Poll: Presidential race remains dead heat

[Joker]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The race for the White House between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry remains a statistical tie, with Kerry holding a single-point edge among registered voters, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/prez.poll/index.html

[larchmont]

The things that will make the difference:

(1) The debates.
(2) Unforeseen circumstances, including maybe things that Bush and the administration can engineer to its advantage.
That's the power of "incumbency," which is worth at least as much as home-field advantage in sports.
(3) How much voter eligibility shenanigans and the vote-count are rigged one way or the other.
But you know which way I'm worried about.

Larchmont, who is really worried about touch-voting.
The main thing that can save it is that everybody knows that everybody's going to be watching every move, big-time.

[bob shiftright]

How much voter eligibility shenanigans and the vote-count are rigged one way or the other.
But you know which way I'm worried about.Ahhhhh. Yes! You must mean the way of the party of Daley, Prendergast and Tammany. (And maybe add "Street" because there were major, major-league shenanigans in Philadelphia in 2000 which didn't get any attention because the leftist media focused entirely on Florida.)

Something you don't mention is "persona" which is something that should show up after the debates. Voters tend to vote for the candidate that they actually like. Which candidate would you prefer to go out to lunch with? George McGovern and Bob Dole certainly had distinguished military careers, arguably comparable to Mr. Kerry's in scope if not in numbers of medals/ribbons.

Not very likable personas, though.

[Ferg]

Dole really did come across as the "grumpy old Republican" during that campaign, didn't he? It wasn't until afterwards that he opened up and showed a more likeable side to his personality.

I'm a little surprised that Kerry is still maintaining a slight lead. We'll see if there is a shift after the Repubs drink their Kool-Aid at the convention. Personally, I think Kerry is in trouble. Focus has shifted from the war, and the economy, to his medals, his service time, and his antics afterwards. Bush successfully rode out the worst of the storm (war, economy, etc) and is still neck-and-neck with Kerry. But I think Kerry is vulnerable enough that one little thing could sink him...and McCain could be that little thing. All McCain needs to say is something like, "There were many POW's, like me, who were held captive -- and tortured -- for years, yet we refused to give up information that Kerry willingly gave up after his limited service time" or something along those lines. I think the Senator could have as much to do with Bush's chances for re-election than even Bush himself.

[pocketkiller]

We'll see if there is a shift after the Repubs drink their Kool-Aid at the convention.

LOL :Puke: :wizard:

[bob shiftright]

1948 Truman 49.6%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%
1964 Johnson 61.1%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1992 Clinton (1) 43.3%
1996 Clinton (2) 49.3%

Since Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrats have broken the 50% popular vote barrier in exactly TWO elections.

In the absence of a viable, real, and conservative/moderate third-party candidate, Democrats tend not to win Presidential elections. Just based on election results during the 49 years since WW-II.

2004 may be different, of course.

Kool-Aid was invented in Hastings, Nebraska in 1927 by Edwin Perkins. It was a drink originally sold as a liquid called "Fruit Smack" and then in powdered firm, first as "Kool Ade".

[larchmont]

.....2004 may be different, of course.[/SIZE]
Why yes, it's "the most important presidential election of our lifetime."

How many times have we heard that in our lifetime? :D

P.S. Might it really be true this time?

IMO we never know about such things until way after the fact.

[bob shiftright]

It's ALWAYS "the most important election" and it's ALWAYS "very, very close"!

Except when it isn't! :D

Kinda wonder about a collective case of Alzheimer's Disease among the News Media Industry. Not that they might gain anything at all from generating interest in the "closeness" of the race!

[HondaMan]

Ah, yes the RNC is on the way and I hope McCain does blast Kerry. :)

I thought Kool-Aid was reserved for Democrats? :nutkick:

I'm ready to see a shift in the polls in GWB's favor! :woot:

[bob shiftright]

NEW YORK, Aug. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Results of the "Bass Beer People in the Pub" Poll, taken in several New York City pubs on the verge of the Republican National Convention, are in. Bass visited five pubs -- traditional places for political discourse -- to see what New Yorkers are thinking about the candidates, the issues, and the election as the Republican National Convention approaches.

The 223 respondents, 39.9 percent of which identified themselves as Democrats, 30.9 percent as Republicans, 19.3 percent as unaffiliated, 3.6 percent as not registered, and just less than one percent as Sacramento girlie-men, said this about the upcoming elections and political figures:

-- Forty three percent would rather have a beer with President Bush, as
compared to 25.1 percent with John Kerry. John Edwards ranked third
with 16.6 percent of the votes. Dick Cheney will be crying in his beer
with only 6.7 percent of the respondents selecting him as a bar buddy.
(Note: this is a significant departure from the results of the Bass
People in the Pub Poll taken in Boston on the eve of the Democratic
National Convention, where John Edwards topped the list with 29
percent, followed by President Bush with 27.5 percent.)

-- When asked about the candidates' wives, Laura Bush was the favorite
choice with 42.2 percent saying that they would prefer to have a beer
with her. Teresa Heinz Kerry came in second with 29.6 percent of the
vote, Elizabeth Edwards third with 14.8 percent, and last was Lynne
Cheney, with 7.6 percent of the vote. (Note: Teresa Heinz Kerry won
this by a landslide in Boston).

-- When asked which candidate would you rather be in a foxhole with, 37.7
percent of the respondents picked John Kerry, 29.1 percent picked Bush,
12.1 percent said John Edwards, 8.1 percent tapped Cheney, and
interestingly, 13 percent said none of them!

