Rex Kickass

Taken from various news websites this morning on Iraq/WMD story. msnbc - Report: Iraq had no WMD, only intentions. NY TImes - Iraq study finds desire for arms, not capacity. ABC - US Weapons Inspector: Iraq had no WMD Fox News - Report: Saddam Imported Banned Materials. *sings sesame street song to himself* Three of these things look good together, one of these things is not the same...

Three polls came out yesterday. One had Kerry ahead between 1 and 3 points, One had a dead even tie. Gallup had a 13 point Bush lead. Earlier this week, two other polls showed a one point lead for Bush nationally. Rasmussen tracking Poll shows Bush with a 4.3% lead, but one day after the lead was 1 percent. Tracking Poll jumps like that aren't considered significant unless the lead stays 3-5% for 3 days. (Bush could have gotten a spike from Wednesday polling). New column by Jimmy Breslin says that polls may be undercounting and reporting people who have just a cell phone and not a land line because they are much less likely to be polled. People like that tend to be younger, and traditionally would lean Democrat. Polling also does not take into consideration overseas votes from Expat citizens. If the race ends up as close as some say, these Expats voting absentee would make the difference. Three things which should shape people's decisions this week but probably won't. Iraq Survey Group, the people the Bush administration brought in to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction, are reporting that there just aren't any there. They are also saying that research programs were existing but have long laid dormant and were very small, although "Saddam Hussein could have ressurected them in the future." The ISG also reported that Hussein's weapons activity focused on increasing the range of ballistic missiles beyond limits set by the UN in the early 90s. As of 2003, the longest missile developed had a top range of roughly 105 miles I believe, which would have gotten the missile to nowhere of any population range in particular. Intelligence reports coming out this week say that the situation is going from bad to worse. The Bush administration's own research is now suggesting that the best case scenario is a shaky security situation, the worst case is a civil war. Two days after radio transmission equipment in California broke down shutting down all air traffic in Southern California, the Bush administration is proposing a cut in equipment purchases for the Federal Aviation Administration. You might recall the problems the FAA was having in the mid to late 1990s with antiquated radar systems failing, particularly in the Chicago area. It wasn't until weeks of spot system failure that the government chose to do something about aging FAA infrastructure. What probably will shape the presidential debate: Moveon.org's Quagmire ad. Why? Because in today's news - Perception matters more than actual events.

Rush Limbaugh isn't on AM solely. There is very little direct formattic competition for Rush Limbaugh. Further, Rush Limbaugh is a personality. The news is the news.

It tells me that people are more apt to listen to the radio at noon then they are to settle down and watch the news at 6.30. Rush Limbaugh doesn't have 5 Rush Limbaugh's to compete against when he's on. The NBC Nightly News is up against, World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and in some markets BBC News or MacNeil Lehrer on PBS. Most radio markets have no other talk station besides the one that carries Rush. Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist. He's an entertainer, or so I'm told. The format and intent are completely different. And Rush Limbaugh DID have a TV show. It got cancelled after a year.

Newsweek lead dropped from 11 to 6 points today. You saw a traditional bounce starting to fade.

He has a bigger audience on the radio.

Isn't that what we've been doing? That really hasn't worked so well, has it?

Four polls with a midpoint within a day of each other. Time - Bush 54, Kerry 42. Democracy Corps - Bush 50, Kerry 47 (Dem pollster) Zogby - Bush 47, Kerry 45 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics - Bush 47, Kerry 45. And today's newest poll Rasmussen - Bush 48, Kerry 45 (Rep pollster) Which one doesn't fit the trend line?

Actually, in 1994 the Clinton administration orchestrated a deal called the Agreed Framework. This deal would put a halt to the development of the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for heightened humanitarian aid and light water (non weapon capable) Nuclear Power plants. The Republican congress never funded implementation of this agreement. Further, there is evidence that by and large the North Koreans did not persue a nuclear agenda during the remainder of the Clinton era. Granted, they were not exactly our friends - but they weren't proliferating either - despite our refusal to honor our own agreement. Maybe it was Clinton's speech. He spoke of inclusion. He spoke of bringing them into the world community. When Bush got into office, he framed North Korea in terms of exclusion and isolation. One thing Bush needed to learn, appearances matter. Despite no material change in the foreign policy towards North Korea, the change in language may have signalled some sort of shift. By 2001, the North Koreans - at their own admission - began a uranium enrichment program. If you recall, 2001 was not the Clinton watch. In 2002, North Korea sent signals that it was gearing its nuclear weapons program up - and we did nothing saying something about unacceptable "nuclear blackmail." Now they are either nuclear, or close to it. And we're heading back to the table, now that they actually have enough material to make a good dozen nukes or so. If they haven't already made it. Way to blame the last president for the current president's mess.

Yes, of course the media is a monolith and Dan Rather runs it all. I mean, really, what a crappy argument to make. If you wanna insinuate bias, you have to go beyond one anchor of the lowest rated evening newscast. Honestly. If the media were biased, why are there all these "rudderless Kerry campaign" stories because Kerry is about 4 points behind after a convention bounce. Where was the "rudderless Bush campaign?" The media is lazy, not biased. I heard three or four different journalists at the Democratic Convention say "At the core of this convention is Bush-bashing." On nights where the president's name isn't even mentioned. I didn't hear that at Republican convention nights, despite speeches that focused more on what's wrong with Kerry than what was right with Bush. Despite purple heart bandaids and "Flip-Flop" chants. Media lately seems to report on perception, not the actual story. If they did, the "I invented the internet" story wouldn't have been a story. If they did, Bush's National Guard service story would have been a big deal four years ago. You said where the Swift Boat vets are? They're freaking everywhere! When that first commerical went out, John O'Neill was on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, they even replayed the old Dick Cavett show that he debated Kerry about the war on C-SPAN. Kitty Kelley is on a book tour and she gets booked on the Today show. That's indicative of bias? Honestly, if you want to make a real argument about liberal bias, stop cherry-picking retarded examples and show me some proof. I'll give you Dan Rather. But then I get Brit Hume.

