What I think, why I think it
Yet another Republican,Former Michigan Governor William Milliken (1969 - 1980), endorses is endorseing Kerry. This is actually why I believe Kerry will win in a couple of weeks. I don't think Bush will capture a single vote from anyone who voted for Gore in 2000, but there are plenty of Republicans jumping ship.
Pat Robertson's theology is seriously warped. He has no humility whatsoever. Back in January, Robertson said God told him He would bless Bush with an election night blowout. Apparently, God is now backtracking. Last night on Paula Zahn, Robertson said:
ZAHN: How close is this election going to be?
ROBERTSON: I thought it was going to be a blowout, but I think it's razor thin now. But the president, in my opinion, in the next couple of weeks -- we only got two more weeks -- is going to pull ahead of Kerry and I think he will have a substantial Electoral College victory when it's all over.
God's hypocrisy not withstanding, Robertson went on to say lots of other really weird things. Robertson spouts concepts that should truly cause Americans to blanche. Here's Robertson on how George has the "blessings of the emperor":
ZAHN: But they're running an ad right now that rebuts your claim that God has taken a side in this election.
They say -- quote -- "We believe that claims of divine appointment for the president, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his reelection constitute bad theology and dangerous religion."
ROBERTSON: I would never say somebody had to vote for anybody. That would be terrible. I haven't said that.
I just said, I think God's blessing him, and I think it's one of those things that, even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of goofs and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him. And you remember, I think the Chinese used to say, you know, it's the blessing of heaven on the emperor. And I think the blessing of heaven is on Bush. It's just the way it is.
Well, it's his opinion and he's welcome to it. The Jesus with whom I am familiar would hate some pompous ass assigning His divine allegiance to one politician and withholding it from another. I think that's what is generally called grandiosity.
He went on to call Sojourners Magazine a semi-socialist organization and lots of other creepy, smug things that are basically not very Christian. But, those aren't the scariest comments to come out of Robertson's mouth. Check out this doozy about his meeting with Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq:
ZAHN: He's been posed repeatedly in debates, what mistakes have you made? He's been asked that on the campaign trail and he hasn't come up with any.
ROBERTSON: I met with him down in Nashville before the Gulf War started. And he was the most self-assured man I ever met in my life.
You remember, Mark Twain said, he looks like a contended Christian with four aces. He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.
Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties. Well, I said, it's the way it's going to be. And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy. And before that, I had deep, in my spirit, I had deep misgivings about going into Iraq.
I actually watched this interview. When Robertson said that, I literally shook my head. Did he just say that Bush didn't think we would take casualties in Iraq? He did.
The really sad thing is...I believe it.
In the face of mounting fury from investors, activists and politicians, Sinclair Broadcasting still intends to air a Stolen-Honor-related-program activity. The station announced today that they will incorporate parts of the film into a program called "A POW Story." I have not seen the film, or, obviously, the "News" Program. So I do not know whether it is an honest film or presentation or not.
It has been alleged by people who have seen the film that uses some very cagey editing around Kerry's Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971. Two clips posted on the Stolen Honor website are reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. In other words, they are long on accusations and short on evidence. It is highly likely we will all have to go through a debunking process once the program airs.
There are two issues that should be explored regarding Sinclair's broadcast.
1. The nature of the program
First, what kind of program will "A POW Story" be? So far, it is a mystery. Today's press release spins the project thusly:
The news special will focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries. The program will also examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage.
Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts,the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so. In fact, since the controversy began, Sinclair's website has prominently displayed the following statement: "The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized.
Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources." While the news special will discuss the allegations surrounding Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s raised by a number of former POWs in "Stolen Honor," it will do so in the context of the broader discussion outlined above. The program will be hosted by Jeff Barnd, the Emmy award winning co-anchor of Fox 45's 10:00 News which airs
on WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, Maryland.
