For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

 

 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...278808786575124

 

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT

 

Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Related Topics: Media & Culture

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

 

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

 

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

 

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

 

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

 

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

 

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

 

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

 

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

 

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

 

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.

 

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

 

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.

 

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.

[Balta1701]

And yet, when I posted what I think is the same study in another thread, it hardly got noticed, because the results were analyzed a bit differently.

* Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

 

* Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

 

* Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

 

* Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

 

* There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010814

 

'This Will Make

Voter Fraud Easier'

Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?

 

Friday, November 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

 

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

 

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

 

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

 

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.

Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

 

Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

 

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.

 

But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

 

Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.

 

While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting.

 

Mr. Carter has personal knowledge of why such laws are needed. He recounts in his book "Turning Point" how his 1962 race for Georgia State Senate involved a local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court challenge before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

 

Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.

Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

 

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.

 

Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).

[Texsox]

She must be stopped before it is too late.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/l...icle2796318.ece

 

The Petraeus Curve

Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

 

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

 

None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favourable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country's potential is to be realised.

 

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair's War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed.

 

Related Links

Rising trade and safer streets for Baghdad

Iraq surge brings hope for a day without death

All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.

 

 

 

Have your say

 

As you must know, most media outlets in the US would rather take up honest work than write something positive about the Bush administration. It appears that Bush would not try to mend fences even if that were possible.

 

This nonsense has created serious problems for those of us who would like to see things end well in that part of the world, and it is creating problems with our economy in that, irrespective of what the economic indicators indicate, the media generally give it a negative spin.

 

As a result, this country is having a great deal more difficulty than is warranted; the so-called mainstream media has lost a great deal of credibility; and we're all the worse off for it.

 

Charles/USA

 

Charles, Harrisburg, USA/PA

 

Of course this is good news for the pople of Iraq and coalition armed forces members - but may be terrible for the rest of us. Why? Bush and his cohort of bumbling bunglers may conclude that Iraq is "fixed" (let's forget about Afghanistan) and consequently there is now the opportunity to "fix" Iran.

 

Steve007 of Missouri - there is much more to "IF" than the words you quoted:

 

"If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;......."

 

Let's hope that Bush just dreams and leaves it at that. Even more importantly, let's hope he actually does think things through for a change before we are treated to another "Mission Accomplished"

 

Iain Percival, The Hague, The Netherlands

 

Here in the states the main stream media just falls silent when there is no bad news to report from this conflict.

 

Most have short memories when it comes to Iraq and the reasons for taking military action there. Since the end of hostilities in 1991, with coalition forces, just about all the agreements made with the Iraqi admin were reneged upon. Regular firing on British and American aircraft enforcing no fly zones to protect the Kurds and other sects from Iraqi forces, the mass murder of those in opposition to Hussien left exposed by the rapid pull out of coalition forces, the holding at gun point of UN weapons inspectors at the Baghdad hotel for two weeks before being expelled when the Iraqis could no longer hide their program's with a shell game, (this fact alone should have led the brits and americans back their immediately), a game which Hussien was very good at, and all other manner of human atrocities. All of these facts were enough to return, too bad so many forget.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/l...icle2796318.ece

 

The Petraeus Curve

Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

 

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

 

None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favourable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country's potential is to be realised.

 

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair's War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed.

 

Related Links

Rising trade and safer streets for Baghdad

Iraq surge brings hope for a day without death

All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.

 

 

 

Have your say

 

As you must know, most media outlets in the US would rather take up honest work than write something positive about the Bush administration. It appears that Bush would not try to mend fences even if that were possible.

 

This nonsense has created serious problems for those of us who would like to see things end well in that part of the world, and it is creating problems with our economy in that, irrespective of what the economic indicators indicate, the media generally give it a negative spin.

 

As a result, this country is having a great deal more difficulty than is warranted; the so-called mainstream media has lost a great deal of credibility; and we're all the worse off for it.