-- If you could pick a candidate to be the bartender at your local pub,
who would you select? Bush won hands-down with 39.9 percent of the
vote, with Kerry coming in second with 26 percent, John Edwards third
with 15.2 percent, and Dick Cheney, last with 11.2 percent.

-- Teresa Heinz Kerry's feisty reputation after her "Shove It" remark
continues. With 28.3 percent of the vote, Heinz Kerry topped the
combined list of candidates and their spouses as the person who would
make the best bouncer at a trendy New York Meat Packing district club.
Coming in second was Dick Cheney with 20.2 percent of the vote, and
third was George Bush with 17.9 percent (followed by Laura Bush with
8.1 percent).

-- Donald, "You're fired!" Bill Clinton topped the list of dream bosses on
The Apprentice, taking 26 percent of the vote as the boss people would
most like to work for. John Kerry took second place with 17.9 percent,
George Bush third with 13.9 percent, and John McCain and Ralph Nader
tying for fourth, each with 8.5 percent of the vote.

-- And, if the election was held today in New York pubs, John Kerry and
John Edwards would declare victory with 44.4 percent of the vote (vs.
Bush/Cheney with 34.1 percent).

[Ferg]

I would much rather have a brew with Dubya than Kerry. Can you see Kerry doing a beer bong? Heck no. Dubya on the other hand would be like Will Ferrell in "Old School". :D

"It just tastes so good once it hits your lips!!"

I would also take greater satisfaction in shaving Bush's eyebrows after he passes out.

Ferg

[HondaMan]

I would much rather have a brew with Dubya than Kerry. Can you see Kerry doing a beer bong? Heck no. Dubya on the other hand would be like Will Ferrell in "Old School". :D

"It just tastes so good once it hits your lips!!"

I would also take greater satisfaction in shaving Bush's eyebrows after he passes out.

Ferg

LMAO! :laugh:

[larchmont]

I would much rather have a brew with Dubya than Kerry. Can you see Kerry doing a beer bong? Heck no. Dubya on the other hand would be like Will Ferrell in "Old School". :D

"It just tastes so good once it hits your lips!!"

I would also take greater satisfaction in shaving Bush's eyebrows after he passes out.

Ferg
Hey, Fergie, I'm surprised at you!

("Fergie" is what I say after I've had a few.) :D

I'm truly NOT one of those many who "hate" Bush, which frankly it's hard for me to understand that so many people do.

But OTOH I'm shocked that anybody would pick Bush as the person they'd rather have a beer with or whatever. I don't doubt that it's true, but I don't understand it.

The main reasons to hang with someone, I guess, is that you find them interesting, because they do neat stuff and/or you'd be interested in what they'd say. And, honestly, I don't find Bush interesting in the least, and I don't think he'd have anything meaningful to say about anything, and I couldn't care less to find out what he WOULDN'T have to say.

Honestly. And that's even without "hating" him.

Kerry OTOH gets a clear "yes" from me on all those things.
I guess I like Kerry better than Bush. :doh:

[O. W. Kone]

Would it not be interesting if the election was again decided on electoral vote rather than popular vote? I wonder what will happen if the tables were turned this time?

[larchmont]

Would it not be interesting if the election was again decided on electoral vote rather than popular vote? I wonder what will happen if the tables were turned this time?
Our fear: "They" would find a way to stop the vote count.

Even if it's electoral AND popular votes that are going the other way.

[Ferg]

Hey, Fergie, I'm surprised at you!

("Fergie" is what I say after I've had a few.) :D

I'm truly NOT one of those many who "hate" Bush, which frankly it's hard for me to understand that so many people do.



Don't be too surprised...after all, remember I voted for ShrubCo. the last around. :surprised :jeffy:

I only say I'd have a beer with Dubya because the alternative doesn't look like quite as much fun. Kerry doesn't *look* like much fun, but granted I know nearly nothing about him personally. Bush OTOH, probably did inhale, admitted to using coke, and enjoyed participating in the quaffing of libations, all of which makes it plausible that the Texas Playboy would come busting out of hiding, making for a very interesting sight indeed. Kerry looks like a whiny, sappy drunk to me.

[larchmont]

.....I only say I'd have a beer with Dubya because the alternative doesn't look like quite as much fun. Kerry doesn't *look* like much fun, but granted I know nearly nothing about him personally. Bush OTOH, probably did inhale, admitted to using coke, and enjoyed participating in the quaffing of libations, all of which makes it plausible that the Texas Playboy would come busting out of hiding, making for a very interesting sight indeed. Kerry looks like a whiny, sappy drunk to me.
You mean you think it would be interesting to hang with anyone who's drunk, stoned, and high?

About Kerry, no matter how much of a jerk you think he is, wouldn't you at least find it interesting to ask him, WTF were you thinking?

That's the first thing I'd ask him.
In fact it's the first 10 things I'd ask him. :D

[Ferg]

You mean you think it would be interesting to hang with anyone who's drunk, stoned, and high?


Not in the way it would be interesting to hang out in a brew pub with Winston Churchill. It would be interesting because it may confirm my impressions of Bush.

[HondaMan]

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

BOOM! Not a dead heat anymore! :D

[larchmont]

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

BOOM! Not a dead heat anymore! :D
Ouch!!!

"For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader....."


