Dan Rather is right

[ronaldo]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/10139

It must have been nice back in the '60's being the son of a rich Texas Congressmen. The stuff that Dubya got away with back then is amazing. It would have at the least got a normal soldier a few months in the brig, and now he is our Commander in Chief.

[Mystic]

What's your point? That life's not fair? OMG stop the presses "LIFE'S NOT FAIR" What will we ever do? :rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.chicagoprotective.com/firesuit.jpg

Hmmm, should I be here? Maybe not.

Anyway, Rather is such an enigma. He screwed up his depiction of the Zapruder JFK film (http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Zapruder_Film#Young_Dan_Rather), or did he? He wanted to find the truth at the Democratic National Convention of '68 and got punched out for it (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5672662260653209200). He went to Vietnam and reported as a real embedded reporter should (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/02/eveningnews/main677645.shtml). He went to Afghanistan "embedded" to show the Mujahideen kicking Russia's ass. But still no one cares (couldn't find a damn thing about his reports online).

And who can forget his metaphor filled bizarro comments...

"The reelection of Bill Clinton is as secure as a double-knot tied in wet rawhide."
--Dan Rather on Election Night, 1996.

"Folks, let me point out something to you, because for a lot of people in Washington, they could not be more surprised if Fidel Castro came loping through on the back of a hippopotamus."
--Dan Rather on Election Night, 1998.

"The Michigan Republican primary apparently is tighter than Willie Nelson's headband."
--Dan Rather on CBS Evening News, February 22, 2000.

"'I know a lot of people think I've got the CBS eye tattooed on my ass,' Dan Rather says, conceding his public image as a tough, hard-charging telejournalist."
--Dan Rather, quoted in Edwin Diamond's 1991 book, The Media Show.

:\ Sigh...sadly, he has lost all credibility. Beyond repair. And this blog won't help him (or us) either.

Edit: I just found a more interesting and less "smirky" source for some hope...

Dan Rather stands by his story (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/27/dan_rather_suit/?dupe)

His lawsuit will attempt to show that CBS tried to suppress the report on Bush's National Guard Service and the Abu Ghraib abuses.

If the court accepts his suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well. Then Rather's suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a major news organization's intimidation, complicity and corruption under the Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into the sanctum of any news organization to divulge its inner workings. But intent on vindicating his reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather's suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his "60 Minutes II" piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained -- and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.

Good luck Dan, you're gonna need it.

[trumptman]

I get the double-knot tied in wet rawhide one... what is wrong with that?

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

I get the double-knot tied in wet rawhide one... what is wrong with that?

Nick

Psst. I wasn't dogging him on them, most journalists do this. Rather is on par with, let's say Davis Brinkley's classic quote, "It's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool."
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950508,00.html?promoid=googlep)

[sammi jo]

Dan Rather got severely "Roved". It was a brilliant piece of bait 'n' switch, and Rather fell for it, hook, line and sinker. D'oh! The information about Bush's service records was essentially correct, but the documentation that was presented (and Rather quoted) was a forgery.

BINGO! The controversial issue of Bush's military record, killed off at a stroke. You gotta hand it to Rove, evil genius that he is....

[@_@ Artman]

Also, this whole article linked above was link-jacked from the Mediamatters web site...

Here's the original link. (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709250005)

When submitting anything, dig a little deeper so that credit is given where it's due and the frame of the content isn't surrounded by lunacy.

[dfiler]

He's always seemed like a scapegoat to me. He was a news-reader who never personally vetted his sources. That was someone else's job. I suppose he could have re-vetted everything in every story, but nobody really does that.

Humiliation and public apology sure? But in my book, it was only a minor scandal.

Our president is still in office after attacking another country based upon mistaken info. Dan Rather was fired after reading a news story based upon mistaken info.
:???:
Our priorities seem a little out of wack.

[ronaldo]

What's your point? That life's not fair? OMG stop the presses "LIFE'S NOT FAIR" What will we ever do? :rolleyes:

My point is he doesn't have any business being the Commander in Chief, but I guess we have to live with it, for another 13 months.
Never said anything about life being fair you Jag-off.

[screener]

My point is he doesn't have any business being the Commander in Chief, but I guess we have to live with it, for another 13 months.
Never said anything about life being fair you Jag-off.

