| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

How the Mainstream Media Got Bush Re-elected – And Screwed America

by Pamela Leavey

Columnists in today’s Boston Globe, L.A. Times, and Washington Post all have pieces that make it very clear that Patrick Fitzgerald had the goods to indict White House aides for obstructing justice in the CIA leak case as of October of last year. Each one of the columnists notes that the MSM was complicit in preventing Fitzgerald from doing so.

Media giants like the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, and others all played the Pre$$titute roll and had they not, John Kerry would most assuredly be President today. These OP/ED’s are all must-read pieces about the White House’s obstruction of justice, how the MSM is complicit in it, and how it impacted the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

Robert Scheer notes in his column “What Judy forgot: Your right to know,” in the L.A.Times that: “The most intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. Scheer said that without that delay, “we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005.” Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.”

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, “I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown.” Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution’s prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual’s right to free speech.

The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, but the reporters who fought to avoid testifying to the grand jury in the investigation that snared Libby upheld neither. They were acting as knowing accomplices to a top White House official’s attempt to discredit a whistle-blower.

Thomas Oliphant says in his column, “The coverup worked” in the Boston Globe, that Fitzgerald “was in effect showing that the quixotic pursuit of a nonexistent right or privilege by some news organizations is one reason President Bush was reelected last year. . . [I]magine last week’s astonishing developments unfolding in the fall of 2004.”

…[T]he obstruction of justice alleged in this case kept us from knowing material things about our leaders at the moment we were deciding whether to keep them in office. In more common speech, obstruction of justice is a coverup, and the coverup worked — just as the Watergate coverup in 1972 kept facts from the public that would have guaranteed Richard Nixon’s defeat.

E.J. Dionne asks the quintessential question in the WaPo, “Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?” …[L]ibby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic “shield” was converted into a shield for the Bush administration’s coverup.

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel’s apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

In late September, Pre$$titutes noted “The Media’s Role In The Maligning Of John Kerry.” Today, one day before the anniversary of that fateful day last November, we all bear the injustice of what might have been. Time and time again last year, we witnessed the maligning of Kerry by MSM. As Pre$$titues notes, “if Kerry were president today, America would be on the road to recovery, recovery of our dignity, recovery of our integrity, recovery of our reputation as the world’s moral leader.”

It’s a sad day for America to wake up to, one year later and know that it was all based on lies and it could have been prevented – had the media done their jobs. Instead we have Russert’s, the Fineman’s, the Blizter’s, the Miller’s, the Cooper’s and so many others, to thank for feeding the Disinformation Society and polluting the minds of Americans at a time when, had the truth prevailed, informed voters would have made a different choice.

Oliphant ends his column today asking could Bush “have survived the surfacing of the truth a year ago?” The answer is categorically – NO.

UPDATE: Given today’s news, it appears Bush’s house of cards is finally starting to tumble thanks to Harry Reid, Master of the Rules.

Related Post: November 2, 2005 – One Year Later: What a Stronger Country We Could Have Been.

82 Responses to “How the Mainstream Media Got Bush Re-elected – And Screwed America”

  1. I’m madder than hell right now. I don’t know if a Libby indictment in Oct. 2004 would’ve done the trick, espeically in light of the mysterious appearence of the Bin Laden tape 4 days before Nov. 2. 2004. Still, I would’ve liked our chances more. Imagine the ads we coulda run that last weekend before the election about trust.
    Once upon a time journalists (even wealthy well-connected ones) had principles based on what was right for the whole country, and not just the people they shared martinis with at some ritzy joint in Georgetown or Manhattan. Once, but not anymore.
    Most infuriating of all is that these same mainstream media types then turn around and tell Dems they lost in 2004 becuase Dems are elitist.
    Let me get this straight: Kerry won 55% of the vote from the 60% of households, (but sadly just 45% of the voting electorate) who make less than $50,000. Meanwhile, well-paid journalists who could expose the “party of the rich” for lying us into a war and subverting Joe Wilson’s first amendment rights get to accuse Kerry of being the elitist?
    Where the f— do these jerks get off? I hate Tim Russert. Meathead says nothing but when his butt is on the line all of a sudden he opens up.
    Like the people in college in the late 60s who only started opposing the Vietnam war when graduate school deferments were abolished. Or stopped caring when the draft ended. David Frum was right when he told Vh-1: “what people were upset about was the notion that they’d have to go. once Richard Nixon assured them they wouldn’t have to go, he sucked the life out of the anti-war movement.”
    The young elite cowards of that time period grew up-and became the middle-aged elite cowards of today.

