obby

Wow, that was great !!!!!!!

If you're into polls and would like to see ALL of them, rather than the hand picked ones you'll get on t.v. (any channel, pick your poison), then check this site. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Dumb enough to vote for Kerry !!!!

Igloo, I just noticed you had posted this article way before I read it (today). Has to be one of the best article I have read regarding our Prez. GREAT READ !!!!!!!

Broken link guys!!!!!!! Where you refering to this ???? JON STEWART 'DAILY SHOW' IN SURPRISE AUDIENCE -- DROP Sun Oct 17 2004 20:30:24 ET COMEDY CENTRAL's 'DAILY SHOW' has experienced surprise audience erosion -- despite a publicity push by host Jon Stewart. Stewart, who announced last week that he plans to support John Kerry, pulled 1,040,000 total viewers for the month of September -- down 7% from August, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Jumbo hype from media writers and a bestselling book apparently have failed to translate into any TV audience improvement. MORE CNN editors were busy this weekend cleaning up a transcript from Stewart's Friday appearance on CROSSFIRE. One CNN executive called Stewart's performace "belligerent." During the live program, Stewart slammed host Tucker Carlson: "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show." The awkward exchange came at the end of an 8 minute segment between Stewart, Carlson and co-host Paul Begala. *** CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely. CARLSON: ...you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing. STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago. STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably. CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think. STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk... CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny. STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey. BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead. STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me. CARLSON: I can tell you love it. STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch... CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway? STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore. I just can't. CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities? CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible. STEWART: I know. And you won't. *** Before appearing on CNN, Stewart blasted reporter and CROSSFIRE co-host Bob Novak. "I would not have him on the show. I have standards," Stewart explained to the NEW YORKER's Ken Auletta. "I wouldn't do it. He shouldn't be on television. CNN should not have him on the air. He should not be amongst civilized people." END

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bcs.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Which reminds me. Putin Offers Hand to Bush in U.S. Election Oct 18, 5:42 AM (ET) By Denis Dyomkin DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, siding with President Bush two weeks before the U.S. election, said Monday that armed attacks in Iraq were staged by "international terrorism" out to block his re-election. "The attacks of international terrorism in Iraq are directed not only at international coalition forces but at President Bush personally," said Putin, speaking in the Tajik capital. "International terrorism has given itself the goal of causing maximum damage to Bush in the election battle, the goal of blocking the re-election of Bush for a second presidential term," he told a news conference. Putin's comments, ahead of the Nov. 2 election in which Democratic challenger John Kerry and Bush are fighting a close race, seemed a reward to the U.S. President for his personal friendship and valuable support. The strong support he enjoys from Bush since quickly backing the U.S. war on terrorism following the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks in the United States has helped him withstand other criticism from the United States and the West over his democratic record at home. Despite making clear he wanted to see Bush returned to the White House, the pragmatic Putin carefully balanced his comments by adding: "We will, of course, respect any choice by the American people." Last June, Putin made clear for the first time he would like to see Bush back in the White House, accusing the Democrats of hypocrisy for attacking the U.S. leader on Iraq, saying the Clinton administration had been responsible for the 1999 air attacks on Yugoslavia.