No worries, it's only about the 4th inning..... :D

[bob shiftright]

Not a dead heat anymore!If you consder a 110% Democrat voter turnout, you know the ones who are registered in both Florida and New York vote in both Florida and New York, throw in all the dead voters expected to vote in Philadelphia with it's 110% voter turnout, it's really still a dead heat.

Of course I don't believe the Time poll any more than I believed the ones that showed Bush 11 points behind! Bush could still be caught with a dead girl and a live boy and Kerry could OD on Botox and turn into a Shar-Pei. Anything can still happen.

http://www.brokennewz.com/storyimages/sharpei.jpg

[HondaMan]

If you consder a 110% Democrat voter turnout, you know the ones who are registered in both Florida and New York vote in both Florida and New York, throw in all the dead voters expected to vote in Philadelphia with it's 110% voter turnout, it's really still a dead heat.

Of course I don't believe the Time poll any more than I believed the ones that showed Bush 11 points behind! Bush could still be caught with a dead girl and a live boy and Kerry could OD on Botox and turn into a Shar-Pei. Anything can still happen.

http://www.brokennewz.com/storyimages/sharpei.jpg

LMAO...so true and so funny at the same time! :thumbsup:

[bob shiftright]

No worries, it's only about the 4th inning..... :D

5th inning....

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238&EDATE=

NEW YORK, Sept. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Immediately following the Republican
National Convention in New York, the latest Newsweek Poll shows that, in a
two-way presidential trial heat, the Bush/Cheney ticket would win over a
Kerry/Edwards ticket by 54 percent vs. 43 percent among registered voters. In
a three-way trial heat, including Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader, the
Bush/Cheney ticket would still win 52 percent to 41 percent for Kerry/Edwards
and 3 percent for Nader/Camejo among registered voters. That represents a
13-point margin bounce for Bush/Cheney since an August 5-10 poll conducted by
Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Pew Research
Center. (more)

[bob shiftright]

No worries, it's only about the 4th inning..... :D

6th inning....

Read on Bloomberg radio today & Ed's weekly e-mail commentary....

In a weekly commentary in February 2002, I announced that I would support President Bush for reelection.

I wrote that I had recently had dinner with two diehard liberal Democrats, and told them that if the election were held tomorrow, I would vote to reelect President Bush. They nearly choked on their appetizers.

I explained that I was supporting the President because he had “made terrorism, which in my view is the greatest threat faced by this country, the number one issue in the world. He put together an unexpected grand coalition against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the warlords of Afghanistan. Most important, he defied the generally-held view of American media commentators that Afghanistan would become a quagmire, another Vietnam. Instead, victory was swift and with extraordinarily few American casualties.”

Over the next two years, I reiterated my commitment to the President’s reelection, and this week I endorsed the President at the Republican National Convention. Before introducing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the assembled delegates I said, “I know what you’re thinking. What’s Ed Koch doing at the Republican Convention? Me. A Democratic district leader in Greenwich Village. Democratic City Councilman. Democratic Congressman, Democratic Mayor. Why am I here? To convert you. But, that’s for the next election. This year, I’m voting for the re-election of President George W. Bush.”

I cannot support John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, because he wavers too much on issues of fundamental importance:

For example, in explaining his vote in the U.S. Senate in favor of the war against Iraq, Kerry said, “He [Bush] misled every one of us.” After the Democratic convention, President Bush challenged Senator Kerry: “My opponent hasn’t answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq.” Kerry responded, “Yes, I would have voted for the authority.”

Similarly, during his appearances with the other candidates at the first Democratic debate on May 3, 2004, Kerry strongly supported the President’s actions in Iraq, stating, “George, I said at the time, I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”

But on June 18, 2003, the Associated Press reported: “Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. ‘He misled every one of us,’ Kerry said.”

On September 2, 2003, Kerry claimed that he voted “to threaten” the use of force in Iraq. He said, “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” Then, on January 6, 2004, when asked by MSNBC Hardball host, Chris Matthews, “…Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” Kerry replied, “I am -- yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” Kerry more recently told the American public that in fact he would have voted for the war even if he had known at the time of his Senate vote that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Kerry exhibited all the failures of a tortured soul, having to decide which was more important, winning the nomination or doing what was morally right. He chose the nomination.

Kerry’s waffling is not limited to the war against Iraq. Kerry announced to the country that he opposed same-sex marriages and nevertheless would vote in the U.S. Senate against the Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, his reason being that the Constitution should not be used to deny civil rights to people. In 2002, he signed a letter opposing a similar amendment. The letter stated: “We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents…We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.

On the other hand, an article in The Boston Globe on February 6, 2004, reported: “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” Even worse, the Los Angeles Times reported on August 7, 2004 that while in Missouri, Kerry came out in favor of Missouri’s recent amendment to its constitution that states “To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.” According to the Times, a spokesman for the Human Rights Fund, a Washington group that lobbies for gay rights, said Kerry’s support for the Missouri amendment (forbidding gay marriage) was not surprising. ‘This is consistent with what he’s been saying all along,’ Steven Fisher, the group’s communications director, said.” Again, a tortured soul, having to choose between principle and hopefully winning in the general election to come. He chose winning.

I respect those who have different opinions, but I have little regard for those who bend with the wind, those who vacillate, those who cave to the threats of others. I supported from the beginning the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I continue to support our armed forces being there. I cannot admire a public official who straddles that issue. I support the right to same-sex marriages. Gays and lesbians have every constitutional right to equal treatment before the law. I maintain my beliefs before every group. I simply cannot abide the panderer who takes both sides of an issue, thinking no one will notice.