And Bush's view of Vietnam was you-all didn't stay the course.

What a joke.

[trumptman]

My point is he doesn't have any business being the Commander in Chief, but I guess we have to live with it, for another 13 months.
Never said anything about life being fair you Jag-off.

Well except for getting more votes than any candidate in history, getting over 50% which Clinton never managed to do, and kicking the crap out of two entirely different Democratic candidates including Mr. Al "I''ve won all the awards and been nominated for all the prizes as a a seer of all things good for humankind" Gore.

We can all complain that he sucks. Yet he beat everyone who is supposedly better. As Maher put forth, why would we vote for someone who could be fooled by George Bush.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

We can all complain that he sucks. Yet he beat everyone who is supposedly better. As Maher put forth, why would we vote for someone who could be fooled by George Bush.

Nick

George "Chimpy McFlightsuit" Bush didn't fool us. The Republican party and the voting system did. I can't believe that there are people that still don't believe we were fleeced in 2000 and 2004 (http://www.google.com/search?q=election+fraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). :no:

[Mystic]

Would you like some cheese to go with that Whine?

[tonton]

What's your point? That life's not fair? OMG stop the presses "LIFE'S NOT FAIR" What will we ever do? :rolleyes:

Yeah but the minute the government taxes a BILLIONAIRE 35%, while a KFC fry boy earning $700 a month gets away tax free, it's just NOT FAIR!!!!

[franksargent]

Well except for getting more votes than any candidate in history, getting over 50% which Clinton never managed to do, and kicking the crap out of two entirely different Democratic candidates including Mr. Al "I''ve won all the awards and been nominated for all the prizes as a a seer of all things good for humankind" Gore.

We can all complain that he sucks. Yet he beat everyone who is supposedly better. As Maher put forth, why would we vote for someone who could be fooled by George Bush.

Nick

You do realize, you're speaking VOLUMES about AmeriKKKan's collective political IQ, don't you? :D

I'm proud to say that I voted both times, but in neither case did I vote for Chimpy McFlightsuit! :p

[jimmac]

Well except for getting more votes than any candidate in history, getting over 50% which Clinton never managed to do, and kicking the crap out of two entirely different Democratic candidates including Mr. Al "I''ve won all the awards and been nominated for all the prizes as a a seer of all things good for humankind" Gore.

We can all complain that he sucks. Yet he beat everyone who is supposedly better. As Maher put forth, why would we vote for someone who could be fooled by George Bush.

Nick


By the way if memory serves correctly Gore won the popular vote in 2000 not Bush. Bush only got in there because of the electoral college.

[jimmac]

Would you like some cheese to go with that Whine?


No. Just the next election will do thank you.;)

[Mystic]

No. Just the next election will do thank you.;)
I can't wait to vote against Hillary too. :lol:


http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/1006/hillaryImage14.jpg

[sammi jo]

By the way if memory serves correctly Gore won the popular vote in 2000 not Bush. Bush only got in there because of the electoral college.

There was another stage before the Electoral College: The Supreme Court decided to halt the count in Florida, because (according to Rehnquist), "to continue the count could be damaging to the political career of George W. Bush".

[trumptman]

George "Chimpy McFlightsuit" Bush didn't fool us. The Republican party and the voting system did. I can't believe that there are people that still don't believe we were fleeced in 2000 and 2004 (http://www.google.com/search?q=election+fraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). :no:

He didn't fool you? Give you your claim at 100% truthiness, that still means he pulled off the "fraud" as you term in in front of the entire national media and entire Democratic party after four years to prep and prevent, in two different states and in two different elections.

Sorry, but it really sounds like sour grapes, and the alternative is he pulled off fraud in front of the eyes of everyone while notifying you of the date, time place, and item to be stolen and yet nothing was done.
You do realize, you're speaking VOLUMES about AmeriKKKan's collective political IQ, don't you? :D

I'm proud to say that I voted both times, but in neither case did I vote for Chimpy McFlightsuit! :p

You shouldn't be proud of continually claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a klan member. Get a new ad-hom.

By the way if memory serves correctly Gore won the popular vote in 2000 not Bush. Bush only got in there because of the electoral college.