Happy Birthday - May you enjoy it to the fullest. SOTU Records

error

error

That's great. You beat me to it. ____________________________________________________________ This is one of the best articles I've read in a long, long time. I hope you guys find the time to read it. It's not that long. Think,,,,,,,"perspective" and let me know if you agree. George W. Bush will be the toast of history --------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 15, 2004, 8:26 a.m. "The Age of Liberty" President Bush is making the world safe for democracy. By Paul Kengor Over the last week, something enormously important has happened - something deserving of much more than the routine news-cycle coverage. To put it bluntly, the presidential election in Afghanistan is a seminal event, and those who don't understand how or why are sleepwalking through history. Next to September 11 - which began the sequence of events that made this election possible - the vote in Afghanistan is the most far-reaching occurrence of the young 21st century, holding profound implications for future generations. Mercifully, the one person who understands the ramifications as well as if not better than anyone is the so-called dummy in the White House. A DEMOCRATIC PEACE Here's the big picture: The great story of the past three centuries is the spread of democracy. The spirit of 1776, the launching of the American experiment, was the pinnacle event of the 18th century, eventually offering a beacon that continues to inspire and change the world to this day. The most important development of the 19th century was the preservation of that extraordinary democratic republic through the Civil War period, as the nation persevered to play a more significant role than any other in the "American century" ahead. The decisive change of the 20th century was the spread of liberty to Western Europe after WWI, to Germany and Japan after WWII, and to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia after the Cold War. The one area of the world painfully immune to this contagion of freedom is the Middle East: the least democratic region on the planet. A survey by Freedom House at the end of the 20th century found that while 63 percent of nations are technically democracies, an astonishing zero of the 16 Arab countries in the Middle East were democratic. George W. Bush's vision is to change that condition not just for the betterment of the Middle East but to the benefit of the world, and he hopes that the transformation has just begun in Afghanistan. In the academic field of international relations, one of the few useful debates is the "democratic peace" argument. It postulates a crucial reality: Democracies tend not to fight one another. Consequently, to the extent that the hostile Middle East becomes more democratic, it may become more peaceful. George W. Bush subscribes to this hope. The president's most far-reaching address was his November 6, 2003, speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, which ought to be required reading for every poli-sci class. The president that day reminded the crowd that in the early 1970s there were only 40 democracies. As the 20th century ended, there were 120. "[A]nd I can assure you," he said to applause, "more are on the way." Bush said the world had just witnessed, in just over a generation, the quickest advance of freedom in democracy's history. Historians will search for explanations for this shift; yet, said Bush, we already know some of the reasons they will cite. Among them, he said, tellingly, "It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation [America] was itself a democracy." After World War II, reported Bush, the United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia that protected free nations from aggression and created conditions for new democracies to flourish. Now, in the Middle East, under his administration, America seeks to do so again. "THE CALLING OF OUR TIME" That progression of liberty, said the president, is "a powerful trend" that, if not defended, could be lost. "The success of freedom," said Bush, "rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice." Because the United States and its allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan became democratic nations that no longer threatened the world. Bush then explicitly affirmed his belief in democratic peace: "Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for - and the advance of freedom leads to peace." "And now," he continued, thinking of the Middle East, "we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point - and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement." He continued: In many nations of the Middle East - countries of great strategic importance - democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? ... I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best." ... Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." ... Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy - as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. Seeing the Islamic nations of the Middle East as no exception, Bush contended that "in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace." The "freedom deficit" in the Middle East had to be changed. Bush conceded that while democracy is not perfect and not the path to utopia, it is "the only path to national success and dignity." Importantly, he added that democratic governments in the Middle East "will not, and should not, look like us." They should reflect their own cultures; they could be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. Equally significant, Bush urged that "working democracies always need time to develop - as did American democracy." America must be "patient" with those nations at different stages of the journey. In the most controversial part of the address, Bush claimed: "It should be clear to all that Islam...is consistent with democratic rule." Actually, it is not clear at all. Nonetheless, for doubters, he singled out examples of democratic progress in predominantly Muslim countries: Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger, and Sierra Leone. He said that Muslim men and women were good citizens of India and South Africa, the nations of Western Europe, and the United States. According to Bush, over half of all Muslims live under "democratically constituted governments," and they succeed in democratic societies, "not in spite of their faith, but because of it." He identified signs of democratic progress in Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, and Jordan. If such countries become 21st-century democracies, historians will struggle to explain how impossible democracy's prospects once seemed in these nations, and thus how boundless and rare was Bush's optimism. His assessment may have been more farfetched than Ronald Reagan's predictions on the end of Communism in the early 1980s, which Bush referred to in this speech. Speaking specifically of Reagan's June 1982 Westminister Address, as well as Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Bush concluded: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country.... We [Americans] believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history.... [T]his is, above all, the age of liberty." He finished by stamping his blessing on the work of all cheerleaders for liberty at the National Endowment for Democracy: "May God bless your work." That parting reference to God should not be dismissed as a throwaway line: Indeed, George W. Bush believes that God has implanted the desire for freedom deep within the hearts of all human beings, regardless of religion or ethnicity, Muslim Arabs included. THE TOAST OF HISTORY The speech's revolutionary sentiments were not new for Bush, and were also not post-Iraq War window-dressing. Since the first days after September 11, he had argued that what the terrorists hated most was freedom. A week after September 11, he promised: "We're going to lead the world to fight for freedom." He told Bob Woodward: "I truly believe that out of this [september 11] will come more order in the world - real progress to peace in the Middle East." George W. Bush assigned himself the role of catalyst. A year after September 11, and over a year before the National Endowment for Democracy speech and the invasion of Iraq, his administration released its sweeping National Security Strategy, which promoted the spread of democracy to nations held hostage to despots. This objective, Bush wished, could bring long-term peace to regions like the Middle East. In a parallel not lost upon Bush, historian John Lewis Gaddis noted that by seeking to spread democracy everywhere, Bush aimed to finish the job Woodrow Wilson started a century earlier. "The world," writes Gaddis, "quite literally, must be made safe for democracy, even those parts of it, like the Middle East, that have so far resisted that tendency." (This was the kind of thing that liberals once championed, before blind rage at Bush precluded their better angels.) In July 2001, in his Proclamation 7455 marking Captive Nations Week, Bush had declared: "The 21st century must become the 'Century of Democracy.'" Against incredible odds, George W. Bush may have laid the ground for Middle East democracy in the two most unlikely places, the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. Nowhere were women more repressed than in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Nowhere were humans generally more repressed than in Iraq under Saddam. Between the two, Saddam was the biggest destabilizer in the world's most unstable neighborhood. How will George W. Bush have achieved this? In both cases, by force - military force issued in reaction to September 11. September 11 handed him the opportunity. We can be certain that on that awful morning, as Osama ghoulishly smiled from a cave in Afghanistan, a rout of radical Islamic terror, defeat of dictatorship in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a potential wave of democratic freedom in the Middle East was not what Mr. bin Laden had in mind. But neither did he have in mind the response of George W. Bush. To the extent that the Middle East becomes democratic, and peaceful - a very big "if" that remains to be seen - President Bush will have sowed the seeds in Afghanistan and Iraq. One man will have changed the course of history, making the 21st century rosy instead of bleak. And if such a monumental transformation happens, George W. Bush will be the toast of history, quite a change from today, where he is the focus of dripping hatred from millions in America and around the world. If only the haters could briefly put aside their passions and pause to see the remarkable stage of history possibly unfolding before their eyes. And if only our media could put aside partisanship and superficiality to ponder and relay the big picture.