 

Charles/USA

 

Charles, Harrisburg, USA/PA

 

Of course this is good news for the pople of Iraq and coalition armed forces members - but may be terrible for the rest of us. Why? Bush and his cohort of bumbling bunglers may conclude that Iraq is "fixed" (let's forget about Afghanistan) and consequently there is now the opportunity to "fix" Iran.

 

Steve007 of Missouri - there is much more to "IF" than the words you quoted:

 

"If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;......."

 

Let's hope that Bush just dreams and leaves it at that. Even more importantly, let's hope he actually does think things through for a change before we are treated to another "Mission Accomplished"

 

Iain Percival, The Hague, The Netherlands

 

Here in the states the main stream media just falls silent when there is no bad news to report from this conflict.

 

Most have short memories when it comes to Iraq and the reasons for taking military action there. Since the end of hostilities in 1991, with coalition forces, just about all the agreements made with the Iraqi admin were reneged upon. Regular firing on British and American aircraft enforcing no fly zones to protect the Kurds and other sects from Iraqi forces, the mass murder of those in opposition to Hussien left exposed by the rapid pull out of coalition forces, the holding at gun point of UN weapons inspectors at the Baghdad hotel for two weeks before being expelled when the Iraqis could no longer hide their program's with a shell game, (this fact alone should have led the brits and americans back their immediately), a game which Hussien was very good at, and all other manner of human atrocities. All of these facts were enough to return, too bad so many forget.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20071106b.html

 

Group Files Second Lawsuit to Force Release of Hillary's Records

By Susan Jones

CNSNews.com Senior Editor

November 06, 2007

 

(CNSNews.com) - Judicial Watch, a group that probes government corruption, said it has filed another lawsuit against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, this time to force the release of records related to the health care task force chaired by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in her husband's first presidential term.

 

The National Archives has told Judicial Watch there are approximately 3,022,030 textual records, 2,884 pages of electronic records, 1,021 photographs, three videotapes and three audiotapes that must be reviewed before the Archives can respond to Judicial Watch's April 4, 2006, Freedom of Information Act request.

 

According to Judicial Watch's complaint, the Archives has failed to provide any of the records -- or say when it will allow access to them.

 

"Hillary Clinton claimed in the presidential debate last week that 'all of the records' related to her work on health care reform 'are already available.' This is untrue," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

 

"The Health Care Task Force and most other Clinton White House documents remain largely unavailable to the American people. We hope our lawsuits change that," Fitton added.

 

In July, Judicial Watch filed a separate federal lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain access to Hillary Clinton's calendar, daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book, and chronological file -- documents covering the period when she served as First Lady.

 

According to a sworn declaration recently filed by the government, some of those office records could be available as soon as January 2008, Judicial Watch said.

 

The lawsuit filed on Nov. 2 pertains to records from the National Taskforce on Health Care Reform, a "cabinet-level" group chaired by the former first lady and "given primary responsibility for providing advice and making recommendations to the President regarding the national health care reform package."

 

Judicial Watch has said it needs the documents as part of its investigation into "the corrupt record Hillary compiled while...serving as 'co-president' in the first Clinton administration.

[Texsox]

She really needs to just go away. Release the records.

[Balta1701]

She really needs to just go away. Release the records.

The fact that it's judicial watch now getting back into the anti-Clinton game will probably encourage the Clinton campaign to try even harder to lock down anything they haven't released yet.

[Texsox]

Several polls have been released over the past two weeks that show Senator McCain is surging in national primary election polling. We normally don't place a lot of emphasis on these polls, but it is impossible to ignore the documentation of trends that we are seeing in other areas of the campaign as well - and that is the simple fact that John McCain is back and surging ahead of the competition. Pew Research released a poll last week showing Senator McCain passing Fred Thompson to move into second place. It was the first time since July that Senator McCain placed as high as second in a national poll. We didn't alert you to this because we wanted to wait and see if additional public polls show a similar trend. They have.