Immediately following my speech at the Republican convention, I was asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN what I thought of “the President’s statement that the war on terrorism cannot be won.” I was unfamiliar with any such statement, as I had not seen the interview with Matt Lauer of NBC-TV at which it was allegedly made. My mind raced thinking Blitzer wants me to make some comment that he can use against Bush. In World War II, one of the great poster statements was, “Loose lips, sink ships.” That applied to inadvertently giving locations of ships to German submarines. But it applies in a different context to all candidates in an election who let down their guard in responding to smiling reporters lying in wait for gaffes. I responded to Blitzer, “I’ve neither seen nor heard his comments and won’t comment until I do.” That was fortunate because his comments in context make sense.

The New York Sun reported today, “Interviewed on NBC’s ‘Today’ show, Mr. Bush was asked, ‘Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?’ Mr. Bush replied, ‘I have never said we can win it in four years.’ NBC’s Matt Lauer rephrased the question: ‘So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?’ Mr. Bush said: ‘I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.’”

He is right. There will always be someone or some group willing to use terror as a weapon. As President Bush has indicated, the key is to “go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.” While an individual terrorist can always hide in a cave, he or she will have little or no impact on the world if no country is willing to provide weapons or sanctuary. It is a battle that will go on for an extended period of time. President Bush has always said so.

[HondaMan]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-08-battleground-poll_x.htm

USA Today reports that President Bush now holds a clear lead over Kerry in the critical battlegrounds states of Missouri and Ohio.

Bush’s margins in Missouri and Ohio are the first statistically significant leads that either candidate has held in a dozen surveys USA TODAY has taken in battleground states during this election.

His 14-point edge in Missouri raises questions about whether the traditional bellwether is still competitive. The Kerry campaign hasn’t purchased air time for TV ads in the state this month.

“What’s happening is more and more states that are Bush states (from 2000) are getting taken off the table,” says Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign. “Now the battleground states are In becoming much more predominantly Gore states, which is good news for us,” he said.

[bob shiftright]

IF (big "IF") true, this is "The whole f****n' ball game".....

What Did Kerry Know, and When Did He Know It?
Lets take a moment to consider the main issue now arising from the forged memos that CBS used in its report the other day. The documents were forged as reports here, here, here and here indicate. What does it all mean?

Well, first off, it means that the campaign against President Bush has reached a new low and, also, the people opposed to the President have now proven conclusively that there are no depths they wont plumb. We GOPers could start up a cottage industry, and make a few of Soros' bucks, by creating a whole slew of forged anti-Bush documents - the Donk's and their media allies are too twisted by stupid hate to question them.

Secondly, and most importantly, it leads us to this question: Where did the forgeries come from? They didn't appear out of thin air; someone made them. Reports indicate that CBS had them for at least a couple weeks before they aired their story on 60 Minutes II (Motto: Twice the BS of Regular CBS Broadcasts). One pundit claims to have been been told by an un-named DNC staffer that an opposition researcher passed to the documents to the Kerry campaign which then turned them over to CBS (which would make sense as CBS has proven itself the most reliably anti-Bush in its reporting; if you were part of the Kerry campaign, CBS would be the place to leak oppo research to).

There is, at this time, no proof that the Kerry campaign had a hand in this but an investigation must be launched immediately. The American people have a right to know if a man who could soon be President was involved in this scandal. We need to ask:

What did Kerry know, and when did he know it?

[larchmont]

IF (big "IF") true, this is "The whole f****n' ball game".....
You left out an additional big IF, which is, "IF they knew the things were forgeries."

So there's a lot of ifs here.

IF they're forgeries (which I'm not as quick to assume as Bob and some others).

IF they took the path described up there.

And finally:

IF the Kerry people knew they were forgeries.


P.S. I don't think we know it now. Why do you think they would have known it then?

[bob shiftright]

You left out an additional big IF, which is, "IF they knew the things were forgeries."

So there's a lot of ifs here.

IF they're forgeries (which I'm not as quick to assume as Bob and some others).

IF they took the path described up there.

And finally:

IF the Kerry people knew they were forgeries.


P.S. I don't think we know it now. Why do you think they would have known it then?"IF" they are forgeries???? There is zero, no, nada, zilch chance that the documents are authentic. If God appeared to me and swore on a stack of bibles that these documents were authentic, that would be 100% absolute certain proof that it was not God doing the swearing. The only reason I can think of that anyone is hedging at all about this is that their lawyers are making them hedge.

They are not only forgeries, they are obvious and extremely poor forgeries. They contain errors that are sooooooo dumb that even I (neither a forger nor a veteran of the USAF) would not have made them!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/more-format-and-content-analysis-of.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409091142.asp

The only matter of speculation is exactly how the documents came to CBS.

The details of the supposed "chain of custody" are posted on the American Spectator website (they have a mole inside the Kerry campaign). In a nutshell, it appears that the opposition researchers of the DNC passed the forgeries on to the Kerry campaign, which in turn passed them on to CBS.

At all turns the authenticity of the documents appears to have been in doubt.

Enjoy!

[larchmont]

I don't know if they're forgeries or not, because I'm not able to evaluate that stuff (in the links). Don't get me wrong -- I'm not sticking up for the documents or denying that they're forgeries, just saying I can't evaluate the question. And so far, from what I can tell, the ones who are yelling "forgery" are parties with a vested interest.

