The Sanity Ranch--Musings of a Philosopher Queen

Gawd, he doesn't have to even open his mouth to get my vote, LOL! Does that make me a slut?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_1

Democrat Edwards Courts Women Voters
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democrat John Edwards (news - web sites) said Thursday that President Bush (news - web sites) has done too little to make the nation safer, reaching out to women voters

The best editorial comics, hundreds of 'em, from Slate:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/

From this morning's online edition of the New York Times (smart move, CBS, but it may be a case of too little, too late...):

"It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda," the network said in a statement.
The rebuke of the producer, Mary Mapes, also broadcast last night on "The CBS Evening News," served to underscore the change in Ms. Mapes's status in the last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/politics/campaign/22cbs.html?ex=1096516800&en=b019dc6604b43d52&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't reporters supposed to keep their sources secret? Or, at least, maybe not pass along their phone numbers? CBS continues to maintain, with a straight face nonetheless, that it isn't playing partisan politics in a blatant and amateurish attempt--dare I say childish?--to fix a Presidential election. And yet Mary Mapes, she of the Abu Ghraib story, passed along Bill Burkett's phone number to Joe Lockhart, big-time honcho in the Kerry campaign.

Why did she do this? And more to the point, what the hell was she thinking? Her actions shout to the winds that CBS is partisan, and partisan in the extreme. So partisan that they're willing to accept anything that looks like it might hurt Bush and help Kerry. Anything. "Fake but accurate..." Yeah, right, and Britney Spears' breasts are also "fake, but accurate" right? Or Madonna's supposed Jewishness, equally fake, equally accurate? (See www.airamericaradio.com Morning Sedition Sept. 21, 2004, for some opinions on Madonna/"Esther")

For an answer, you need to understand that Mapes is rabidly liberal, and not the kind of liberal who is likely to actually help our cause. She holds strong and extremely left-wing opinions, and is known to have disliked Bush 41. Does this all mean that she could willingly have participated in this mess? Yes, I think it does. I think it means she could not only have participated, but instigated much of it as well. She was so desperate for another headline-grabber, for another turn in the limelight, that she failed to see she was teetering dangerously close to the edge of the stage, and she has now fallen flat on her face off that stage. The light now cast upon her will be far more harsh and the attention focused upon her the kind of scrutiny she isn't going to like. Her extreme politics are going to come to the fore.

And she's dragging CBS right along with her, as well as her likely-partner-in-crime (and this is a crime, folks, it really is, we cannot deny that) Dan Rather. Shame...

This can only--and I stress the word only--harm the Kerry campaign. It gives us, as well as CBS, a black eye. John Kerry himself--or, failing that, the far-more-vocal, far-less-afraid-of-his-own-shadow John Edwards--must come out with a strong and unequivocal statement damning these freakin' documents. He must do this asap, if not sooner. It's too late for Kerry to hem and haw on this issue, and if he wants to save his hopefully-Presidential future he must swallow his pride and come forth in absolute and total denial.

And then he needs to work on shutting up his blathering wife, or the Democratic party, between Teresa and Dan Rather/Mary Mapes/Bill Burkett, is doomed to failure come November 2nd.

For those who wish to read more about Ms. Mapes:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040922/D858CF901.html

There were six pages of memos, apparently. Where and what are the other two pages? I found the article below at: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000629546

'USA Today' Editor Paulson On Paper's Handling of Bush Military Documents
Frank S. Folwell/USA TODAY
USA Today Editor Ken Paulson.
By Joe Strupp Published: September 14, 2004 12:25 PM EDT