 

As you can see from the chart at the right, Senator McCain has now moved into second place in consecutive national polls. This trend is congruent with what we are seeing in our internal survey analysis in important early primary and caucus states. It is important to focus on the reasons for the resurgence:

 

 

• Senator McCain is and has always been the best candidate in the race and is the right man for the right time to lead our country. We are in a war against radical Islamic extremism and Senator McCain is by far the best wartime candidate on either side of the aisle to be Commander-in-Chief on day one.
• John McCain is the only conservative who can beat Hillary Clinton and polls confirm it. McCain is a consistent, longtime conservative who has a long history of being pro-life, is a leader in the fight against earmarks and wasteful spending, and an advocate for a strong national defense.
• McCain has long supported the issues that will keep the Reagan coalition together - protecting our values, promoting fiscal responsibility and defending America. Republican primary voters are moving towards John McCain as they realize he is a better general election candidate than Rudy Giuliani because of his unique ability to hold together the Reagan coalition of conservative, Independents, and Reagan Democrats.
• McCain's leadership in the Iraq War is paying off. Senator McCain is getting credit for ‘being right from the beginning’ about the failed Rumsfeld strategy and the need for more troops. He is the only candidate experienced enough in both defense and foreign policy to have called for strategic change in Iraq as early as 2003. While others sat quietly, John McCain led for a change.

As we are one year out from Election Day 2008, it is critical to get this information out to all of our team. Please forward this memo to the people you know. Not all of this gets picked up by the mainstream press so we want to make sure that the good news is getting out to our supporters everywhere.

 

Lastly, we need every one of our supporters to "give and give again." We have turned the corner, the momentum is with us. The evidence is clear from the polls - we just need to make sure the funds are there to keep the bus on the road and the straight talk flowing. Won't you help us one more time?

 

Thanks. Together we can help John McCain restore hope in America and faith in our future.

 

 

Rick Davis

Campaign Manager

I believe he is the best of the GOP bunch.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe he is the best of the GOP bunch.

 

 

I would tend to agree he's the best in there of the viable candidates (remove Paul). Three interesting things to note on McCain...

 

1. If the drop in violence in Iraq ends up continuing (which is to say, the Iraqi warlords keep cooperating with the US agenda), McCain stands to gain more than any other candidate from that.

 

2. McCain is the one GOP candidate who can reasonably claim to be an "environmental" candidate. He's the one who had been first among GOP'ers to work on the committees and task forces about CCGW, and he's leaned pro-environment on more votes than the others. As gas prices go up and energy policy becomes a bigger focus, this will help him too.

 

3. If Giuliani continues to falter (which he is doing - he is already losing his leads in IA and NH, as well as nationally), then McCain stands to take that moderate vote from him more than the other candidates can. And as the younger, more moderate part of the Republican party focuses more on energy policy and Iraq, being slightly more socially moderate, that works nicely in McCain's favor too.

 

Just a few things that point positive for his chances. If he can put on a good ground game in IA and NH, I think he has a real shot.

 

[southsider2k5]

McCain is the only candidate out there that really could gain from the war going better in Iraq. If they really have slowed down the sectarian violence on a reasonable level, and they can actually get out to rebuild the country, he could get a nice bounce. I don't think there is long enough in the cycle for that to happen though.

[NorthSideSox72]

McCain is the only candidate out there that really could gain from the war going better in Iraq. If they really have slowed down the sectarian violence on a reasonable level, and they can actually get out to rebuild the country, he could get a nice bounce. I don't think there is long enough in the cycle for that to happen though.

There are a lot of things pointing towards a McCain rush up the standings at this point. Whether its enough to finish Top 2 in IA and NH (which is what he needs to have a shot), I am not sure.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0621090220071107

 

House overrides Bush veto of water bill

Wed Nov 7, 2007 9:35am EST

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A veto last week by President George W. Bush of a popular water projects bill was overridden by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moving Congress closer to enacting legislation that would authorize $23 billion for nearly 900 projects across the United States.

 

The House voted 361-54 to override the president's veto. The Senate is expected to take up the water bill as early as Wednesday.