I guess you were bitching the entire eight prior years when the electoral college also gave Clinton the win since he never achieved 50% in voting.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

He didn't fool you? Give you your claim at 100% truthiness, that still means he pulled off the "fraud" as you term in in front of the entire national media and entire Democratic party after four years to prep and prevent, in two different states and in two different elections.

Sorry, but it really sounds like sour grapes, and the alternative is he pulled off fraud in front of the eyes of everyone while notifying you of the date, time place, and item to be stolen and yet nothing was done.

Nick

He fooled you. He fooled us. He's been fooling the American people since. Wake up, Nick.

[Sherman Homan]

Bush only got in there because of the electoral college.
That is the only way to "get in there", that is the rule of the game.

[trumptman]

He fooled you. He fooled us. He's been fooling the American people since. Wake up, Nick.

I guess the Senate was "fooled" again in their vote last week on Iran as well.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

I guess the Senate was "fooled" again in their vote last week on Iran as well.

Nick

Again (http://www.slate.com/id/2174857/nav/ais/) and again (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=237751) and again (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/28/content_6806725.htm)...:no:

[trumptman]

You know after the first ten or twenty times, they have to stop being "fooled" and actually be consider to be advocating for tht position. Just a thought to consider.

Nick

[Northgate]

I wish they would. I wish they would.

[FormerLurker]

I guess you were bitching the entire eight prior years when the electoral college also gave Clinton the win since he never achieved 50% in voting.

Nick:lol::lol:

Clinton got more votes than anyone else running.
He was the winner of the popular vote.

Bush did NOT. Gore got MORE votes than Bush.
Gore, not Bush, was the winner of the popular vote.

See the difference, sparky?

You are just in love with strawmen, aren't you?
You'd probably make love to one if you could....
:err:

[@_@ Artman]

...and again (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63632/), and again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html?nav=rss_print/asection) and again (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-stop-saying-ir_b_66165.html)...

[trumptman]

:lol::lol:

Clinton got more votes than anyone else running.
He was the winner of the popular vote.

Bush did NOT. Gore got MORE votes than Bush.
Gore, not Bush, was the winner of the popular vote.

See the difference, sparky?

You are just in love with strawmen, aren't you?
You'd probably make love to one if you could....
:err:

Well of course he got a minority majority, but it was the Dems who so enjoyed reminding us that more people voted AGAINST the policies of a person than FOR the policies of a person. The reality is that even when he won, more were always voting against him than for him.

You are right that Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000. Gore had roughly 51 million to the Bush 50.5 million. However in 2004, Bush was reelected by receiving more votes than any presidential candidate has ever gotten, over 62 million.

The strawmen here are that people were "fooled" both times when in reality more people than ever were engaged, registered, and voted.

Also, amazingly enough when the Dems won in 2006, even on the same machines, all the "incidences" of supposed voter fraud magically disappeared.

Amazing, isn't it? It won't be until 2008 where if a Republican wins again, it will all somehow "magically" come down to voter fraud in the minds of Democrats, even if they retain or gain in both houses, it will be "fraud" that led the day.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

The strawmen here are that people were "fooled" both times when in reality more people than ever were engaged, registered, and voted.

Oh, you mean these people? (http://www.google.com/search?q=voter+caging+2004&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Also, amazingly enough when the Dems won in 2006, even on the same machines, all the "incidences" of supposed voter fraud magically disappeared.

Of course not. The administration weren't going to even try for a three-peat. This is why Karl Rove bailed. Must have been those "missing" emails (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=a9P&q=rove+2006+missing+emails&btnG=Search)among other things (http://www.google.com/search?q=voter+caging+2004&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

This isn't a White House. It's a Frat House.

http://www.watsoncrombie.com/bush/presidency9.jpg

:smokey:

[trumptman]

Oh, you mean these people? (http://www.google.com/search?q=voter+caging+2004&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

I love this type of allegation. It is where you take a perfectly normal behavior, add the word "black" or insinuate racism, and suddenly normal behavior becomes.... EVIL!:devil:

Verifying that people are actually registered, requiring photo id's even if they are all provided by the state for free, anything that insures one person/one vote is of course evil and racist.

Anything that allows Democrats to "find" hundreds of votes in recount after recount, well that is "social justice."

Of course not. The administration weren't going to even try for a three-peat. This is why Karl Rove bailed. Must have been those "missing" emails among other things.