NEW YORK USA Today Editor Ken Paulson defended his paper's use of the now-disputed documents related to President George W. Bush's military service, saying the paper "accurately reported" the story."The only difference between USA Today and every other newspaper is that we had the documents to look at," said Paulson. "Like every American newspaper, we are trying to determine the authenticity of the documents." USA Today obtained six pages of memos, according to Paulson, on Wednesday night, but he declined to reveal the source.Paulson would not say if the source was the same as that used by CBS. "That would be speculative," he told E & P. "Two hours after the broadcast, we received the documents and they matched the '60 Minutes' documents," Paulson explained. "We began reading them and trying to decide what to do when the White House released four of the six pages we had."Paulson stressed that it remains unknown if the documents are real. "The jury is very much out on the authenticity of the documents," he said. "All we can do is keep reporting on the story."The records were first revealed during "60 Minutes" last Wednesday, purportedly written in the early 1970s by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's former commander in the Texas National Guard. The memos indicate that Bush received favorable treatment while in the guard.When asked if USA Today erred in any way in its reporting, Paulson was adamant in his defense. "When the White House released the documents Wednesday night, no one including the White House believed they were anything but genuine government records," Paulson said. "When questions were raised later about the authenticity of the documents, USA Today and other responsible news organizations reported the allegations and CBS' response to those claims. That is what we will continue to do."The first USA Today story Thursday reported on the memos as legitimate, noting "60 Minutes" had revealed them the previous night. The story included no caveats indicating that they might not be authentic.The same story reported that a White House spokesman commenting on the memos "did not dispute the documents' authenticity" and that "Killian's signatures on the memos match those on many of Bush's publicly released records."In later stories, USA Today reported only that the source was "a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations" and "the person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades." Paulson said the fact that the White House had released some of the memos and "60 Minutes" had reported them as fact made it easier to use them in a story. "We had a higher confidence level then and we only decided to go to press after '60 Minutes' and the White House issued the documents," he said. "We ran a story on Thursday about '60 Minutes' reporting on the documents, and we used the documents to amplify our story."On Monday, USA Today published one of the more thorough summaries of the dispute thus far, with a point-by-point analysis of the allegations -- including conflicting quotes by experts and interviewees, some of whom have shifted their views just in the space of a few days."Document analysts differ over whether the memos, ostensibly written by Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, are genuine and could have been produced by typewriters available at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston in 1972 and 1973," the story stated, in part. "Two retired FBI forensic document examiners who studied the memos at USA Today's request said Sunday that they probably are forgeries. Four other authorities interviewed by USA Today, including typewriter and type font experts, said the technology existed at the time to create the documents. None of the experts consulted offered an unequivocal opinion."

From this morning's CNN website:

CBS producer called Kerry adviser Mapes suggested Lockhart contact retired officer Burkett

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A campaign adviser for John Kerry told CNN he spoke with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett -- the man who CBS said provided them with disputed documents -- days before the "60 Minutes" piece aired and after a call from a CBS news producer, but strongly denied any connection with the story.

The Bush-Cheney campaign quickly condemned the latest revelation in the reporting scandal, calling on the Kerry camp to "come clean" on its involvement.

The Kerry adviser, Joe Lockhart, late Monday denied any coordination or connection with CBS. Asked if anyone in the campaign had any involvement in pushing the story, Lockhart said, "No."

"We had nothing to do with these documents or forgeries or whatever they are," Lockhart, who served as press secretary in the Clinton White House, told CNN's Candy Crowley. "I did not talk to Burkett about any documents or even the National Guard story."

CBS News said Monday it cannot vouch for the authenticity of documents that cast doubt on President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, and its top anchor, Dan Rather, apologized for the report on-air. (Full story)

Burkett, the man who provided the documents to CBS, denied forging the documents but admitted he lied to CBS about who provided them.
Lockhart said he talked with Burkett the Sunday or Monday before the CBS News report aired Wednesday, September 8.

According to the Kerry adviser, he was called by CBS News producer Mary Mapes that Saturday night, who told him Burkett had been "helpful" on the story and wanted to talk to the campaign.

Lockhart said Mapes told him CBS had some kind of documents related tothe president's Guard service, but did not say what they were or that they came from Burkett.

In what Lockhart said was three- to four-minute conversation, he said Burkett offered advice on the attack ads being run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying the Kerry campaign had not done enough to respond.

According to Lockhart, Burkett encouraged the campaign to "be tougher" and give a major speech on Vietnam.

Lockhart said the conversation ended there, adding that "I have not talked to him since." He also said he has not spoken to Mapes since.

Lockhart said he was aware CBS was working on the Guard story because "You know how it works in Washington. Everybody talks to everybody." He said he told the Kerry campaign about his contact with Burkett, and was not told of any problem with it.

In a statement released Monday by the Bush-Cheney campaign, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett called the developments "stunning and deeply troubling."

"The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Senator Kerry's campaign ... raises serious questions," Bartlett said. "It's time for the Kerry campaign to come clean about their involvement in this growing scandal and for Senator Kerry to immediately hold accountable anyone in his campaign that was involved."

A CBS spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the network will investigate Mapes' involvement in putting Lockhart in touch with Burkett.

"This is an example of the kind of thing that the independent panel that will be named in a few days will look into. When that review is complete, we will comment," Kelli Edwards said.

Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/21/cbs.kerry.adviser/index.html

In an interestingly-emotionless statement just released, Dan Rather admits he was duped. There is no anger from him, no demand to have the source revealed, which can only raise further suspicion that the documents were a blatant attempt by the Kerry campaign to fix the 2004 presidential election. Progressives everywhere, be aware of this! If it comes out that Kerry and/or Rather tried deliberatly to influence this election, we as a party are in deep deep deep trouble! Pray that Karl Rove really is behind this... If he is, why the hell isn't Rather saying so, however? We could be in trouble, folks, real trouble. Kerry needs to come out and vehemently deny any comlicity in this.

Copied below is the statement:

Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.