 

If similar action occurs in the Senate, it would mark the first time Congress has mustered enough votes to override the president's veto. Bush has vetoed five bills during his time in office.

 

"The president chose to stand in the way of this bipartisan legislation, this overwhelming bipartisan legislation, in an attempt to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from Maryland. "This is the wrong bill to have done so."

 

Bush had long threatened to veto the $23 billion bill, saying it was too expensive because it had special projects supported by individual lawmakers.

 

"No one is surprised that this veto is over-ridden," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

 

"We understand that members of Congress are going to support the projects in their districts. Budgeting is about making choices and defining priorities -- it doesn't mean you can have everything," he said. "This bill doesn't make the difficult choices; it says we can fund every idea out there."

 

The Senate passed the bill, 81-12, in September after the House of Representatives approved it by 381-40 a month earlier, both with more than the two-thirds majorities needed to override a presidential veto.

 

Overall, the legislation authorizes 900 projects and studies.

 

The bill would provide funding to do coastal restoration in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina and improve the Florida Everglades.

 

It also would include new locks to speed up freight traffic on the Mississippi River. Farm and business groups have campaigned for years to expand navigational capacity on the upper Mississippi, where many of the locks and dams date from the Depression era, in order to remain competitive in the global agriculture trade market.

 

Bush and Democrats, at loggerheads over his Iraq war strategy, have also been sparring over other spending issues, including a proposal by Democrats to expand a popular children's health program and a series of annual domestic spending bills supported by Congress that exceed a funding limit Bush has suggested.

 

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

 

[southsider2k5]

For those who did not see this yesterday, there was some interesting manuevers taken in the House the other day. First Dennis Kucinich tried to pass a resolution to impeach Dick Cheney. No one really expected it to go anywhere, until the Republicians decided to let this actually come up for debate and vote, at which time the Dem's got scared and referred it back to committee so that it could die quietly, instead of actually going on record with their feeling, comments, and votes.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/...in3462837.shtml

 

Cheney Impeachment Resolution Roils House

By Ryan Grim

 

(The Politico) An attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney through introduction of a privileged resolution spun entirely out of control today as Republicans crossed the aisle and tried to force an actual vote on the measure. After a scramble by an visibly irate Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Kucinich resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to languish until dead.

 

 

Initially, it appeared that the vote was cruising as expected to a wide defeat for Kucinich. As time expired,the motion to table the resolution - meaning cutting off debate - had well over the required 218 votes and was climbing as more came in.

 

Around then, however, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) suggested Republicans shift their votes to the 'no' column so that the motion to table would fail, thereby forcing an hour-long debate on the resolution. The 'aye' column gradually fell. In response, Democrats began changing their own votes to counteract the GOP strategy, then decided against that plan, realizing it could actually result in a vote on whether to impeach Cheney, said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.).

 

"Both sides were being too clever by half," Gilchrest said.

 

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said the purpose of the GOP maneuver was to highlight the "San Francisco agenda" that Democrats are pursuing, while at the same time accusing Republicans of "wasting precious time," he said. "They've taken all day to move their agenda. The Republican Party is giving them what they want."

 

Shadegg conceded that the move put some Republicans in the uncomfortable position of voting against Cheney, but that the idea was to expose the division between moderate Democrats and the "far left faction" of the party," a smiling Shadegg told reporters afterward. "Their leadership shouldn't be protecting their members from voting on the issue" of impeaching Cheney since that's what they wanted.

 

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) was one of those members uncomfortable voting against Cheney. "I have such high regard for the Vice President, even symbolically, I couldn't," he said.

[YASNY]

Typical ... the Dems have been screaming about Cheney for 6 years and one them finally has the gonads to bring it up and the rest of them cower from the issue. They are all in this together, Dems and Reps, and all this bitterness between the parties is just a smokescreen to keep that American people polarized so we don't realize that they are screwing us all royally.

[kapkomet]

Typical ... the Dems have been screaming about Cheney for 6 years and one them finally has the gonads to bring it up and the rest of them cower from the issue. They are all in this together, Dems and Reps, and all this bitterness between the parties is just a smokescreen to keep that American people polarized so we don't realize that they are screwing us all royally.