I think we can read the tea leaves. We will probably see a presentation arguing that liberal elites are manipulating public opinion via films, mainstream media and websites. I think we will see an evisceration of documentaries and their corresponding filmmakers critical of the President. The word "filter" is GOP talking point code for the So Called Liberal Media (SCLM). I then believe we will see an unveiling of documentaries that the "filter" has supposedly prevented you, Joe Public, from seeing. These documentaries will include Stolen Honor. The program will probably address "attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage" by documenting Democratic efforts to squelch the airing of the program itself. I am predicting that what will make this show a news show is the Fox News label and talent, the news crawl at the bottom and the bold claim that you can trust the content because they say so: It will be fair and balanced therefore it is fair and balanced. I will be pleasantly surprised if the reality differs substantially from the above described scenario.
2. To air is to err
Secondly, should the program be aired at all? This question speaks to the tension between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and laws governing ownership and administration of the airwaves. This tension is not trivial. The major players are battling for much more than a dollar in pursuit of virtual turf. The prize in this fight is not money. The prize in this fight is your mind. Now is the time for Americans to seek to understand the legacy of freedoms granted to us via our constitution in the context of the complicated media landscape of daily life.
The Communications Act of 1934 built on its predecessor, the Radio Act of 1927, to establish the cornerstones of US media policy. According to the TV Museum:
The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting--the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted.
The idea that the airwaves are a limited commodity is out of date. This has been demonstrated by the virtually limitless offerings of cable television. However, the concept of Public trust is most definitely not out of date. The US trend towards privatizing and consolidating media outlets only highlights the need for station owners to act in the interest of the public. The reason? It isn't that airwaves are in short supply. Station owners are in short supply. Therefore there are a limited number of outlets of information. The fewer the number of outlets of information, the higher the standard of integrity must be in order to insure that public discourse remains untainted by the designs of the merchants of ideology.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration offers a very clear discussion of the Public Interest Standard in Broadcast Television:
The government's exclusionary licensing arrangement was justified by requiring that broadcasters act as public fiduciaries. Their primary duty would be to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as expressed in both the 1927 and 1934 Acts. The Federal Radio Commission that was created by the 1927 Act described the "public trustee" model in this manner:
[Despite the fact that] the conscience and judgment of a station's management are necessarily personal....the station itself must be operated as if owned by the public....It is as if people of a community should own a station and turn it over to the best man in sight with this injunction: "Manage this station in our interest..." The standing of every station is determined by that conception.(3)
In support of these concepts, the law is abundantly clear. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code) Section 73.1941 [47 CFR ยง73.1941] Equal Opportunities addresses political discourse:
e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
There is an abundance of evidence and observation that supports the idea that Sinclair is in the process of creating and airing a show that does not serve the public interest. One executive producer of the show has been fired for going public with allegations that Sinclair is creating a political hatchet job in the guise of news. The Owner of Sinclair's "Stolen Honor" production company is a Bush appointee. One of the ex-POWs portrayed in the documentary is suing the producers for inappropriately editing his comments to make him look like a liar. There are extensive and deep ties to the Republican Party by those in the film, the producers of the film and the management of Sinclair. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt and several chairman of Journalism schools have decried Sinclair's decision as way out of bounds:
"Any FCC chairman, from the left or the right, would agree with me. I'd be shocked if you could find any other broadcast conduct like this" in the history of American television.
I have not seen an extended argument that favors airing the program in support of the public good. There is a small subsection of people that maintain that Sinclair airing Stolen Honor is the same as Michael Moore making Fahrenheit 9.11. This is specious. The act of remitting value for the product changes the dynamic of the relationship. There would be no controversy if Sinclair made the film available on pay-per-view. The other argument for airing the show centers around censorship. Of course, Sinclair is not being censored. They are being called to uphold the 60-year-old tradition of broadcasters as stewards of objectivity.
Sinclair's foray into thought control may also be illegal on an entirely different front. Their move has cost shareholders approximately $140 million. Investors will try to recoup losses in court.
On balance, Sinclair's decision to air "A POW Story" violates its role as a stweward of the public trust and threatens its status as a conduit of objective news. Additionally, it clearly has made a poor decision on behalf of its shareholders. For these reasons, the company should withdraw the program.