This is one of the best articles I've read in a long, long time. I hope you guys find the time to read it. It's not that long. Think "perspective" and let me know if you agree. George W. Bush will be the toast of history --------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 15, 2004, 8:26 a.m. "The Age of Liberty" President Bush is making the world safe for democracy. By Paul Kengor Over the last week, something enormously important has happened - something deserving of much more than the routine news-cycle coverage. To put it bluntly, the presidential election in Afghanistan is a seminal event, and those who don't understand how or why are sleepwalking through history. Next to September 11 - which began the sequence of events that made this election possible - the vote in Afghanistan is the most far-reaching occurrence of the young 21st century, holding profound implications for future generations. Mercifully, the one person who understands the ramifications as well as if not better than anyone is the so-called dummy in the White House. A DEMOCRATIC PEACE Here's the big picture: The great story of the past three centuries is the spread of democracy. The spirit of 1776, the launching of the American experiment, was the pinnacle event of the 18th century, eventually offering a beacon that continues to inspire and change the world to this day. The most important development of the 19th century was the preservation of that extraordinary democratic republic through the Civil War period, as the nation persevered to play a more significant role than any other in the "American century" ahead. The decisive change of the 20th century was the spread of liberty to Western Europe after WWI, to Germany and Japan after WWII, and to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia after the Cold War. The one area of the world painfully immune to this contagion of freedom is the Middle East: the least democratic region on the planet. A survey by Freedom House at the end of the 20th century found that while 63 percent of nations are technically democracies, an astonishing zero of the 16 Arab countries in the Middle East were democratic. George W. Bush's vision is to change that condition not just for the betterment of the Middle East but to the benefit of the world, and he hopes that the transformation has just begun in Afghanistan. In the academic field of international relations, one of the few useful debates is the "democratic peace" argument. It postulates a crucial reality: Democracies tend not to fight one another. Consequently, to the extent that the hostile Middle East becomes more democratic, it may become more peaceful. George W. Bush subscribes to this hope. The president's most far-reaching address was his November 6, 2003, speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, which ought to be required reading for every poli-sci class. The president that day reminded the crowd that in the early 1970s there were only 40 democracies. As the 20th century ended, there were 120. "[A]nd I can assure you," he said to applause, "more are on the way." Bush said the world had just witnessed, in just over a generation, the quickest advance of freedom in democracy's history. Historians will search for explanations for this shift; yet, said Bush, we already know some of the reasons they will cite. Among them, he said, tellingly, "It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation [America] was itself a democracy." After World War II, reported Bush, the United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia that protected free nations from aggression and created conditions for new democracies to flourish. Now, in the Middle East, under his administration, America seeks to do so again. "THE CALLING OF OUR TIME" That progression of liberty, said the president, is "a powerful trend" that, if not defended, could be lost. "The success of freedom," said Bush, "rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice." Because the United States and its allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan became democratic nations that no longer threatened the world. Bush then explicitly affirmed his belief in democratic peace: "Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for - and the advance of freedom leads to peace." "And now," he continued, thinking of the Middle East, "we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point - and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement." He continued: In many nations of the Middle East - countries of great strategic importance - democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? ... I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best." ... Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." ... Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy - as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. Seeing the Islamic nations of the Middle East as no exception, Bush contended that "in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace." The "freedom deficit" in the Middle East had to be changed. Bush conceded that while democracy is not perfect and not the path to utopia, it is "the only path to national success and dignity." Importantly, he added that democratic governments in the Middle East "will not, and should not, look like us." They should reflect their own cultures; they could be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. Equally significant, Bush urged that "working democracies always need time to develop - as did American democracy." America must be "patient" with those nations at different stages of the journey. In the most controversial part of the address, Bush claimed: "It should be clear to all that Islam...is consistent with democratic rule." Actually, it is not clear at all. Nonetheless, for doubters, he singled out examples of democratic progress in predominantly Muslim countries: Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger, and Sierra Leone. He said that Muslim men and women were good citizens of India and South Africa, the nations of Western Europe, and the United States. According to Bush, over half of all Muslims live under "democratically constituted governments," and they succeed in democratic societies, "not in spite of their faith, but because of it." He identified signs of democratic progress in Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, and Jordan. If such countries become 21st-century democracies, historians will struggle to explain how impossible democracy's prospects once seemed in these nations, and thus how boundless and rare was Bush's optimism. His assessment may have been more farfetched than Ronald Reagan's predictions on the end of Communism in the early 1980s, which Bush referred to in this speech. Speaking specifically of Reagan's June 1982 Westminister Address, as well as Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Bush concluded: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country.... We [Americans] believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history.... [T]his is, above all, the age of liberty." He finished by stamping his blessing on the work of all cheerleaders for liberty at the National Endowment for Democracy: "May God bless your work." That parting reference to God should not be dismissed as a throwaway line: Indeed, George W. Bush believes that God has implanted the desire for freedom deep within the hearts of all human beings, regardless of religion or ethnicity, Muslim Arabs included. THE TOAST OF HISTORY The speech's revolutionary sentiments were not new for Bush, and were also not post-Iraq War window-dressing. Since the first days after September 11, he had argued that what the terrorists hated most was freedom. A week after September 11, he promised: "We're going to lead the world to fight for freedom." He told Bob Woodward: "I truly believe that out of this [september 11] will come more order in the world - real progress to peace in the Middle East." George W. Bush assigned himself the role of catalyst. A year after September 11, and over a year before the National Endowment for Democracy speech and the invasion of Iraq, his administration released its sweeping National Security Strategy, which promoted the spread of democracy to nations held hostage to despots. This objective, Bush wished, could bring long-term peace to regions like the Middle East. In a parallel not lost upon Bush, historian John Lewis Gaddis noted that by seeking to spread democracy everywhere, Bush aimed to finish the job Woodrow Wilson started a century earlier. "The world," writes Gaddis, "quite literally, must be made safe for democracy, even those parts of it, like the Middle East, that have so far resisted that tendency." (This was the kind of thing that liberals once championed, before blind rage at Bush precluded their better angels.) In July 2001, in his Proclamation 7455 marking Captive Nations Week, Bush had declared: "The 21st century must become the 'Century of Democracy.'" Against incredible odds, George W. Bush may have laid the ground for Middle East democracy in the two most unlikely places, the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. Nowhere were women more repressed than in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Nowhere were humans generally more repressed than in Iraq under Saddam. Between the two, Saddam was the biggest destabilizer in the world's most unstable neighborhood. How will George W. Bush have achieved this? In both cases, by force - military force issued in reaction to September 11. September 11 handed him the opportunity. We can be certain that on that awful morning, as Osama ghoulishly smiled from a cave in Afghanistan, a rout of radical Islamic terror, defeat of dictatorship in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a potential wave of democratic freedom in the Middle East was not what Mr. bin Laden had in mind. But neither did he have in mind the response of George W. Bush. To the extent that the Middle East becomes democratic, and peaceful - a very big "if" that remains to be seen - President Bush will have sowed the seeds in Afghanistan and Iraq. One man will have changed the course of history, making the 21st century rosy instead of bleak. And if such a monumental transformation happens, George W. Bush will be the toast of history, quite a change from today, where he is the focus of dripping hatred from millions in America and around the world. If only the haters could briefly put aside their passions and pause to see the remarkable stage of history possibly unfolding before their eyes. And if only our media could put aside partisanship and superficiality to ponder and relay the big picture.