Best post in the Filibuster ever.

 

I'm not kidding, either.

[YASNY]

Best post in the Filibuster ever.

 

I'm not kidding, either.

 

I call 'em like I see 'em.

[kapkomet]

Oh, I agree - I think our whole government (poltical shennanigans in reality) is a sham. Who can out-do the other one to keep power? It's pathetic. But of course, Dems are better then Re-pube-licans and Re-pube-licans are better then Dems.

[YASNY]

Oh, I agree - I think our whole government (poltical shennanigans in reality) is a sham. Who can out-do the other one to keep power? It's pathetic. But of course, Dems are better then Re-pube-licans and Re-pube-licans are better then Dems.

 

Who keeps power doesn't matter. It's six of one, a half dozen of the other. It'll be the same s*** until the American people ... correction, the people of this Earth ... decide that they've had enough and ... well ... use your imagination as to what needs to be done.

[southsider2k5]

The more money becomes a part of political process, the worse it is going to. People don't give you outrageous amounts of money without expecting something in return.

[southsider2k5]

From Page 19 of the New York Times

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

 

Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says

 

By DAMIEN CAVE

Published: November 8, 2007

BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

 

Reach of War

Go to Complete Coverage » Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some 13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, “there’s just no question” that violence had declined since a spike in June.

 

“Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,” and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.

 

General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis’ rejection of “the rule of the gun.”

 

His comments, in a broad interview over egg rolls and lo mein in a Green Zone conference room, were the latest in a series of upbeat assessments he and other commanders have offered in recent months. But his descriptions revealed a city still in transition: tormented by its past, struggling to find a better future.

 

“The Iraqi people have just decided that they’ve had it up to here with violence,” he said, while noting that their demands for electricity, water and jobs have intensified.

 

Hundreds, if not thousands, of displaced families are returning to their homes, but a majority of them are still afraid to go back to neighborhoods now segregated by sect. “Clearly,” General Fil said, “it will take some time for Baghdad to restore itself to what it was.”

 

He and other military commanders have maintained for months that the conditions for national reconciliation have been met. They argue that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led, has been weakened. They cite in particular the rise of the American-supported citizen volunteers — 67,000 nationwide, according to military figures.

 

And though Sunni extremist groups could revive and “reinfest very quickly,” General Fil said, Iraq’s leaders should now have the peace they need to build a trusted, cross-sectarian government. But progress toward that, he said, has been “disappointing.”

 

Soon, General Fil said, there will be fewer troops for the Iraqis to rely on. “Already we are at a point where we’ll see that as the surge forces depart the city, we’ll see a natural decline in numbers, and I’m very comfortable where that comes to,” he said.

 

With less than two months to go before his division heads home, General Fil offered a mixed vision of the military’s role for the coming year. He said that if 2007 was the year of security, 2008 would probably be “a year of reconstruction, a year of infrastructure repair, and a year of, if there’s going to be a surge, a year of the surge of the economy.”

 

He acknowledged that dislodging Shiite militias from control of gasoline, government ministries and other sources of power would be difficult.

 

The biggest threat to Baghdad’s security is now Shiite militias, he said. Infrastructure weaknesses and unemployment are also serious obstacles, which American efforts at the local level cannot fully address because “these become national-level problems,” he said. Violence, meanwhile, despite recent declines in some areas, has moved to some degree to rural villages and towns from major cities, American and Iraqi commanders said.

 

On Wednesday, two children were killed when a roadside bomb exploded on a farm road in Wasit Province. South of Baquba, Iraqi army patrols found 17 bodies, blindfolded, handcuffed and decayed. Four were found headless about 200 yards away. It was the second mass grave discovered in a rural area this week.

 

American troops have recently focused more operations on the farm towns and dusty villages of the country, with the latest coming this week outside Kirkuk in the north.