  2. Having been a member of the young elite referred to in the previous comment, I take exception to being called a coward. Classiying everyone as one group with one motivation is never accurate in any event. I wasn’t a coward then and I am not a coward now. And neither were the people I knew many of whom didn’t want to get drafted.

  3. We’ll never know whether Kerry would have been elected had the MSM gone about its duty of informing the public.

    This said, the MSM clearly failed its mission abysmally. Whether, editors acted out of cowardice, or noxious design, remains to be seen.

    The American people are entitled to an apology.

    Hello, New York Times? Are you going to apologize to us for your protection of the noxious Miller and the criminal lies that she helped spread?

  4. Nick

    I don’t know that it’s fair to use that analogy, because not every who got Grad school deferments back then were elitists. And they sure as hell weren’t cowards. Many of those people with deferments were out protesting Vietnam and are now out protesting Iraq. I also wouldn’t give David Frum any creedence for his insulting comments.

    It wasn’t so much about the MSM calling JK an elitist, as it was about the LIES, that the MSM was complicit in. That’s what it’s about. The lies that took us to war, the lies that covered up the leak. The lies about terrorism alerts, the lies about Osama, the lies about flip-flopping.

    Dems are the elitists it’s the Repubs that are. That’s another lie that the MSM has made up.

  5. I guess today is my day for taking differing positions. I do not think that Judy Miller should be catigated for the position she took and neither should Matt Cooper for that matter. I would have loved to have had this come to a head a year ago and I am sure that the Republicans would have hated it.

    That said, I do not think that the use of the blanket release is the correct way to go if a source is going to give a newspaper person permission to speak. While I think that the NY Times could have supervised Judy Miller more, I do think they were correct to support her and I think she was correct to go to jail unless and until she got a specific release.

    I also think that it would be well to remember that Judy Miller was dead on the mark about Osama bin Laden … and that even though the law allows her to speak … Patrick Ftizgerald will not like it if she says much because she will be a witness at any Libby trial.

  6. Here’s a little satire from Andy Borowitz, to soften the mood. This one is actually sounds like something Bush would do.

    Commander in Disbelief
    President Bush angered by high ratings for ‘fake girl president.’

    Nov. 1, 2005 – “Commander in Chief” is one of the biggest hits of the fall TV season, but not with President George W. Bush, who today challenged its star, Geena Davis, to a nationally televised debate.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9883851/site/newsweek/

  7. Judith

    I believe that as long as Miller and Cooper refused to testify, they did hold things up. That’s what Fitzgerald is saying and what Scheer, Oliphant and Dionne reiterate. There’s a thin for protecting a source when it involves national security.

  8. Protecting a whistleblower’s identity on exposing a wrong in gov’t is different from being part of the possible crime, or covering for a crime committed by the gov’t (especially when involved in too cozy relations as Ms. Run Amok).

    I think the position was easy posturing by those who didn’t ask Miller the tough questions.

  9. Am I the only one to notice this trend of these new speaking points being used as of late? Amazing how many times I have seen this since the Libby scandel. The news is swamped with these words now.

    “The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information”

  10. Marjorie

    Easy posturing and too damn conveniant.

    I’m all for freedom of the press and first ammendment rights – but this goes beyond that. Coverup, collusion, conspiracy, complicit acts…

  11. Pamela

    Sorry, went over the edge. No I don’t castigate all, but Russert and his ilk are capable of strutting while sitting down- and they are cowardly for the lies they repeated adn never called the GOP on. The only reason I give Frum much creedence is that was one of the few times- come to think of it probably the only time- I agreed with him even remotely..
    I agree with you about the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Sure we all want freedom of the press, but does freedom of the press include the press’s right to not report a crime? Maybe I’m wrong here, but I have a hard time believing that such experienced journalists as Novak, Miller et. al didn’t know that their being leaked that Plame was a CIA angent was illegal. Once that information was leaked to them it should not have been published.

  12. Evil Progressive

    Isn’t it odd that the NY Times would drop hte ball of this? IF we were talking about the National review or the Washington Times that would be one thing, but a respectable paper like the NY Times? Just goes to show one can never say they’ve “seen everything” in politics.

  13. Nick

    It’s so easy to use a label in one context and have it misunderstood in another. Elitist is sadly one of those labels.

    I agree, the info should have never been published.