I saw the video and found it to be a cheap shot and pathetic.....but then again who cares what I think.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

You too Eric

I'll just paste the text and not the images. For the record I am posting this in hope that it will put a smile on some faces. "If you're hungry and out of work....eat an enviromentalist!" "If you object to logging, try using plastic toilet paper!" "I survived Roe vs. Wade" "Your mother was Pro-Life" "The Bible says Mary was with child, not tissue." "If that's not a baby, then you're not pregnant." "If guns are responsible for killing people then my pencil is respondible for misspelled words." Feel free to add you own.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv

I am sure the pen pal you land will be greatful. I recently sent my cousin and one of his friends a digital mp3 player (each) with 256 mb of new tracks. All I have to do now is send him SD cards full of data (music). Thanks again jtk4, OBBY

Dave Eberhart, Friday, Oct. 15, 2004 Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman took the unusual step of praising President Bush while chiding John Kerry during a campaign stop in Florida Wednesday. Lieberman, with just three weeks left before the election, praised Bush strongly for his support of Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mid-East. "We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent support for Israel. You can't say otherwise," Lieberman told an audience of 600 near Delray Beach, Fla, the Palm Beach Post reported in editions Thursday. Lieberman also added that any criticism of Bush vis-à -vis Israel would be "unjustified." After the speech, the paper said Lieberman spoke to reporters and suggested that "Bush appears to have made inroads with Jewish voters, who voted Democratic by an estimated 4-to-1 margin in 2000." But Lieberman indicated Kerry's support among Jews may be softer, and he chided the Democratic nominee for not coming out more strongly for Israel. "And I think John Kerry, to reassure people, has to himself be explicit" rather than having surrogates deliver the message, the Post quoted Lieberman as saying. Lieberman alluded to worries among Jews about Kerry's position on Israel. Lieberman bluntly revealed that he has asked the Kerry campaign to have John Kerry himself discuss his views on Israel because "only John Kerry can eliminate those doubts." Lieberman made clear he is still staunchly supporting Kerry for president. "I am here to tell you that John Kerry has also been a strong and consistent supporter of Israel and will continue that fight as president," Lieberman said, noting Kerry's commitment to health care, the environment, education and his position on Supreme Court appointments. But, unusual and strong praise from Sen. Lieberman, one of the party's leading moderates, is sure to rock the Kerry campaign as the election moves into the ninth inning. Jewish-Americans concerned with Israel's security have good reason to worry about Kerry, who once called Arafat a "statesman" and sharply criticized Israel for building a barrier wall to protect itself from suicide bombers. In an October 2003 speech to the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Kerry referred to Israel's controversial security barrier as an impediment to peace: "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line - cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder." After Israel's supporters cried foul, Kerry quickly modified his position, saying his real was to the route of the fence. Nowadays, Kerry carefully describes the barrier as a "legitimate act of self-defense." Lieberman's gentle criticism of Kerry is not the first time the pair have butted heads over security and other matters. Lieberman had vigorously opposed Kerry during the heated Democratic primaries. Unlike Kerry and Edwards who eventually became critics of President's Bush invasion of Iraq, Lieberman has been a stalwart supporter of the President's efforts to liberate Iraq and build democracy there. While still a candidate in the primary season, Lieberman had plenty in the way of the negative to say against candidate Kerry: · Lieberman said that Kerry played politics with the support of the troops. "'If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money would not have been there to support our troops,' said Lieberman (D-Conn.). 'I didn't duck it. I didn't play politics. I voted to support our troops.'" (Andrew Miga and David R. Guarino, "Iraq Viewpoint Dominates Dem Detroit Debate," Boston Herald, 10/27/03) · Lieberman Said Kerry's Statements On The Use Of Force Authorization Were "Unbelievable." "I thought that John Kerry's statement in his announcement address - that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein - was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. ... I don't get it. He's been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today." (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, "Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate," The Boston Globe, 9/5/03) · Lieberman: Kerry not "mainstream." "Lieberman said Kerry is not a 'mainstream Democrat,' saying, 'Just look at his record, look at what the Republicans are already saying about him.'" (Andrew J. Manuse and David R. Guarino, "On A Roll: Kerry Takes Big Win South," Boston Herald, 1/28/04) · Lieberman accused Kerry of making "protectionist statements." "Lieberman signaled that Kerry may feel heat in the next few days by pointing to Kerry's position on the Iraq war, to what he said was his rival's opposition to further tax cuts and to 'protectionist statements' on trade." (Dan Balz, "Debate Looms Large for Democrats," The Washington Post, 1/22/04) · Lieberman: How did Kerry vote to send troops to Iraq, and then oppose funding them? "Well, I do, and I've said that about John before. I don't know how you can vote to authorize the war, enabling the president to send troops to Iraq, and then vote against the $87 billion ... which is mostly going to support those troops." (CNN's "Paula Zahn Now," 11/4/03) · Lieberman: Kerry is inconsistent. "I want to say obviously I respect John Kerry's military service to our country, but that's not what this is about. This is about the votes that he's cast that I believe are inconsistent. In fact, what do we look back and wonder about our time in Vietnam? We didn't support our troops. If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money wouldn't have been there to support our troops." (Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidate Debate, Detroit, MI, 10/26/03) · Lieberman called Kerry's message on Iraq "ambivalent." "If John Kerry or anyone else who voted for the war resolution thinks that they were misled in a way that makes them think they voted the wrong way in supporting the war, they have an obligation to say exactly what--what--in what way they were misled. Otherwise, they're sending, again, a message that I would call ambivalent." (CBS, "Face The Nation," 8/31/03) · Lieberman: Kerry is "for and against." "Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) are pro-war while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it but then swung back and forth, prompting Lieberman to jab that some are 'both for and against.'" (Deborah Orin, "Dems At War-With One Another," New York Post, 4/10/03) · Lieberman: Can't figure out Kerry's stance on Iraq. "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say that they supported the war but then oppose the funding of the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." (Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidate Debate, Detroit, MI, 10/26/03)