But I can MOST DEFINITELY evaluate what's critical to Bob's original post on this (the "IF" post), because that series of "ifs" depends on the idea that the Kerry camp KNEW OR AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE KNOWN they were forgeries.

And we can blow that right out of the water.

This is from the first link in Bob's last post:


CBS states that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."


Forget about who the analyst was, forget even about whether they actually consulted such a person (which I'd bet they did). Look at what we know for sure:

(1) CBS went with it......
(2) .....and now they're wholeheartedly defending it.

That tells me that CBS, at the time, thought they were genuine.

CBS, for Chrissake.

Forget the fact that they're not exactly a liberal organization.

Do you think they'd risk their reputation and go with forgeries? Or even with stuff that they merely suspected was forgeries?

No, they wouldn't. Without any doubt whatsoever.

Which means you're on awfully shaky ground in saying the Kerry camp should have known that they were forgeries.

[Ferg]

That tells me that CBS, at the time, thought they were genuine.

CBS, for Chrissake.

Forget the fact that they're not exactly a liberal organization.

Do you think they'd risk their reputation and go with forgeries? Or even with stuff that they merely suspected was forgeries?

No, they wouldn't. Without any doubt whatsoever.

Which means you're on awfully shaky ground in saying the Kerry camp should have known that they were forgeries.


I don't know...Bush himself used some obviously fake documents referring to Iraq attempting to make a nuclear weapons/materials purchase in his State of the Union Address, even though the CIA told him several months before that the document was a forgery.

Meaning....if a sitting president can make the mistake, surely a network news organization could make that mistake.

Looks to me like the documents were forged -- at least some of them, anyhow. The superscripted "th" is certainly a dead giveaway to me. :rofl:

[bob shiftright]

The American Spectator is FINALLY back online....

Washington Prowler
Anatomy of a Forgery Print Friendly Format

By The Prowler
Published 9/10/2004 12:09:06 AM


More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. "Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on," says the staffer. "It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

I saw the signature posted comparing them with known, documented signatures from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian and the CBS handwriting "expert" is a :rofl: too!

[larchmont]

Depends on your standard, I guess. For my money, the standard for whether "it's over" for the Kerry camp (as Bob put it) is: Did they KNOW these were forgeries, or at least STRONGLY SUSPECT that they were forgeries?

And for my same money, none of what has been posted indicates anything as strong as that. If they thought "maybe they are and maybe they aren't," it was perfectly legitimate for them to pass them along.


P.S. to Ferg (or Bob, who probably also knows the answer): What's the deal about the "th" superscript?

[HondaMan]

Depends on your standard, I guess. For my money, the standard for whether "it's over" for the Kerry camp (as Bob put it) is: Did they KNOW these were forgeries, or at least STRONGLY SUSPECT that they were forgeries?

And for my same money, none of what has been posted indicates anything as strong as that. If they thought "maybe they are and maybe they aren't," it was perfectly legitimate for them to pass them along.


P.S. to Ferg (or Bob, who probably also knows the answer): What's the deal about the "th" superscript?

Face it bro...your boy Kerry is going to take a beating on this one once it's all said and done! :sport62: out for the count! :D

[bob shiftright]

The running bet is up to $25,000 if you can reproduce those documents with a equipment available in 1972!

http://defeatjohnjohn.com/pageone.htm

[larchmont]

The running bet is up to $25,000 if you can reproduce those documents with a equipment available in 1972!

http://defeatjohnjohn.com/pageone.htm
Anyone who argues that Killian spent a couple minutes swapping out a 12-point metal ball for an 8-point metal ball in order to write "th", then swapped the 8-point ball for a 12-point ball in order to continue with this note we was writing to himself, is a little off track. :)

Among other things.

If that stuff is correct, I'm afraid those documents ain't real. :doh:

[bob shiftright]

What's the deal about the "th" superscript?

http://defeatjohnjohn.com/djj1/proof8.gif

To repeat: a typewriter could only raise or lower letters -- it couldn't make them smaller or larger because the wheel used fixed-size characters. The CBS forgeries contain Microsoft-style mini-font superscripts, which could not be done even on a typewriter with superscripting ability.

The only way a fixed-type machine could have made the Microsoftian-style superscripts is if there was a special key for "st" or "th" -- and, according to the IBM manual's page 167 (page 172 of the .pdf), there were no such special character unit values.

For CBS to say "but typewriters in the day could do superscripts" ignores the whole point of why the superscripting in the forged documents are so persuasive -- the letters on a fixed-size metal wheel can't just get smaller or larger. They must know this, and therefore their continued attempts to deceive the American public are even more sickening.


http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-part-two-ibm-selectric.htm

[larchmont]

Thanks Bob -- As you can see in my above post (beat you :D ), I already saw what the deal was about the superscript (with the help of your prior post).

But I don't buy it that CBS was trying to "deceive" anybody. Even if they were of the mind to do that, they certainly (literally certainly) would have known that with all the "vested interests" at hand, the forgery would be discovered -- pronto. And that they wouldn't have gotten away with it. And so they wouldn't have done it.

So: They didn't know, ergo no "deceit."

[bob shiftright]

BTW, this superscript issue is kinda a red herring. Even I would concede that there might have been an IBM typewriter with such a superscript in use in 1968. (Maybe not in a Times New Roman font with Microsoft Word spacing, tho!)

However, the sum of the evidence indicates that the documents are, beyond any reasonable doubt, forgeries. CLICK (http://qando.net/archives/004070.htm) There is more evidence of a hoax here than Hitler left behind him.