  14. Thanks Pamela. I’m plannig to put a post up tomorrow about 2004 and implications for the future based on the data. Sorry to overload you with statistics, but c’mon it’s me. You expect me to do a post with NO facts and/or figures? George W will raise taxes on the rich before that happens.

  15. Nick

    Fire away…

  16. Ah Judith, I’m going to have to jump in here and just confirm what Evil Progressive said. Judy Miller is no hero in any of this. She was a mouth piece of the administration then she went to jail because she wouldn’t reviel her source – then when she did talk, she couldn’t remember if it was Libby who was her source on Plame/Wilson?! COME ON…!

    Nick, ease up on Tim Russert. This is the man who’s words will put Libby away. When it come down to credibility, for whom will a jury believe – Russert or Libby? I gotta go with Russert. Libby goes to jail.

    Of course, Shrub pardons Libby at the end of his term; but Libby may not want any part of jail and sings like a canary and fingers Dick… one can dream.

  17. Blue Washington

    Russerts has his moments, I suppose in some regards, they all do. Judy knew if she sang last year what the outcome would be. They all did.

  18. WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS
    .

    IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States

    TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government

    as it exists in the year…

    2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06
    .

    Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
    .

    And Now the People Step Forward and Charge High Treason, and Show that Democracy in its roots today,
    .

    Is Corrupt.

    .

    And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed in Favor of… A Small Group of Millionaires,
    .

    Over Another… the Governed,
    .

    the People of the United States.
    .

    And that the Election Process is UN-fair and has been Overwhelmed and Monopolized by Millionaires and their millions of dollars
    .

    BU$H = TREASON … Continued at… http://www.RogerART.com

    SEE on left… LINK ( 2 ) to ( Re-Written ) Declaration of Independence

    SEE ALL ( these words in ) 15 + PAINTINGS at…
    .
    http://www.rogerart.com/20_PATRIOT%20DEMOCRACY.htm
    .

    Thank You, Roger Drowne EC
    http://www.RogerART.com

  19. John Kerry Could Be President, If Ohio Counted All The Votes.
    Article in Buzzflash Today!!
    The Gun Is Smoking, Ohio Precint-Level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefitable Evidence Of Vote Miscount.
    Kery Would Be Our President.
    Please read and let your readers know about this. there have been alot of article”s about the Ohio Election, And Tom Noe, And Republicans in Ohio,
    Thanks
    Joyce

  20. Aside from the major fireworks, it is emminently clear that Russert and other major press/pundits figures (Novak, Miller, Cooper, and likely many, many more) knew that many in the administration (Cheney, Libby, Rove, and shrub and the rest) ALL knew about the Plame ID thing while they were making public statements to the contrary. This awareness (that they were lying) was not off the record, and they had not sworn to protect sources or anything else. Collusion to protect them must have occurred. Why? Perhaps to curry favor and avoid blackballing?? To maintain a channel to the inside upper echelons…. Somehow, this type of favored access (resulting in a major media bias- a defacto leverage on the press) must be institutionally countered; anybody got any ideas?

  21. It appears that Kerry did win the election. These same reporters and news agencies have kept the American public ignorant about the stealing of the 2000 and 2004 elections as well. See the report at this site (www.buzzflash.com) re: Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount.

    Why doesn’t the MIS Report this important information. Didn’t the US goverment and MIS publically critize another country because of faulty exit polls. The MIS was all over that story but virtually ignored the same situation here at home. WHY??

  22. Joyce Z & Joyce W

    Thanks for the tip on the BuzzFlash piece – will check it out.

  23. You must change the reference from main stream media to corporate run media. They are not main stream they are corporate run and corporate owned. When the corporate looses control is when you see the reporting like early Katrina, the later and present Katrina reporting is the result of the corporate hand leading to the death of truth and reality.

    The question of the day for everyone is: What have you done to another human being in the name of a corporation? When told to do so will you do it?

  24. In 2003 the Rethugs did a study of all Democratic Presidential candidates vs Bush. Howard Dean was the only one who was shown to be able to beat Bush.

    The day after that realization, the Rethugs in collusion with the MSM, started their smear Dean campaign. It continues to this day.

    Howard Dean should be our president today, Not Bush and not Kerry.

  25. DEANSTER Says:
    November 2nd, 2005 at 4:20 pm

    Whatever! Carry that on down the road.

  26. Deanster

    That sort of comment is not appreciated here. Keep taking those republican talking points – you’re only helping them.

  27. Hey Pam,

    My opinion about Dean is in no way helping the Republicans. That accusation is ridiculous.

    Actually, my opinon is in full agreement with the topic of this thread.

