Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Coaxial

W To Pre-Empt Tonight's 24!!

I am – Hercules!!

Some presidents, apparently, simply don’t want a second term!

George W. Bush, fearful perhaps that his administration’s efforts to get Howard Stern thrown off the radio will not ensure a Kerry landslide, has made the unprecedented move of scheduling a press conference from 8:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Tuesday.

This forces Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network to delay this week’s much anticipated new “24” to 9 p.m. Sunday, opposite new episodes of “Alias” and “The Sopranos.”

The president is expected to moan about how Richard Clarke’s book painted him in a negative light. Quick thinking, Mr. President.

I am – Hercules!!





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 13, 2004, 1:35 a.m. CST

    The difference between W and the President Palmer Character...

    by Just Plain Steve

    President plamer only holds a conference when some thing important is about to happen (biotreats, removing planes from the sky) W uses it as a chance to complain. It seems the Bush administration is ready to admit they are being beaten by a bald-headed suit!

  • April 13, 2004, 1:38 a.m. CST

    I'm usually not one to complain about political matters...

    by unwell_arena

    ...but this just plain sucks, and so does the incompetent brat in the Oval Office.

  • April 13, 2004, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Oh No!

    by The Real McCoy

    I can't believe it! You're telling me I have to miss a lame ass show because my nation's leader has something to say? What nerve! Ok, I'm being sarcastic. You know, 24 sucks now anyway. I watched the first two seasons and absolutely loved them but this third season just bored me to tears. I stopped watching a couple of shows back. I just can't suspend my belief anymore. Hell, even Alan Moore himself dogged on the show in a Wizard Magazine interview a while back. Anyway, I think Bush commenting on Clarke will definitely be more entertaining than 24. Maybe if George got his secret service guys to drag Clarke's ass into the oval office so we could watch W bitch slap Dick on live television. That would be awesome.

  • April 13, 2004, 1:53 a.m. CST

    24 My Ass!

    by Jervis Tetch

    GW is bumping "American Idol." Fuck. I just love that Simon. Don't you?

  • April 13, 2004, 1:55 a.m. CST

    actually

    by Peter Venkman

    Knowing Bush's past experience-if he had to fight Clark, he probally wouldn't show up-i.e. Vietnam. And by the way, Herc, thanks for mentioning Stern. It's a witchhunt and I'm surprised more people aren't concerned that the Bush administration is trying their damndest to make all entertainment to be "family-friendly". Now they say they want to go after HBO and cable TV? Give me a break! Not all entertainment has to be family-oriented!

  • April 13, 2004, 1:57 a.m. CST

    Bush vs Dick?

    by Vicconius

    I'll go with Bush everytime...

  • April 13, 2004, 2:24 a.m. CST

    You've got to be kidding me...

    by Rein

    So FOX is putting the only show I watch on Tuesday night and putting it against the only show I watch on Sunday (Alias)? I hope Alias is a re-run, otherwise I'm screwed. I hate FOX and Rupert Murdoch. Notice how that dumbasses address isn't preempting American Idol?

  • April 13, 2004, 2:27 a.m. CST

    I worship the Reiko.

    by robogeek.com

    All hail the goddess that is Reiko! Ah...

  • April 13, 2004, 2:37 a.m. CST

    And network execs wonder why people download from the internet.

    by JohnnyBravo

    Because of scheduling conflicts like this. Thank the lord for the internet.. is there nothing illegal it can't provide? :-) Oh.. and apparently because males are more likely to "steal programming (their words not mine)" they have a lower "commercial retention rate" as opposed to women who actually watch commercials. Thus as a result more the programming on television is geared towards women, and the female demographic has the greatest power in determining what goes on network tv. At least that's what the networks are saying. btw, George W. you will NOT get my vote because of this. aren't their 24 hour news networks out there that you can demand airtime from?