This isn't a White House. It's a Frat House.

Sorry buddy but they did go for a "three-peat" because Republicans won and retained power in 2000, 2002, and 2004. (All those years they held power before from 1994 on when Republicans too Congress are obviously imaginary.)

Do you know how strange it is to suggest that someone is so power mad that the would ignore the Constitution, cheat in elections, invade foreign countries, and oops, he just decided to make himself the lamest duck in a while by giving up both houses of Congress with two years left.

That makes SOOOO much sense.:rolleyes:

Nick

[FormerLurker]

Well of course he got a minority majority, but it was the Dems who so enjoyed reminding us that more people voted AGAINST the policies of a person than FOR the policies of a person. The reality is that even when he won, more were always voting against him than for him. Yeah, that's the same strawman again. None of that "haha-Dems-GOTCHA" attempt at snark about a "minority majority" has anything to do with the popular vote vs. the electoral.

Clinton won both electoral and popular. Gore won the popular, but lost the electoral.

See the difference, sparky?

You are right that Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000. Gore had roughly 51 million to the Bush 50.5 million. That's the whole point, which has absolutely nothing to do with the above, or the following.

However in 2004,
2004?

You respond to a statement about the 2000 election first with a diversion to Clinton's election in 1996, and then with a diversion to the 2004 Bush/Kerry election?

You got yourself a whole harem of those strawmen, don't ya?

Bush was reelected by receiving more votes than any presidential candidate has ever gotten, over 62 million.

The strawmen here are that people were "fooled" both times when in reality more people than ever were engaged, registered, and voted.
Though I doubt it's what you meant to say when you referred to "strawman", I agree that your preceding statement is Yet Another Strawman - or rather, two of them.

First, "engaged" is meaningless - there is no way to measure that, and the number of Americans who registered or voting has nothing to do with how many were "engaged" and to what degree. The number of Americans who registered and voted also has nothing to do with whether or not anyone was "fooled" by the "only-Republicans-can-keep-you-safe rhetoric - it just means that there were more people available to be fooled.

Second, does more people than ever voting and registering in 2004 simply mean that there were more Americans than ever in 2004? Or was there anything actually meaningful to this 62 million figure trumpeted by Republican mouthpieces and gleefully repeated by water-carriers everywhere as "proof" of Bush's 2004 "mandate"? Something like a higher percentage of registered voters in the general population, or a higher percentage of actual voters in the general population, or a higher percentage of registered voters actually voting? I'll expect to see actual figures cited if you're going to claim one of those three.

[franksargent]

However in 2004, Bush was reelected by receiving more votes than any presidential candidate has ever gotten, over 62 million.

Nick

United States presidential election, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004)

Bush received about 50.73 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), making him the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father George H. W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988. The 62 million votes cast for Bush were the most individual votes cast for anyone in history, though John Kerry's 59 million votes (48.27 percent) ranked second in that category as well.

Although Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting President; Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916. In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948.

So by your very skewed (less than half the information reasoning), Kerry would have been the winner in all previous POTUS elections! :rolleyes:

It's called population growth, wake me up when the US population starts going down, OK?

I'll go out on a limb and predict that there will be more registered voters in 2008, and even more registerd voters in 2012, and even more registered voters in 2016, and ... ad infinitum!

I'll even predict that Chimpy will lose his "so called" record if voter turnout is at least equal to the 2004 election. :D

[FormerLurker]

Republicans won and retained power in 2000, 2002, and 2004. (All those years they held power before from 1994 on when Republicans too Congress are obviously imaginary.)They sure seem imaginary when you're blaming any problems from 1994-2000 on Clinton, or all of our current problems on the less-than-a-year-old Democratic majority in Congress.

[trumptman]

Yeah, that's the same strawman again. None of that "haha-Dems-GOTCHA" attempt at snark about a "minority majority" has anything to do with the popular vote vs. the electoral.

Clinton won both electoral and popular. Gore won the popular, but lost the electoral.

See the difference, sparky?

That's the whole point, which has absolutely nothing to do with the above, or the following.

Let me help you out here Former, then you can go look up strawman and attempt to apply it appropriately.

Clinton did not "win" the popular vote. He never got a majority. He got what you would call a plurality of the vote. He won due to the Electoral College functioning in the manner it has been designed to work. Ross Perot for example earned 20 million votes but won no electors.