Kap, I don't think anyone ever really wanted to think for themselves. It's why editorial pages used to hold so much sway 20 years ago. Now, its commentary on TV. People like forceful opinions. If someone like Rush Limbaugh rose up on the scene and decided to sway dem, youd see a similar "ditto head" effect on the left. Especially if conditions were similar. Believe it or not, we're getting to that point. Personally, I don't think most people are conservative. Most people are moderate. They don't want gay marriage, but they don't want a federal amendment to the constitution to prevent it. They don't want a socialized health system, but they want some guarantee of decent healthcare access. They don't want to be wishy-washy in foreign affairs but don't want to be isolated in the world either. The reason more people don't identify themselves as liberal is that the only real lib voices that seem to get through seem so damn shrill and annoying and too extreme. Even for me.

Well, why is Rush Limbaugh so popular? Because he used to be damn funny. He got his 20 million listeners by espousing a kind of talk radio never heard before and one that clicked with his listeners. Because his message has a populist feel, he can make his listeners attach themselves to a message. His "ditto-heads" agreed with him when he said drug abusers should be sent to prison and now they agree with him that his drug abuse does not warrant him going to prison. He was in right place, right time, right moment. Why aren't there big liberal hosts? Most of them suck ass and can not execute the basics. There's Rhandi Rhodes who has a solid show but isn't on a ton of good affiliates. And Al Franken, who has improved a bunch in six months but is still no Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, the left has not found its Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. And, speaking from some degree of experience, having found success with conservative talkers, radio program directors see little reason to broaden their horizon. WABC finds itself successful in New York City by being ultra-conservative. Yet, NYC is going to vote for Kerry probably well in excess of 60%. Good ratings does not mean mainstream adoption of your ideas. Why is Fox News successful? Because it markets itself to conservative issues. When you have several organizations independently rallying around your flag - you have good potential to create a loyal following. When you appeal to a part of the audience that believes the media is biased and finally sees someone that slants in your direction, you'll stick there. Fox News may be successful, but is still no monolith. I've never seen average news day ratings exceed 2 million for them. That's a lot of people, but by no means a majority.

I'll take this one. Yes I honestly believe that the media is not biased towards any political party. Take a look at the Swift Boat story for example. If CNN was biased towards the Kerry campaign, they would have ignored it, especially as facts and records released meant that their story held less and less water. Trust me they didn't. You couldnt swing a cat at that network without it hitting a Swift Boat story. Look at Crossfire, that show features strong Conservative commentators and a decent Paul Begala with a blathering idiotic James Carville. MSNBC has Scarborough Country and hired Michael Savage. CNBC hired Dennis Miller whos openly pro-Bush. There's plenty of balance to go around in the major news media these days. The only network I can say that has a genuine bias, is Fox News, the ones who sorta admit it. Watch Fox and Friends, Watch the weekend anchors, look at their evening line up. It's non-stop conservative.

Except no forgery has been proven. In fact, the typeface shown that is in dispute looks remarkably similar to documents provided by the White House created in 1968 regarding Bush's service. Some experts are saying it looks like this was done with an IBM Executive Typewriter using the Bold Typeface.

You wanna know what Kerry's done? Here's a clip from a Salon article back in July about Kerry's acheivements as a Senator. There's a little bit about the actual record. (edited to make the quote actually fit)

What I like about Shingo is that there's no tell, he throws the fastball the same way he throws the frisbee, you gotta see the ball really well to figure out what the hell speed its actually coming at.

Check out William Saletan's article in Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2106484/

I finally saw the pics of the document. They do look suspicious. But it still doesn't change the core issue. Oh yeah, salon had a great story a few weeks back about Bush's job with the Blount campaign in 1972. Apparently, the biggest contribution he made to the campaign was walking in the office about noon and bragging on how drunk he got.

Zogby was most accurate in 2000. Rasmussen does a rolling average poll. Both of those I tend to rely more heavily on. I will say that I had read somewhere that both Bush and Kerry internals gave Bush a four point lead after the convention.

Dude. They invented proportional type font typewriters in the 1940s. And superscript can be done on a Selectric Typewriter if you're anal about s***. If this memo turns out to be a fake, what does this change about the story? The genesis of this latest Bush Guard story is that he failed to meet the demands of the Guard and didn't get punished for it. It doesn't change the fact that he gamed the system, it just changes that one memo.

Rock N Roll aint dead. Although there are way too many people who try to make rock without the right style or attitude. If you want a real rock album, that isn't the traditional rock style - check out Junior Senior. It's more dance pop than traditional rock - but the attitude is there. They remind me a lot of an electronic John Spencer Blues Explosion. Of course you could just listen to the Vines. They just flat out rawk.

Aint no thang but a chicken wing. Thanks yo.bv

I agree.

Yeah they're only fighting side by side in Afghanistan.