This is interesting.
***************
Anti-Kerry film sparks DNC response
Sinclair Broadcast Group orders its 62 stations to show movie next week; DNC files FEC complaint.
October 11, 2004: 4:21 PM EDT
By Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.
The reported plan prompted the Democratic National Committee to file a complaint against Sinclair with the Federal Election Commission.
Sinclair has ordered all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post reported, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.
Sinclair's television group, which includes affiliates of all the major networks, reaches nearly a quarter of all U.S. television households, according to the company's Web site. A dozen of Sinclair's stations are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.
Affiliates owned by the major television networks reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes because they are in the largest markets.
Calls to Sinclair by CNN/Money were not returned Monday.
This is the first time the DNC has filed a legal motion against a media organization, said group spokesman Jano Cabrera. Earlier this year, said a DNC statement, Sinclair-owned stations refused to air DNC ads criticizing President Bush.
The complaint to be filed with the FEC states it is inappropriate for the Sinclair Broadcasting Group to air partisan propaganda in the last 10 days of an election campaign, said Cabrera.
No one from the FEC was available to comment on the DNC complaint.
"We have received thousands of e-mails, people outraged by the very idea a company like Sinclair would direct stations to air a partisan film," said Wes Boyd, founder of political watchdog MoveOn.org.
"If they do air a partisan film, we'll challenge the FCC and the licenses of the local stations that broadcast the film because local stations have a responsibility to the community to air real news, not partisan messages," said Boyd.
The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."
Campaign violation?
A Bush campaign spokesman said the camp has nothing to do with Sinclair Broadcasting, the anti-Kerry film or Sinclair's plan to air the film just before this year's tight election.
Sinclair executives have shown support for the Bush campaign. Sinclair CEO David Smith contributed the legal limit of $2,000 Bush-Cheney 2004, and vice president Frederick Smith gave $175,000 to the RNC and maxed out his Bush-Cheney contribution.
FEC records show that two other top level Sinclair executives gave the maximum amount they could to Bush-Cheney.
Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, has written a letter to Sinclair asking the company to cancel reported plans to air the film between now and the Nov. 2 election. The Post reports the movie is about Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and was produced independently of Sinclair.
"Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.
The letter warned Sinclair that its plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the group said.
Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a corporation to contribute anything of value to a federal campaign or a national political committee, including broadcast communications, said Cabrera.
Kerry's team said Sinclair was clearly trying to manipulate the outcome of the election because of the broadcaster's ties to the Bush administration.
"This is another example of President Bush's powerful corporate friends doing his dirty work," said Chad Clanton, a spokesman with the Kerry campaign.
"They know Kerry (will not bow) to their corporate interests, so they're willing to break journalistic principles to try and stop him."
I would vote for an independent if you do not like Bush and you don't want to be a democrat.
As for Bush's truthfulness, ha.
The following is from a real liberal democrat who I happen to admire tremendously and don't apologize for it because I am a proud democrat.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-07.htm
Quote:"The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the intelligence itself is dwarfed by the administration's manipulation of the intelligence in making the case for war," Kennedy said. He called on the House and Senate intelligence panels to investigate.
He also called on CIA Director George J. Tenet to "set the record straight" on whether it was the White House or the CIA that believed the Iraq threat was urgent enough to justify immediate action. Tenet, in a speech Feb. 5 at Georgetown University in Washington, defended his analysts by saying they never described the threat as imminent. Tenet stopped short of addressing questions about how that intelligence was used. "Why wasn't the CIA director correcting the president and vice president and the secretary of defense a year ago, when it could have made a difference, when it could have prevented a needless war, when it could have saved so many lives?" Kennedy said.
A spokesman for Tenet declined to respond yesterday to Kennedy's assertion that the CIA director failed to protest the misuse of the intelligence he provided the White House.
As evidence for his charge, Kennedy cited specific public statements by administration officials before the war that he said were either supported by questionable sources such as Iraqi exiles or unsubstantiated by the US intelligence community.
For example, he said that although the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was "far from unified on Iraq's nuclear threat," Bush and his aides repeatedly asserted that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear capability, and raised the specter of a nuclear holocaust to justify the need to move quickly. On Oct. 2, 2002, as Congress was preparing to vote to authorize military force, Bush said in the Rose Garden that the Iraqi regime presented "a threat of unique urgency." Five days later, in a speech in Cincinnati, the president said that "facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
"President Bush himself may not have used the word `imminent,' but he carefully chose strong and loaded words about the nature of the threat -- words that the intelligence community never used -- to persuade and prepare the nation to go to war against Iraq," Kennedy said. "Nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud. Unique and urgent threat. Real and dangerous threat. Grave threat. This was the administration's rallying cry for war. But those were not the words of the intelligence community."
After doing some research today I have to admit that in all honesty I think Kerry believed that the threat was still grave enough to go through with the resolution to deal with Saddam. He still would vote that way today knowing what they know now. What he disagrees with was the way and the rush that Bush went about the war in Iraq that made it the complete mess it is today.
I happen to disagree with him but I am still going to vote for him because he is a democrat and I feel we need a democrat in office and more democrats in congress. I am also going to vote for him because he
is aa man of his convictions.