More recently, Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the TANG, told ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Fortunately, ABC and NBC seem to be running with the ball.

And the Wall Street Journal has been strangely silent so far. I'm looking forward to Monday's paper!

The unquestionable deceit is that Rather continues to claim that he is a "newsman".

http://db.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/media/mw_titanic.jpg

[larchmont]

You're probably right, Bob -- in fact, you're almost certainly right.

But LOOK:

One by one, at least several of the alleged "gotchas" have been negated. That might not be enough to make you reserve judgment, but it's enough to make me reserve judgment.

Larchmont, who tends to reserve judgment.

[bob shiftright]

Larchmont, who tends to reserve judgment.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it....

More:

"James Rosen of FoxNews just reported that the Pentagon questions the use of a PO Box on a memo, and that the PO Box may never have been used by that unit saying it seems highly unlikely that they would have PO Box containing sequential numbers. Standard military practice has always been to place the actual physical address on the letter head..."

Also, Tony Snow mentioned that three sources at the Pentagon thought they were forgeries.

Do you think that forging US Military documents might be a crime, by any chance?

This just keeps getting better! BTW, most of the Bloggers have taken today off, out of respect.

[larchmont]

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.....
I'm more of the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" school.
....Do you think that forging US Military documents might be a crime, by any chance?
A very serious one, presumably.


But not passing it on, especially if you don't think or know it's a forgery.

[bob shiftright]

I'm more of the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" school.

A very serious one, presumably.

But not passing it on, especially if you don't think or know it's a forgery.But, as reported in The Spectator, there were serious concerns among the CBS staff that it was bogus. Do you think the CBS staff will snitch on Blather in front of a Grand Jury? (Or whatever the military version of a Grand Jury is.)

The criminal aspect of this fraud probably explains why CBS is digging in their heels so forcefully.



http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

Animated gif alternating between CBS forgery and same document created using Microsoft Word.

[larchmont]

.....Animated gif alternating between CBS forgery and same document created using Microsoft Word.
How do you account for the difference? :D

[larchmont]

HA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Can't wait for the sound of Bob and his friends eating crow. :D


Looks like they're real.


Not forgeries.

As I said, it's not a bad idea to reserve judgment.
And that's why "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't a bad standard.


I understand it's now being said that THE TYPOGRAPHY IN THOSE DOCUMENTS TOTALLY MATCHES OTHER BUSH MILITARY DOCUMENTS FROM THAT PERIOD, THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE REAL.

Still wanna say it's a slam dunk that they're forgeries?


And here's a site where people who really know about the subject are debating the issue -- and you'd be hard-pressed to say the pro-forgery people are having the better of it:

http://www.newsroom-l.net/blog/archives/000098.html

And remember -- the original argument here was not just that the documents were forgeries, but that it was so definite and obvious that they were forgeries, that the Kerry camp was guilty of something terrible.

And at this point, you have to say that even if it turns out that they're forgeries (which it appears they're not), by no means was it obvious.

Larchmont, who loves this stuff. :D

______________________________________________

[bob shiftright]

Still wanna say it's a slam dunk that they're forgeries?Huh?

The documents are forgeries.

I'll throw $100 into John Addis' typewriter pot myself! http://defeatjohnjohn.com/pageone.htm

While some features might have been available on some typewriters in 1968, the chances that you could get such a close overlay to a Microsoft Word document are 0.0000000 %. If you flip a coin five times and get "Heads" every time, it could be "luck". If you flip a coin 1000 times and get "Heads" every times... the coin must have "Heads" on both sides!

There are in excess of 1000 data points here.

The documents are forgeries.

(BTW. as an industry standard, all copiers alter the size of copies very slightly. The reason is to discourage forgeries of, for example, paper currency.)

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

Footnote: That they were forgeries was first suspected when 60 Minutes flashed them across the screen. They're not just forgeries, but poor forgeries.

At 8:00 pm ET Wednesday night, CBS News does the story

8:19 pm ET Wednesday night, a gentleman named TankerKC posted on the Free Republic website. In this post, which he put up during the program, after briefly seeing the documents on the TV screen, TankerKC noted an issue with the signature blocks:

WE NEED TO SEE THOSE MEMOS AGAIN!

They are not in the style that we used when I came in to the USAF. They looked like the style and format we started using about 12 years ago (1992). Our signature blocks were left justified, now they are rigth of center...like the ones they just showed.

Can we get a copy of those memos?

[larchmont]

Bob is (I think) quoting from the site that I referenced, so I'm going to quote stuff from that site on the other side.

Bob, I think you're fighting a losing battle here. Remember, the question here wasn't exactly whether they're forgeries, but whether they are SO CLEARLY forgeries that the Kerry camp's ass is grass. And, with all the give and take going on among experts, I can't believe you're still trying to say that was the case, or even that it's clear right now.

All the things Bob and others have said about how it would have been "impossible" to do this on a typewriter of that time have been rebutted/refuted, one by one. ALL of them. About the "superscript" thing, there were typewriters that could do this, and even among those that usually couldn't, you could get special sets of keys that could. Just check the stuff in that link.