We all know that the Baghdad in the days after Saddam fell was an anarchic inferno. The reality of the Bush administration's failure to win the peace has become a slogan of the Kerry campaign - George Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. I think we will continue to discover the depth of this failure, and the corruption of this administration, in the years to come. It will take that long for the layers of secrecy and control to be systematically peeled away after Bush leaves office.
If you want a head start, read Knight-Ridder's, Post-war planning non-existent. It starts this way:
WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.
The slide said: "To Be Provided."
I am telling you. There are days when I fear for my country.
Wow.
Republican Party Chairman, Ed Gillespie, has sent a cease and desist letter to Rock the Vote. Their Crime?
The serfs are saying things he doesn't like. Students are talking about the draft.
Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, writes:
Claims that a draft is possible, Gillespie argued, are so ridiculous on their face that the the group could only be acting from 'malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the truth.' (Those, of course, are catchphrases laying the groundwork for legal action.)
Gillespie's rationale for arguing that there is no basis for discussing the possibility of a draft is the say-so of the president. Gillespie quotes him saying, "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer force is working ..."
That, to Gillespie, is -- quite literally -- the end of the debate.
This move, if you think about it, is extraordinary. In a political campaign there are very few forms of political speech -- judged by content -- that should ever be subject to legal proceedings. But to threaten legal action to squelch discussion of a subject that is obviously a very newsworthy and relevant issue -- and one the country could face in the next four years -- is simply astonishing.
And yet, no editorial condemnations. Hardly a mention of it. These are now, apparently, the rules of the road -- expected and calling for no particular commenton.
That's even more astonishing.
RHINOs, it is time to break with your party. You know, and I know, that Gillespie's actions are not those of a mature American. Do you really want to associate yourselves with these guys? I sure don't. I actually have only one question for Gillespie:
Mr. Gillespie, why do you hate America?
Contrast the article below with this ad. It's funny, but off the mark. Bush isn't stupid. He's an ideological reactionary.
Ron Suskind has written an eery portrait of President Bush for this week's New York Times Magazine. Without a Doubt deals with the President's sense of absolute certainty arising out of his faith in God and its consequences for the US and the rest of the world.
The whole article basically gave me goosebumps, but there were a couple of sections that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Early in the article, Suskind gives us a picture of the newly struggling Dubya, trying to get his professional act together and coming up a little short:
His marriage may have been repaired by the power of faith, but faith was clearly having little impact on his broken career. Faith heals the heart and the spirit, but it doesn't do much for analytical skills. In 1990, a few years after receiving salvation, Bush was still bumping along. Much is apparent from one of the few instances of disinterested testimony to come from this period. It is the voice of David Rubenstein, managing director and cofounder of the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm that is one of the town's most powerful institutions and a longtime business home for the president's father. In 1989, the catering division of Marriott was taken private and established as Caterair by a group of Carlyle investors. Several old-guard Republicans, including the former Nixon aide Fred Malek, were involved.
Rubenstein described that time to a convention of pension managers in Los Angeles last year, recalling that Malek approached him and said: ''There is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. . . . Needs some board positions.'' Though Rubenstein didn't think George W. Bush, then in his mid-40's, ''added much value,'' he put him on the Caterair board. ''Came to all the meetings,'' Rubenstein told the conventioneers. ''Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years: 'You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.' He said: 'Well, I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.' And I said thanks. Didn't think I'd ever see him again.''
Bush would soon officially resign from Caterair's board. Around this time, Karl Rove set up meetings to discuss Bush's possible candidacy for the governorship of Texas. Six years after that, he was elected leader of the free world and began ''case cracking'' on a dizzying array of subjects, proffering his various solutions, in both foreign and domestic affairs. But the pointed ''defend your position'' queries -- so central to the H.B.S. method and rigorous analysis of all kinds -- were infrequent. Questioning a regional supervisor or V.P. for planning is one thing. Questioning the president of the United States is another
Sometime later Suskind paints as clear a picture of the Bush administration as I have ever seen:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Bush Supporters: This is totalitariansm. Call me a member of the reality-based crowd, if you will. Reality is saying the following: A vote for Bush is a vote for the end of America as we know it.