    If the Rethugs, the MSM and Dick Gephardt would not have smeared Dean, he would have won the Democratic nomination and he would now be president.

    Apparently, you fell for their Dean smears. But that’s no surprise, most Americans did, and still do!

  28. Deanster

    You assume too much… I had plans to back support Kerry as a candidate for president for a couple of decades, actually. I’m originally from MA and am a longtime supporter.

    So you see, while others were posturing for Dean early on, on the internet I was supporting Kerry.

    I never dallied with Dean. It was JK all the way for me and it still is.

    As for your buying into right-wing talking points. Kerry was the candidate the republican feared, so they put that meme out there that it was Dean to throw up hype about Dean and get the Democratic base rallied around him. Dean imploded. That’s all fact.

  29. Oh and Deanster,

    Let me just state again. You’ll find me very gracious here on the Dem Daily. I support Howard Dean as I stated earlier, and his work as DNC leader. Read the disclaimer under “Leave a reply”. We don’t attack Democratic Leaders here and we don’t tolerate comments that do.

  30. DEANSTER Says:
    November 2nd, 2005 at 6:01 pm

    Katrina blew–Bush sucks!!
    Katrinacrats for Kerry!!

    See Ya!!

  31. Sure the mainstream media dragged the chain on the on Fitz’s investigations in 04. This contributed to Kerry’s demise last Nov. However, the coup de grace was delivered by whoever controls the computers that gave Ohio to Junior. Let’s not get sidetracked here. Joyce Zuniga’s post, (no.19), bingoes it. Get ACCOUNTABILITY into the electoral system, or be prepared to be forever doomed to electoral wasteland.

  32. Deanster,

    It is common for every campaign to try to sell arguments as to why their candidate is most electable. Dean’s claims were just one more example of this–and he had one of the weaker arguments.

    Dean had too much against him to be electable, and most likely would have led to a repeat of Nixon vs. McGovern. While Kerry and Dean had nearly equivalent positions on the war, many people who voted for Kerry would not vote for someone who is so openly identified with the anti-war movement.

    Lack of military experience would have also hurt in 2004. They woulnd’t have needed to use the Swift Boat liars. It would have been far too easy to smear Dean as a draft dodger.

    Another issue which would have hurt was on taxes. While Kerry wanted to rescind the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, Dean supported rescinding the entire tax cut. Democracy Corps ran a poll on this and found that Dean’s position would cost the Democrats several points.

    Dean’s secular back ground as opposed to Kerry’s more religious background may have also hurt, but I haven’t seen any good numbers on that. It is hard to say if that would have mattered considering how strongly religious voters went for Bush.

    Medicare would have also hurt Dean seriously–and was the issue which destroyed his credibility as far as the media went. While the Dean campaign tried to spin this as pure political attack, the facts were actually quite clear on this and Dean’s dishonesty in responding when Medicare became an issue is what really shot his reputation as a straight shooter. It wasn’t the media just going after him as his supporters often argue, but a case of the media exposing him after he was caught in some very serious lies.

  33. This is the best blog I’ve red on this topic to date. I said these very words for a year or more….
    Thanks!

  34. Oh and Kerry would have made a great President-why didn’t he fight for us here in Ohio (yes, the vote was stolen) like we all begged him to do??? I even sent him the words from Elton John’s song “Johnny, won’t you come out and play in the secret garden…”

  35. Jo

    I think everyone knows by now that Kerry did what he had to do and he IS still fighting for us. A 3 million vote margin was vastly different that 3000 vote margin.

  36. FOX is, as everyone knows, nothing more than a propaganda arm of Right-wing neocons, but the MSM outlets still wants us to accept them as legitimate news sources.

    Too late. With their refusal to cover the election fraud in Ohio in ’04, they lost me forever. And now, the revelation that they refused to cover this coverup/obstruction story last fall will surely turn many others away.

    As far as I am concerned, the only place to hear real, honest news today is on Air America radio. I love Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes, and Big Ed Schultz is also excellent. (The neocons recognize the threat he poses and are firecely trying to block his attempts to be heard on Armed Forces Radio. So much for free speech.)
    I strongly recommend Air America to any Americans who want honest, fact-based news as opposed to the agenda-driven lies and distortions of FOX, and the cowardly, safe-story drivel of the MSM.

  37. Ron,

    How soon you forget that Dean was the only candidate who really spoke out against Bush and the war during the primaries. He was crucified for having the courage for speaking the truth.