Some material from that site arguing this side:

These documents were done on a typewriter. Just look at the vertical character drift. As anyone who has ever used a typewriter can tell you, inaccuracies always occur where some characters do not line up vertically with the rest. Note in this case how the 8 in the date is slightly above the 1 and the A. Also note how the first e in "Memo to file" is again shifted slightly upward. Only a typewriter makes these kinds of inaccuracies. In the computer generated document, the characters are all perfectly aligned on the vertical plane. You can draw a straight line underneath them and not a single one would be out of place. Not so with the original document. The same can be seen on every one of the other documents.[/b]
Posted by: Robert McClelland at September 10, 2004 05:00 PM


...... look at where the last letter of each line hits, first on the original then on the ms word document.
They don't line up. Not even close.
On the original, they line up. It's a TYPEWRITER.
On the second one, they DON'T line up. It's a computer.
Posted by: Bruce at September 10, 2004 12:26 PM


.....And, if you only want to read one of these, how about this one:

It's beginning to look more and more like the Killian memos are most consistent with IBM Selectric Composer. These device was introduced in 1966...
Check out the 2 vintage manuals for the Selectric Composer in PDF format(links below). They offered superscript and variable line spacing. Different fonts could be changed via "type balls." The Killian memo is probably either from the Press Roman, Aldine Roman, Bodoni or Pyramid type balls. Note how the Killian memo is NOT Microsoft Word Times New Roman. Too many discrepancies.
http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Selectric%20Composer%20Operations%20Manual.pdf
http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.p df
http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs.htm
http://www.ibmcomposer.org
Posted by: Dr. Winston O'Boogie at September 10, 2004 09:09 PM


......And finally, this from CBS:

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."
Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
Posted by: Bruce at September 10, 2004 06:08 PM

[larchmont]

OK, OK.

Bob (and just about everybody else) might say, of course the main question is just whether they're forgeries, not how "clear" or "not clear" it was that they're forgeries.

But that's not right either.

The main question is whether the content of the documents is basically accurate.

And, almost lost in the shuffle in these arguments (not just here, but everywhere), is that it appears this IS a slam dunk:

The content of those documents is basically accurate.

And I'd have to think that before long, the whole discussion of this subject will settle onto that level.

[bob shiftright]

The content of those documents is basically accurate.

And I'd have to think that before long, the whole discussion of this subject will settle onto that level.

Most observers will conclude that the use of forged documents to buttress an argument refutes the remainder of the argument.

The forgeries are so poor that they were immediately suspected by a KC-130 driver as soon as they went flashing across the screen on 60 Minutes. http://patterico.com/archives/002692.php

Then....

"The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft’s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero."

http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

...and read this guy's BIO!!!!!

Back onto the election, on the eve of his quadruple bypass surgery, Bill Clinton advised your guy to move waaaaaaay away from this stuff, I would have predicted that he has so much invested in it at this point that he would be incapable of doing so.

So Clinton will go on to be proven dead-nuts accurate with his advice!

Have you SEEN the Tradesports numbers? (No, they are not making book on who will wind up in Allenwood, yet. I meant the general electon numbers. But my $5 sez ex-Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett does at least some time, and Blather is promoted to "Emeritus" newsman quicker than he imagined.)

Then:

It's Hillary in 2008!

(BTW, it's getting baaaaad. Cokie Roberts used the "Deck chairs on the Titanic" metaphor today!)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/kc-130.htm

[larchmont]

Indeed I've been noticing the tradesports curve, to my chagrin.

Kerry actually edged slightly into "favorite" spot a few weeks ago, where he remained for about 12 and a half minutes.
Then it stayed pretty close to an even bet for a while, before W became a clear favorite again.

We'll stay tuned.

Larchmont, who thinks Bob's anti-K bias is showing on that forgery stuff.

[larchmont]

Indeed I've been noticing the tradesports curve, to my chagrin.....
BUT DID YOU NOTICE BUSH'S HUGE DROP TODAY?

5.2% -- it's the biggest one-day change I've ever noticed on there.

I have no idea why.


Edit, 12 hours later: Never mind! By the evening, the change had gotten completely reversed, and some. Still no idea what happened. The first number might have been just a mistake. Or maybe it was the "drugs" story. Or maybe that they thought the news from Iraq had turned a clear corner for the worse (which I thought it did).

[bob shiftright]

I have no idea why.SOMEBODY doesn't know how how to trade futures!!!!! Noooooo, children, you look at the order book before you place the order!!!!

Meanwhile, SOMEBODY at the GOP grew a pair!!!!!

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4670

Enjoy!

[bob shiftright]

A Woman's View

Mrs. Rocket generally agrees with me on poltical issues, but sometimes for unexpected reasons. One opionion she has expressed that never would have occurred to me, is that the National Guard flap helps President Bush because they keep showing him in his National Guard uniform. I thought that was an eccentric view, but reader Shirley Camp agrees:

I don't know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you, but I think every time Bush is shown in his Natl Guard Uniform, is a plus for him because he looks so cute in it. His image is very appealing to women. I think this helps him instead of hurting him. What do you think? Maybe others can opine.

All I can say, Shirley, is that you're not alone. Maybe other readers will weigh in.

DEACON adds: My 16 year-old daugther agrees with Mrs. Rocket. She writes: "I saw the cover of this week's Newsweek, featuring a picture of both Bush and Kerry in their old uniforms, and I totally agree with Mrs. Rocket. Bush was a definite cutie back in his day, whereas Kerry has always been kind of funny looking." I guess I'm not wealthy enough to have a close family member who finds Kerry attractive.

Reader Ronald Nelson Brown has also weighed in with a very masculine perspective: "I like smart ladies like Mrs. Rocket! As a retired Naval Aviator, I have been amused/impressed by the constant showing of GWB in his aircraft each time the accucations are broadcast. He may be cute to many--but to me he looks fit, serious, competent and ready. Unless some aspect of the Guard services turns very negative, these shots are wonderful campaign banners."