 

The operations are aimed at maintaining what General Fil described as vital momentum. The greatest challenge of the coming months, he said, will be satisfying the delicate hopes and expectations of Iraqis, who see security not as an end, but just as a beginning.

 

Stability, General Fil said, “is within sight but not yet within touch.”

 

“Close, but not yet within touch.”

 

Reporting was contributed by Khalid al-Ansary, Anwar J. Ali and Mudhafer al-Husaini from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Baquba and Kirkuk.

[southsider2k5]

Its seems movie viewers are getting Iraqnaphobia at the theaters...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

 

Hollywood is casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films

 

Nov 9 11:21 AM US/Eastern

5 Comments

 

 

 

 

View larger image

 

The wave of recent films set against the backdrop of war in Iraq and post-9/11 security has failed to win over film-goers keen to escape grim news headlines when they go to the movies, analysts say.

In a break with past convention, when films based on real conflicts were made only years after the last shots were fired, several politically-charged films have gone on release while America remains embroiled in Iraq.

 

Almost without exception, however, the crop of movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.

 

"Rendition," a drama starring Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal about the CIA's policy of outsourcing interrogation of terror suspects, has taken just under 10 million dollars at the box office, a disastrous return.

 

 

Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis's latest film "In the Valley of Elah," about a father investigating the death of his son in Iraq, earned favorable reviews but less than seven million dollars following its release in September.

 

Even the action-packed "The Kingdom," starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, fell well below its 70 million budget with around 47 million dollars in ticket sales.

 

The poor returns do not augur well for more war films due for release in North America later this month, notably the Robert Redford-directed drama "Lions for Lambs" and Brian De Palma's hard-hitting "Redacted," based on the real-life rape and murder of an Iraqi schoolgirl by US soldiers.

 

Lew Harris, the editor of website Movies.com, said the films have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough.

 

 

"These movies have to be entertaining," Harris told AFP. "You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.

 

"That's what happened with 'Rendition' and it has been a disaster," he said.

 

"People want war movies to have a slam-bang adventure feel to them ... But Iraq is a difficult war to portray in a kind of rah-rah-rah, exciting way.

 

"And it's just too close to home. The Vietnam war movies didn't start until long after the war was over.

 

"But here for the first time you're seeing things that you're reading about in the newspaper or seeing on television in movie theatres. I'm not sure that's something that people want. A lot of people go to the movies to escape."

 

According to Gitesh Pandya, an analyst with website boxofficeguru.com, cinema-goers were unenthusiastic about spending money for movies about subjects they see on television at no cost.

 

 

"I just think it's something that people are not willing to pay top dollar to see, especially when we get so much coverage at home for free," Pandya told AFP. "At the end of the day it's not content people are willing to pay for."

 

Pandya said the subject matter of the films also made them particularly vulnerable to poor reviews.

 

"Older-skewing films are affected by reviews a lot more than a movie aimed at teenagers. It's possible for a teen movie with horrible reviews to be a commercial success; but for films targeting an older audience, the reviews can make or break them," he added. "And the reviews for these films have not been great."

 

Veteran television producer Steven Bochco, whose 2005 television series "Over There" about a platoon of soldiers fighting in Iraq ended after just one season, said it was hard to engage audiences in a "hugely unpopular war."

 

 

"TV is fully saturated with this war and I don't know if you can do a serious drama about this war and locate any angle that would overcome the negativity about it," he told the New York daily Newsday.

 

Iraq films remain a difficult sell for audiences because of the swirl of confusion surrounding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, he added.

 

"World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided.

 

 

Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[NorthSideSox72]

Its seems movie viewers are getting Iraqnaphobia at the theaters...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

The Kingdom and Rendition were both horrible movies. They weren't "treatments" of Iraq, like say United 93 and World Trade Center were for 9/11. They are both poorly done action films. That's why they bombed.

 

In the Valley of Elah I hadn't even seen hit the theatres.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Why would anyone pay 10 bucks to see a movie about the war when you can turn on any cable tv news station at any time of day and watch it for free?