    Today, virtually everything he said back then proved to be true and many Dems are parroting his earlier statements.

    Dean does not have a secular background. That is entirely false, as is the reference that Dean is a liar. Better get your facts straight.

    You are seriously misinformed about Howard Dean and you too have also fallen for the MSM smears. Pity.

    Nowdays, Dean is in complete control of the DNC and the future of the Democratic Party. In the end, he came out on top, just where he started before the MSM smears began. And he still draws large crowds, who donate large contributions where ever he speaks.

    Where are the other former presidential candidates?

  38. DEANSTER Says:
    November 2nd, 2005 at 10:46 pm

    “The Democratic Daily reserves the right to Moderate, Edit or Delete comments at their own discretion. Bashing, trashing or attacking our Democratic leaders in office, Democratic Candidates, or our members is not tolerated. Any remarks that can be construed as bigoted or racist will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation.”

    GET THE POINT!!

  39. DEANSTER Says: November 2nd, 2005 at 10:46 pm

    Deanster,

    Oh! This is priceless! You are coming here and telling us – particular Ron, that we don’t/Ron doesn’t know we/he are talking about. Ha ha ha! Absolutely priceless!

    I’ll let Ron aswer you for himself on the “war” memes you are spreading here – Ron is SO adept at responding to your brand of BS.

    I’m sorry but what a putz you are. You’re on The Democratic Daily asking where Kerry is – right…

    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?cat=2

  40. Donnie,

    Just speaking the truth. Tough if you don’t like it.

    GET THE POINT!!

  41. ROFLMAO Shoo Fly!!

  42. Deanster,

    I’m not really sure what your point is here, because we’re Kerry supporters and we not about to but into Dean talking points after all this time.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree. We’re not buying it here.

  43. So now Pam, without anything logical to say, instead resorts to innuendo and name calling. How ironic for you to resort to smearing in this thread.

  44. Deanster

    No one is calling you names here. We’re not buying what you’re selling. You came here smearing and I politely told you that is not acceptable here.

  45. Sounds like he wants to argue, but I can only laugh.

  46. I’m not the one barking. I made a simple observation that if Dean was not smeared by the MSM, he would have won the nomination and would have gone on to become president. Then you threw a tantrum.

    You Kerry worshipers are just too sensitive… and paranoid. Time to move on. I

    Click my name.

  47. Deanster,

    Personally I visit the DNC website frequently. Like I said I have no issues with Dean. I disagree with your observations, most everyone here would I am sure. Why after all this time has passed, some people hold on to the memes of the right wing is beyond me.

    John Kerry has been on the republican president’s most hated list since Nixon. Try Iran Contra and BCCI. Nixon hated him, Reagan hated him, Bush I hated him and so does Jr.

    They were not worried about Dean, they used him to pull attention of off Kerry. Wake up and smell the coffee. Dean didn’t have a chance against Kerry.

    As for Dean now, he’s doing a good job. He’s doing his job and Kerry is doing his, as a Senator.

  48. Deanster

    Actually Dean did favor the Biden-Lugar Amendment that would’ve allowed Bush to go to war unilaterally. Dean was also as guilty as anyone of changing his views on the $87 billion dollars.

    “But Dean’s statement is not exactly what Dean has said in the past:

    Sep. 25: In a debate, Dean said there’s “no choice” but to support the $87 billion.
    Oct. 15: The Associated Press quoted Dean as saying he would oppose the $87 billion, unless Bush repeals some tax cuts to pay for it.
    Oct. 17: Dean said “we cannot cut and run”-and that he would have voted for the money if financed by repeal of tax cuts.

    Oct 17 view sounds exactly like Kerry to me. You can see more at http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_War_+_Peace.htm

    And don’t forget these lovely quotes from early 2003

    Howard Dean, the leading “peace” candidate, told journalist Fred Hiatt, “I don’t even consider myself a dove.” (Wash ington Post, Aug. 25)

    Last January and February, when millions of people were in the streets in protest, Dean said, “America may have to go to war” against Iraq. His only concern was that there was not enough international support. (Washington Post, Feb. 17)

    See more at http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/elections1030.php

  49. Deanster

    Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the Bush people did not want to run against Dean? Or that they conducted some sort of study that indicated Dean could beat Bush. If you can produce it I’ll be happy to look at it.

    According to the book “Boy Genius” (a critical biography of Karl Rove), Rove wanted Dean to be the nominee in early 2004. Can you put forth any evidence of any states that Kerry failed to win that Dean would’ve won.