What I have against Bush is more than idealogy about government and things but is more about the way they deal with us, "the joe public", in trying to decieve us to get their way about any given thing. There is a website put together by a democrat but it is just a database where you can look up all kinds of misleading statements by the bush administration concerning Iraq.
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp
Hear ya loud and clear SCoats. This is the sorriest race since Bush Vs. Gore. Before that; at least we had the Pipe dream of electing Ross Perot. If this is only your second race, you haven't even seen a real candidate yet. Bummer.
just good to see you back scoats..haven't seen you in a while.
Dookie is correct that the National Journal did amend their figures to allow for the fact Kerry (and Edwards) were not present for a lot of vote in the past year and that skewed the numbers. However, taking an average of the years he was in the Senate also skews the numbers as we find in the link Dookie posted.
Richard Cohen of the National Journal that posted the original 'most liberal record' stats has come up with a more realistic assessment:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm
SCoates
You might consider looking at this election as a chance to restore some balance to the federal government. A liberal president can't do much in the way of legislation without the help of congress. He can however provide leadership and use his veto power to block legislation that is bloated with pork. Bush has not used his veto once, and spending is way out of control.
InfraBlue wrote:Yep, very frustrated.
We need a multi-party system.
but that's the point infra. we already have that. but only two have the power at this point. ultra polarization.
InfraBlue wrote:If you're a Republican and don't like Bush, look into voting for a third party candidate for the presidency. You don't have to vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.
true. we don't have to. however, there is a better chance of my elevation to sainthood than badnarik or nader winning the presidency.
so, we have but two choices at present. and we all know what those two individuals represent, despite party spin on both counts.
a protest vote is morally satisfying in the short term. in the long term, though, all you can do is vote for the guy that more closely represents your beliefs.
mesquite wrote:Bush has not used his veto once, and spending is way out of control.
ummm... deficit.... if the chinese and the japanese cash in their bonds, we're going to be working for them, at $2 a day.
that is the reality of the bush deficit. forget the passing it on to our children. that's a best case scenario. gotta get that big spending, pretend conservative outta there. otherwise, learn how to bow respectfully and say "ni ha maaaa".
tax and spend liberal is a step up in my book. and probably in greenspan's as well.
I think we need more than two parties. I realize we have more than two parties but the third is always marginalized. I'd be open to suggestions on how to translate support for a third party candidate into a voice in the government.
That said, I think that when you wade through the mile high pile of crap that the Republican party and its affiliates have dumped in front of John Kerry you would see that he is actually a very good presidential candidate. He has a lifetime of service to recommend him. He's clearly been good at every job he ever had -- as someone would surely have come forward to indicate otherwise. He's motivated. He's been successful. He probably knows more about how this world works than Bush does -- even after Bush's 4 year crash course.
The Pro-Bush stance has alienated the world and created alot of hate towards this country.
And that will only help terrorism against this country.
What part of that do you not understand, Fox?
And arguing the finer points of Kerry's "liberal" record means absolutely nothing to me. Bush's neoconservative record these last four years has caused enough damage for this country to last a lifetime.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:Yep, very frustrated.
We need a multi-party system.
but that's the point infra. we already have that. but only two have the power at this point. ultra polarization.
No you don't. If you had runoff elections between the two most popular candidates, so that people could vote for unlikely to win parties with their first vote and still have a say in who actually wins with their second, you would have a multi party system. Thats how it works in France, and from what I understand, that's how it works in Afghanistan.
Einherjar wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:Yep, very frustrated.
We need a multi-party system.
but that's the point infra. we already have that. but only two have the power at this point. ultra polarization.
No you don't. If you had runoff elections between the two most popular candidates, so that people could vote for unlikely to win parties with their first vote and still have a say in who actually wins with their second, you would have a multi party system. Thats how it works in France, and from what I understand, that's how it works in Afghanistan.
yeah, that would be okay by me. i can't think of anything in our constitution that forbids it.
but, the big obstacle to this coming about anytime soon is special interest money.
before anything like your scenario can happen, there's gonna be a huge war over lobbiest $$ influence. need to reform laws on that first.
'The Pro-Bush stance has alienated the world and created alot of hate towards this country.'
Perhaps.
Why has no one asked about the 'Pro-Clinton (I suppose)' stance that caused (I suppose) the first trade center attack as well as the other numerous attacks during the 90s. So much hate as to plan to take another shot at the towers in the late 90s.
Why would he put the US in such a position as to hate us so much? Why bill, why?
//Faulty logic error - program crash
scroll....
Cycloptichorn
Welcome neue, stick your big toe in the cold water...
...then lick it. Because that's what it's like in this forum.
Thanks, pan. I'm a orphan from Abuzz. I know a couple of the guys in here so I like to bounce in and out. Seems pretty tame compared to the yelling and screaming I'm used too. Most people in here seem sensible.....and no spamming.
Very nice.
Thanks, pan. I'm a orphan from Abuzz. I know a couple of the guys in here so I like to bounce in and out. Seems pretty tame compared to the yelling and screaming I'm used too. Most people in here seem sensible.....and no spamming.
Very nice.
Thanks, pan. I'm a orphan from Abuzz. I know a couple of the guys in here so I like to bounce in and out. Seems pretty tame compared to the yelling and screaming I'm used too. Most people in here seem sensible.....and no spamming.
Very nice.
