Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (74224)	10/1/2004 9:48:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Panel lays it on Tick NY Daily News gossip CBS News is girding for some very bad days at Black Rock, the network's midtown corporate headquarters where former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, retired Associated Press exec Louis Boccardi and a team of lawyers have been summoning news types for intense interrogations this week. I hear that the grilling began Tuesday, with Thornburgh, Boccardi and the lawyers taking detailed notes on the testimony. Around 20 key people - everyone from CBS News President Andrew Heyward to top anchor Dan Rather - are expected to trek from the Broadcast Center on W. 57th St. and submit themselves to the tender mercies of the independent panel probing how "60 Minutes Wednesday" managed to use apparently faked documents in a controversial report about President Bush's National Guard service. News exec Linda Mason, vice president for standards and practices, has sent a memo to potential witnesses concerning the parameters of the investigation, which will result in a public report on the network's journalistic missteps. Among those expected to be called are prime-time news vice president Betsy West, "60 Minutes Wednesday" exec Josh Howard, his deputy Mary Murphy, "CBS Evening News" exec Jim Murphy and, of course, "60 Minutes Wednesday" producer Mary Mapes - who oversaw Rather's flawed report on Bush. I hear that folks are being told that their cooperation is "voluntary," but it's difficult to imagine the scenario in which someone can safely refuse. As for Mapes - the woman at the center of the scandal - "I think she'll be bringing her lawyer with her," a CBS type told me. Yesterday, CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius had only this to say: "The panel's work is well underway, and that's it. There are no details, and we don't plan on releasing any until the report is final." nydailynews.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (74224)	10/1/2004 10:06:06 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

I think the best way of viewing last night's confrontation between Bush and Kerry is by viewing it as the opening inning of a baseball game. In this view, Bush would be the catcher; Lehrer would be the pitcher; Kerry would be the batter. Lehrer makes a a few soft pitches which Kerry observes objectively and lets them glide by. Bush handles the passed balls adeptly and returns the ball to Lehrer. Lehrer continues to soft pitch while Kerry continues to swing, looking for that home run ball. But all he does is hit a foul ball, then another foul ball and still another. Bush chases the fouls just long enough to know that they cannot be caught and will land harmlessly in the seats. Finally, Lehrer serves up what looks to Kerry like that home run ball that he desperately needs to hit out of the park. Kerry swings and connects. But it is not a solid hit and the ball dribbles 10 feet from the plate. Bush stands there behind the plate while Lehrer attempts to field the dribbling ball. His throw to first is a bit late and Kerry is finally on base, not because he had a solid hit but because the pitcher didn't play the ball just right. The umpire charges the pitcher with an error. Meanwhile, the catcher stands there, watching the action. With Kerry finally on base, Bush takes off his catcher's mask and walks slowly out to the mound. He looks at Lehrer and asks: "Who's side are you on anyway?" That's how I view the first debate. NO RUNS! NO HITS! ONE ERROR! But since Kerry had to hit a home run to win, Kerry lost. And since Bush only had to protect his lead, Bush won.

To: LindyBill who wrote (74224)	10/1/2004 2:07:40 PM
From: captain_midnite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Slate: Mickey Kaus at Slate.com says President Bush "was off -- too relaxed and smug and contemptuous." He adds: "A skilled debater might have picked Kerry apart; Bush is not that kind of debater." I'd agree with this analysis. Kerry performed quite well, a little heavy on style versus real substance to his ideas, but he outdid the President by far in terms of the debate. The President seemed off-balance and ill-prepared to do much more than repeat a few simple refrains. I started to count "hard work" type phrases, it got that repetitious. I've spent some time on debate teams and in other passtimes were thinking on one's feet and quickly responding comes in handy. I was "debating along" against Kerry as I watched the proceedings. I was answering the questions as I hoped the President would and he did do it once, that I saw, to Kerry. It was in response to Kerry's assertion regarding how OBL utilizes the Irag conflict as a recruiting tool, so to speak. Otherwise, Kerry slid by with stuff that a more proficient debater would have, as the author says, used to pick him apart. Overall, two conclusions. One, Kerry outperformed the President by a significant margin strictly on the debate basis. No telling whether that equates into a better reception by the voting public. Two, I need to get a better hobby.