  50. Dean,

    I meant to say that Dean is much more secular than Kerry. As for Medicare, Dean did lie. I was backing Dean at the time Medicare became an issue, working with Doctors for Dean. I withdrew my support for him in response to the dishonest way he responded to the Medicare issue.

    The other big distortion of the Dean campaign was over Iraq. Kerry spoke out against Bush’s foreign policy before Dean did. It was a political move on Dean’s part to try to differentiate himself from Kerry, knowing that two Northeastern liberals could not make it as contenders. To try to knock off Kerry, he distoted the meaning of the IWR vote to claim Kerry was pro-war, despite the fact that at the time of the vote he gave every indication he would have voted yes if in the Senate.

    Just as Medicare began to destroy Dean’s credibity, the games he played on Iraq completed the job. The Des Moines Register, among other papers, took a look at the anti-war positions and found that Kerry and Dean had essentially the same position at the time, except that Dean had waffled quite a bit before taking an anti-war position. Ultimatley a majority of opponents of the war voted for Kerry, not Dean.

    The media did not destory Dean. Dean destroyed Dean, and the media reported on it.

  51. GO Nick!! BTW Nick, did you ever get the chance to read my post on Stacey Tallitsch? I thought you would have gotten a good uplift out of that one.

  52. Deanster,

    Also forget your fantasies that Dean is in complete control of the DNC as Chair. The position is an administrative position. His support for the position within the party is based upon hope for his fund raising and organizational skills–not support for him as a future candidate. Dean’s poor performance to date in the posiiton has weakened him further.

    Some of the 2004 candidates still have a shot in 2008 (assuming Hillary can be stopped) including Edwards and Clark, with Kerry having by far the best shot after Hillary. Dean is unlikley to ever get the nomination and even less likely to be elected.

  53. Nick,

    Need a few more quotes?

    JANUARY 31, 2003 – LA TIMES
    Ron Brownstein writes that “if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, [Dean] would support military action, even without U.N. authorization.”
    FEBRUARY 10, 2003 – NY TIMES
    “Action with the U.N. is where we should be aiming at right now. We should be going back and set a timeline with the U.N. for absolute disarmament. I’ve chosen 60 days. And then there would be military action. Look, Saddam has to be disarmed. Everybody has to understand that.”
    FEBRUARY 20, 2003 – SALON.COM
    Jake Tapper writes, “[Dean's position] is — ‘as I’ve said about eight times today,’ [Dean] says, annoyed — that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn’t, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
    FEBRUARY 25, 2003 – PBS NEWS HOUR
    “If Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him.”
    “If he were [an immediate threat], I would advocate unilateral action.”

    There are many more, but I think this proves our point. If Deanster comes back and wants to press the issue, I can also pull out plenty on Dean and Medicare, but there’s really not much point in going into that any more.

  54. What the hell, let’s look back at Medicare too. I’ll just go with one article. Check out the last paragraph–it’s an example of how Dean’s own dishonesty is what led to the change in how the media covered him. (Hopefully since this was written the author better understand’s Kerry’s position on the IWR vote):