By Jennifer C. Kerr, Associated Press, 10/14/2004 13:46 WASHINGTON (AP) The Federal Communications Commission won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday. ''Don't look to us to block the airing of a program,'' Michael Powell told reporters. ''I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that.'' Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, ''Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,'' two weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. ''I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so,'' he said. He said he would consider the senators' concerns but added that they may not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC rules require that a program air before a formal complaint can be considered. Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations many of them in competitive states in the presidential election to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer. In the letter to Powell, the senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California asked the FCC to determine whether the airing of the anti-Kerry program is a ''proper use of public airwaves'' and to investigate whether it would violate rules requiring equal air time for candidates. Separately, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. On the Net: Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov Sinclair Broadcast Group: http://www.sbgi.net http://www.boston.com/dailynews/288/politics/FCC_won_t_prevent_airing_of_anP.shtml

Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 1:20 p.m. EDT Hyman Defends Sinclair, Offers Kerry Equal Time Democrats don't seem to mind very much that favorite son Michael Moore's anti-Bush sclockumentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released in thousands of theaters, has arrived on pay-per-view and that Moore has entered into negotiations to have his movie aired on national TV, all pre-election. But boy, do they mind now that Sinclair Broadcasting Corp., the largest independent owner of television stations in the country with 62, wants to air a documentary critical of Democratic presidential contender John Kerry. Eighteen Democratic senators, along with the Democratic National Committee, have demanded that the Federal Election Commission forbid Sinclair from broadcasting "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" because they say the film amounts to an illegal in-kind political donation to the campaign of President Bush. The film features interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives, who claim that Kerry's testimony, filled with "lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam" on the part of U.S. troops, demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer, according to a description by the Associated Press. But Mark Hyman, Sinclair's vice president for corporate communications and a commentator for the network, defended the network's instructions to its stations to pre-empt other programming and air the documentary. In a PBS interview with Terence Smith, Hyman says the program is being shaped as an important news feature that should be seen by the voting public. "The bottom line in this is these are Vietnam prisoners of war, former POWs, who after years of horrific abuse and unspeakable torture have ended their 31 years of silence and have come forward and wanted to rebut some claims made by John Kerry that statements he made in his 1971 testimony ... were an act of conscience and didn't affect anyone adversely," Hyman said. Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to the DNC, argued that the program contains "no pretense to objectivity." "It's essentially a 90-minute political commercial masquerading as a documentary," he argued. Actually, says Hyman, the film is only 40 minutes, but no matter - he's also asked Kerry to come on the program and rebut or argue any point made in the documentary. So far, Kerry hasn't bitten. And, if Wolfson has his way, Kerry won't appear. "I wouldn't advise him to do that because you don't ... it's not at all fair and balanced to have a 40-minute attack ad and then get five minutes or ten minutes or however many minutes to respond," Wolfson stammered. Hyman countered, "If John Kerry sat down with us for two hours, we may end up with a 60-minute program that has 57 minutes of John Kerry presenting his side of the issues. That's fine. That's what this is all about. We've made an open invitation. "We told Senaator Kerry we would meet him anywhere, anytime that he chooses, anywhere in this country to discuss this issue. We are going as far as we can to make this available to him," said Hyman.

Lesbians against Bush ????? Isn't that an oxymoron ?????