If the point were having a majority of the votes, then we have to ignore not just 2000, but also 1996, 1992, etc.

However the point of the electoral college is that it isn't just about the popular vote. Bringing up popular vote is in fact the strawman because it is not how the president is elected.

Got that Sparky? The Constitution does not provide for direct election of the President. Noting that someone would have won if using direct election is in fact, the strawman you are failing to recognize.

2004?

You respond to a statement about the 2000 election first with a diversion to Clinton's election in 1996, and then with a diversion to the 2004 Bush/Kerry election?

You got yourself a whole harem of those strawmen, don't ya?

Again, realize that any election where a plurality of the vote is the basis of support instead of a majority of the support is what we are discussing here. It is precisely why we have the electoral college. Noting that if not for the electoral college, is the STRAWMAN because it is how our government deals with plurality votes.

I note that 2004 is the first election since 1988 where the winner won a majority of the vote and not a plurality of the vote.

You and other lefties seems to switch between plurality and majority in your language use whenever it suits you. The electoral college elects the president. Any deviation from that is the strawman that you prefer to knock down.

First, "engaged" is meaningless - there is no way to measure that, and the number of Americans who registered or voting has nothing to do with how many were "engaged" and to what degree. The number of Americans who registered and voted also has nothing to do with whether or not anyone was "fooled" by the "only-Republicans-can-keep-you-safe rhetoric - it just means that there were more people available to be fooled.

Second, does more people than ever voting and registering in 2004 simply mean that there were more Americans than ever in 2004? Or was there anything actually meaningful to this 62 million figure trumpeted by Republican mouthpieces and gleefully repeated by water-carriers everywhere as "proof" of Bush's 2004 "mandate"? Something like a higher percentage of registered voters in the general population, or a higher percentage of actual voters in the general population, or a higher percentage of registered voters actually voting? I'll expect to see actual figures cited if you're going to claim one of those three.

Voter Turnout (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)

There is a way to measure that so it isn't meaningless. You measure voter turnout. In 2004, we had the highest level of voter turn out since 1968. If they aren't engaged, they simply stay home since voting is not mandatory.

As for your second point, as I noted earlier, it was the first time the presidency was captured with a majority instead of a plurality of the vote since 1988. Also how do I account historically for your three qualifiers since the criteria for voting has changed over time. For example voter turnout was much higher before the passage of the 26th amendment lowering the voting age to 18. I've noted record turnout, the highest of the post 26th amendment era, a majority instead of a plurality and of course I've missed whatever you care to use to rationalize what you want to believe.(hahaha)

You should go here (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/index.html) and study a little history. It shows the popular vote totals for the top two candidates instead of percentages total but needless to say, one of the reasons we have the electoral college is because it helps build consensus among plurality votes.

Little historical fun note, even when Gore "won" the popular vote, he didn't achieve a majority. He had 48.4% of the popular vote.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/chads.jpg

And another thing. Ghost voting, caging and hell, let's just label it cheating on every level is rampant with Republicans and Democrats alike.

For example, here are Texas legislators running around pushing unattended voting buttons to get a bill passed (http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=eG6X-xtVask).

First of all, that technology is pathetic. The desk should not be assigned to a particular person. The person should sit down at a desk, log in with a fingerprint scan that maps their buttons to them, and vote accordingly. This keeps the fraud out of the picture.

Or they could have guards walk down the aisles as if everyone was in fucking 3rd grade taking a math exam.

Something should be done on all levels of government. To ignore that there is corruption in the voting systems is plain stupid.

Anyway...Dan Rather...why exactly was he fired Viacom?

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," said the CEO "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on."

I think this brings us back to square one (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/27/dan_rather_suit/?source=whitelist). :rolleyes:

[mydo]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/chads.jpg

First of all, that technology is pathetic. The desk should not be assigned to a particular person. The person should sit down at a desk, log in with a fingerprint scan that maps their buttons to them, and vote accordingly. This keeps the fraud out of the picture.



So you want to start finger printing everyone that votes in the legislature? FASCIST!:p

[trumptman]

Artman's been a little off lately. He starts off pissed at a particular party or person, then sort of ends up pissed off at everyone.

We still love him though.

Nick