    Dean Did Want to Wield a Scalpel on Medicare
    Marie Cocco
    September 30, 2003
    On Dec. 6, 1995, President Bill Clinton wielded the pen Lyndon Johnson had used in signing Medicare into law years before to veto Newt Gingrich’s effort to drastically cut spending on insurance for the elderly and turn LBJ’s Great Society program over to the insurance industry.
    It was a turning point in Clinton’s tenure, a moment he would use to rescue his presidency from the surging forces of the Republican revolution led by the House speaker and refute Gingrich’s claim that Clinton was “irrelevant.” This is a bit of political theater worth recalling – accurately – now.
    And, oddly, Democrats are re-enacting the great Medicare melee of 1995.
    Howard Dean, the candidate Republicans love to depict as the heart-throb of the loony left, in fact won conservative praise in the mid-1990s for his agreement with Republican plans for deep Medicare spending cuts. The record shows Dean, who as Vermont governor was serving as head of the National Governors’ Association, endorsed cuts of the magnitude Gingrich envisioned. He did so while the bills were moving through the Senate.
    The good doctor may not have stood for pictures with Gingrich (lucky for him!). But the record shows he supported putting Medicare and Social Security on the block. This was an effort to ensure that all federal programs, not just those affecting state finances (welfare, Medicaid, money for local cops) got the Gingrich ax.
    Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), one of Dean’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been pointing this out for weeks, most strenuously in the candidates’ New York City debate last Thursday. Dean has been defending himself. And this is the problem.
    His defenses are, to put it gently, curious. At first Dean told The Washington Post that he didn’t remember who was on which side of the Medicare fight. A few days later, a campaign spokesman, Jeremy Ben Ami, told me there were “all sorts of different fights” over Medicare from 1995, when the Gingrich Republicans took over, through 1997, when Clinton – by then re-elected after a campaign, essentially, against the Gingrich Congress – forged a budget agreement with them.
    “The alliances were constantly shifting,” Ben Ami said.
    No, they weren’t.
    Clinton and Democrats on Capitol Hill took enormous political risks in 1995. No one knew, then, who would be blamed for not one, but two shut-downs of the federal government during the political impasse.
    But here is what Gephardt, Clinton and other Democrats did know: This was no mere exercise in budget gamesmanship. It was an ideological showdown over the role of government itself.
    “If we solve Medicare, I think we will govern for a generation,” Gingrich told the Atlanta Constitution in June of 1995. More famously, he would tell lobbyists for the insurance industry that he expected the agency that runs Medicare to “wither on the vine” once congressional Republicans introduced the old folks to the miracle of private HMOs.
    “We don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that’s politically smart,” Gingrich said.
    Today, conservatives in the House are still pursuing their dream deferred. They are determined to use the Medicare drug-benefit bill to achieve wholesale Medicare privatization. They may well block the drug measure itself if they don’t get their way.
    So, Dr. Dean, your impulse to put everything on the table for major surgery may have been fine, for a governor. Your impulse as a candidate to obscure the record is just impertinent.
    In any campaign, candidates must square their current rhetoric with their past record. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has been taken to task for his creative explanations for voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution. In due time, Gephardt may be asked to defend congressional votes going way back to 1977.
    Voters generally judge not so much by whether there’s been a change of heart, but by a candidate’s forthrightness in explaining it. And on whether the flip-flopped issue has sufficient importance.
    Dean’s already flunked the first test. He’ll find out soon enough that Medicare matters. Especially to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

  55. Ron

    LOL! Keep them coming!

  56. Ron

    I’m loving it, loving it, loving it, LOOOOOVING it.

    Donnie

    I never did see your post. But I’ll go look for it now. What was the title?

  57. What did I miss? Am I just looking in the wrong places or is Novak getting a free pass in all this?

  58. Here’s the link Nick http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=986

    WooHoo, run and take cover Pamela, Ron is bombing the place. HAHA :)

  59. Vicky

    Hopefully not but it does look that way for now.

  60. Donnie

    Like I told the Deanster last night — “Ron is SO adept at responding to your brand of BS.”

  61. Donnie

    Just read the your post and I LOOOVE it. This guy tallitsch sounds like just what the doctor ordered and then some.

    Here’s the reponse I just posted over at your original post:

    “Donnnie

    Love it. Southern populism at its finest. I’ve seen other folks channel people Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, Ralph Yaroborough, etc. but this guy seems to be channeling them all at once. Excellent-very eloquent and a wonderful mix of facts and figures along with simple human passion for a cruel wrong that has been done to these folks in New Orleans. Just wonderful.”

  62. Nick, I wondered if you ever read that one. We had a talk about Louisiana and how things might turn out after the Katrina and Rita factor. So what do you say now. :)

  63. Yes you did Pamela. You told him, and then Ron showed him!! LOVE IT!!

  64. Vicky,

    Novak is largely getting a pass. That’s partially because there’s so many more important targets in government, and partially because the laws against revealing Plame’s identity by government officials do not apply to him.

    Still, he will be forever known as the person who did publish Plame’s identity and hopefully that will catch up with him sometime.

  65. Donnie,

    That’s nothing. You should have seen the old official Kerry Blog where we dealt with such issues all the time.

    There was one major difference. Back during the primary battles we felt no need to hold back. Now there is no point to an all out attack on Dean so I’ll limit it to the above for now to respond to Deanster.

  66. Donnie

    Some of us on the Kerry blog we’re very well known for our defense of JK and providing all the facts. Ron’s one of the best!

  67. I am enjoying it. What really got me to laughing, was when he asked us to click his name, like it was supposed to scare someone. LMAO-Too Funny!!!

  68. Pamela,

    It’s a shame Donnie never got to see us deal with Lala.

    Donnie,

    Lala is a nickname for our most obnoxious troll on the blog. He was a Kerry hater who leaned towards Dean who would come with a number of names, including Lalaland (claiming we were in Lalaland for believing Kerry had a chance at winning the nomination).

