the Senate Intelligence Committee, have detailed a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda. In July, the co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, Governor Thomas Kean, stated “there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

Or consider this, from the memoir of the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, General Tommy Franks, American Soldier:

“One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan–where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons–was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq. Badly wounded fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, Zarqawi had received medical treatment in Baghdad before setting up with Ansar al Islam. And evidence suggested that he had been joined there by other al Qaeda leaders, who had been ushered through Baghdad and given safe passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces. . . . [p. 332] And while many al Qaeda leaders had been killed [in Afghanistan], others had sought sanctuary in Iraq. [p. 403]”