UPDATE by Rocket: We ask, our readers respond! And so far the response is unanimous. Every woman who has emailed us agrees that the photos of W. in his National Guard uniform are a plus. The most common adjectives are "adorable" and "cute," with a number of readers adding "wholesome" and "clean cut." And Bush seems to pass the ultimate test; one reader, whose name we'll protect, wrote: "Even my lesbian associate commented how cute Bush looked in his uniform just yesterday when she passed by a TV it was on."

A number of readers also observed that before the current controversy, many people had no idea that President Bush once flew fighter jets--a very impressive accomplishment. And listening to the Dems would lead a casual voter to think that Bush skipped out on his National Guard service altogether, a notion that is refuted by the photos of him in a fighter plane.
Posted by Hindrocket at 12:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (6)
Fortunately, most voters today look beyond superficial appearances and make a rational choice based solely on the issues.

[larchmont]

Fortunately, most voters today look beyond superficial appearances and make a rational choice based solely on the issues.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

The funniest part is that Bob didn't put any smilie after that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess he just wanted to see if we were paying attention. :D

[bob shiftright]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

The funniest part is that Bob didn't put any smilie after that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess he just wanted to see if we were paying attention. :D"A Gallup poll being released Friday has Bush up 54-40 in a three-way matchup, with Ralph Nader (news - web sites) at 3 percent."

Good thing that Kerry hired all those Clinton people. The Kerry 2004/Clinton 2008 election strategy is now beginning to unfold exactly according to plan....

:wall:

[larchmont]

"A Gallup poll being released Friday has Bush up 54-40 in a three-way matchup, with Ralph Nader (new5{3 percent."

Good thing that Kerry hired all those Clinton people. The Kerry 2004/Clinton 2008 election strategy is now beginning to unfold exactly according to plan....

:wall:
Had teh radio on today? Didn't ya hear about how the "bounce" is just about reversed, and it's a virtual tie again?

Actually did hear that.
But tradesports sure doesn't reflect it.

[Joker]

Had teh radio on today? Didn't ya hear about how the "bounce" is just about reversed, and it's a virtual tie again?

Actually did hear that.
But tradesports sure doesn't reflect it.
Two New Polls Show Deadlocked White House Race

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040917/pl_nm/campaign_polls_dc&cid=615&ncid=1963&sid=96378800

[bob shiftright]

Had teh radio on today? Didn't ya hear about how the "bounce" is just about reversed, and it's a virtual tie again?

Actually did hear that.
But tradesports sure doesn't reflect it.Gallup has a long and distinguished history, and it's also TOMORROW's poll.

Harris is "interactive" so it has less of a track record. I don't know anything about Pew. I don't think Bush would look so confident or they'd be in full-panic mode across the aisle if things were really that rosy.

Thune is leading Daschle in SD, wanna bet who's gonna be the new Senate minority leader????

http://www.ibegformoney.com/images/BEAST.jpg

[larchmont]

http://www.ibegformoney.com/images/BEAST.jpg
lololololololOL!!! :lol:

[HondaMan]

Looks like they're finally admitting it...

CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say
By JIM RUTENBERG


After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

But they cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials met last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it had collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision. Mr. Rather was not available for comment late last night.
..snip...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20guard.html?ei=5006&en=42f1be2f0a0efa9d&ex=1096344000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

Also, see this post of mine for more:
http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showpost.php?p=38815&postcount=17

[HondaMan]

It's done. Matt Drudge is reporting:

http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

EXCLUSIVE // 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.
Still think the documents are real, Larch? :D

[larchmont]

.....Still think the documents are real, Larch? :D
No.

[bob shiftright]

"Some confirmation of the earlier Survey USA New Jersey poll that showed President Bush ahead of Kerry in the State of New Jersey. Quinnipiac University is now also showing the race in a dead heat.


Kerry 49%
Bush 48%

Bush 48%
Kerry 48%
Nader 2%

This poll was done September 16-19.

The fact that Quinnipiac University (seems to be) confirming the Survey USA results is showing seismic shift in New Jersey towards Bush..."

:eek:

Amazing.

[larchmont]

"Some confirmation of the earlier Survey USA New Jersey poll that showed President Bush ahead of Kerry in the State of New Jersey. Quinnipiac University is now also showing the race in a dead heat.
.......(seems to be) confirming the Survey USA results is showing seismic shift in New Jersey towards Bush..."

:eek:

Amazing.
What gives me more hope is that your good friend Tradesports isn't putting a lot of stock in that.

But Kerry has work to do. There's been movement for Bush in important places. It's looking like Missouri is no longer in play, and (from those numbers) not Ohio or Florida either (gulp), and in some other states Bush has come back to where he's considered not only competitive, but better-than-even: Iowa, New Hampshire.

If those things are really so, it's not even going to be real close.

But remember, it's only the top of the 5th. :nervous:

[bob shiftright]

If those things are really so, it's not even going to be real close."Teetotaling, Christian Fundamentalist Texan wins Electoral Votes of New Jersey" is one of the Revelation's Seven Signs of the Apocalypse, I think.

:confused:

[larchmont]

I guess Bob doesn't consider his own state to be teetotaling, Christian, or fundamentalist. :D

Larchmont, who isn't sure "fundamentalist" isn't capitalized.