    Lala, as I began to call him, would do things like post multiple times, post under other people’s name, and become an all around pest.

    I figured turn about was fair play. When he got obnoxious, interfering with conversation, I would enter my own posts under his name. I would take part of he would say, and then start talking about the influence of the drugs, or the voices in my (or actually his) head.

    I got word back that even Teresa Heinz Kerry enjoyed reading those posts making fun of him.

  69. LMAO Ron, sorry I missed that.

  70. Ron

    The Lala days were amongst the craziest. Oh, we had some laughs. Donnie would have fit right in.

  71. OUCH!!! You guys are gonna love this. Brings new meaning to the old saying “Hell Hath no Fury”

    Man Sues Ex-Girlfriend Over Glue Attack

    GREENSBURG, Pa. – A man claims his ex-girlfriend owes him more than $30,000 for gluing his genitals to his abdomen five years ago. “This was not just some petty domestic squabble,” attorney Grey Pratt told a Westmoreland County jury Wednesday.
    http://houmatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051103/APA/511031052

  72. Lot’s of blather — very Democrat in its lack of focus and self-indulgence. The US is now being led by anti-social bullies, verging on the sociopathic, and we treat them like they were just ordinary folks with a clever streak. They not only turn our hard-earned democracy back into into a theocratic plutocracy, but they do so with the malevolent glee of spoiled children who don’t give a damn for the suffering of others. Democrats and the media can share the blame for not recognizing that the Devil is at work here. Where are the psycho profiles of leadership when we need them? Why do corporations have more rights than real people? And, why is the profligate use of money to buy elections an acceptable example of freedom of speech? I’m afraid that if the Democrats ever regain power nothing will change. It is certainly time for a Centrist movement, like the Progressives of 100 years ago. Much of the social legislation that the Republicans now wish to dismantle came out of the Progressive Movement, which was itself a response to a robber barony that was as rapacious as that which we are witnessing today. Please, let’s get out of the two party rut and stop rehashing old mistakes. A majority of Americans are crying for responsible governance, not ideology.

    Jay

  73. Donnie,

    Yeah, you would have loved seeing them go at in in the old days on the Kerry blog. That little gang of my old KFF heroes were amazing. Lurking and reading their posts and battles was all that kept my hopes and spirits alive at times during the dark period of the primaries in the fall of ’03.

    My first real post on the JK blog was a few days before the Iowa primary. I finally had to thank them for everything they were doing, for how hard they worked, how amazed I was that the worst things looked the harder they would work, that I loved reading their posts and that I was making my largest donation to date in their honor.

    There were some nights I’d almost hurt myself laughing so hard watching them doing battle. Blasting the trolls with facts and ripping apart their drivel. At times just toying with some of them for fun until they got bored and then they’d just rip their heads off. Mark from Iowa(you’d have loved him too) especially seemed to like toying with them for a while, like a cat with a mouse, before finally decapitating them.
    :-)

  74. Sounds fun Dave.

  75. Jay Says: November 3rd, 2005 at 8:51 pm

    Say what? Most progressives wnat a more liberal agenda not a centrist agenda. Most progressives want to the do away with the centrist model – the DLC, etc. Not sure that you are making sense here, Jay.

  76. Dave from Princeton

    You’re tarnishing my nice girl image! ;)

    LOL!

  77. Words such as progressive, liberal, and centrist are very unclear. While Jay calls for a centrist agenda, much of what he says sounds like things people who consider themselves progressives would say. Without specifics of what he considers a centrist agenda I can’t say if I agree or disagree.

    Normally I’d agree with the idea of getting out of the two party rut. Unfortunately, at the moment, the Republican Party is controlled by the extremists of the right wing, leaving the Democratic Party as the only option for both centrists and progressives.

  78. Ron

    Jay made little sense to me… unless it was a veiled suggestion of leaning towards HC.

  79. Pamela,

    The problem is that Jay uses words like centrist and progressive without saying what he proposes. The terms are too vague and are used differently by different people. He (as well as everyone else who argues based upon liberal vs. conservative labels) need to be more specific as to what they are actually supporting.

  80. Donnie

    Still not ready to say for sure how Lousiana will turn out, but this guy does raise my hopes somewhat for a southern populism resurgence.

  81. home loans mortgage Says:
    May 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    SPAM!!!! ALL OUT SPAM!!!! GO AWAY!! You suck more than Bush, so you piss off!!

  82. Donnie

    Massive SPAM attack! Ugh!