  • April 13, 2004, 2:38 a.m. CST

    Political commentary...www.counterpunch.org and www.truthout.org

    by truthseekr1488

  • April 13, 2004, 2:51 a.m. CST

    I hate W as much as the next guy, but Herc, get real...

    by CranialLeak

    Do you really have a place to "tell" us what to think of our country's leader? I'm sure our foreign friends couldn't give a fuck that '24' is being pre-empted here. And not everyone here agrees with your politics. Know your audience.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Alias VS 24?

    by MaxCalifornia.

    How the f&!$ am I going to make that choice? This is worse than Palmer having to choose between having Ryan Chappelle killed or risk having a terrorist releasing a bioweapon! Well ok maybe not that bad.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Bush

    by Real Deal

    Bush is the worst president I've seen in my almost 51 ( next month )years of life. I can only hope that the recent facts coming to light ( no WOMD in Iraq, the intel on Al Queda, and how long this stupid recession went on )will prevent him from causing even more damage in a second term. I really don't mind the bashing because it will remind people not to be sheep and not vote for him in the next election. Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for america period.

  • April 13, 2004, 3 a.m. CST

    Forgot to add something to my rant...

    by CranialLeak

    My main complaint with Herc's comment is that if I were to seriously weigh it, "reality" is more important to me than my daily dose of entertainment. Apparently, others (including Herc) disagree. I don't care for George either, but I'll be watching what he has to say. Our nation's politics do affect me personally, not only as a taxpayer, but as a voting member of society.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Come On..

    by JohnnyBravo

    I think it's obvious what he's gonna say.. "My fellow amercians, recent statments made by a former white house employee had insinuated that this adminstration was negligent in it's handling of intelligence leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I am here to assure that as your president I have use all resources at my disposal in order to defend this great country. In the months since 9/11 we have formed the Homeland security department, increased military spending, removed a ruthless dictator, and in true american fasion liberated an nation of oppressed people. Nonetheless we recognize the concerns addressed by these statements and have cooperated fully with the 9/11 commission. We have be most forthright and cooperative with the efforts of this commision.. blah blah blah.. etc." I'm certain it'll be something along those lines, to recklessly abuse presidential priviledge to promote his campaign platform. They might as well have the graphic hanging behind them with the slogan "VoteforBush". If i miss anything I'm pretty sure CNN will present a very neat and tidy editorialized version of the press conference. I wouldn't be suprised if they threw in a few shots on the clinton administration and the democrats and how they didn't grab Osama when they had the chance. (for God's sake it's been 4 years already.. do they really need to keep blaming bill clinton? wasn't four years enuff time to correct whatever mistakes you "told us[you] so" about?)

  • April 13, 2004, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Ah well

    by MrEkoLetMeLive

    At least HBO reruns the Sopranos enough that I won't have to worry about missing it to watch 24. As for the President's speech, meh. If he wanted me to vote for him, he should've had Osama Bin Laden's head on a pike by now.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Johnny Bravo-well done

    by Peter Venkman

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh and to the nitwit who earlier made some sort of crack about Democrats who don't do their political homework-That sound you hear is your theory being tossed out the window. I was a Bush supporter until about late last year when instead of blindly defending him and the war whenver I could, I actually sat down and did some research into the mattter and listened to all opinions on the matter-and I changed my stance. I was wrong and I'm mad enough to admit it. Bush and his cronies-especially Rove and Rumsfeld are dangerous, single-minded monsters who only care about WINNING-not about what's right or wrong. And as for not doing a day of hard work-well, I've worked since I was 16 years old; until this year when I was laid off due to the faltering economy and my job going overseas. Spin it any way you like-Bush simply doesn't care about the people who's lives have been ruined by his blatent warmongering.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Maybe one of the daughters will get shitfaced and flash a boob..

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    YEEEE

  • April 13, 2004, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Cockringwraith, you condecending, objectionable little gobshite.

    by jizzmonkey

    ...you moan about liberals making judgements on your precious "leader" of the free world based on no actual independant investigation, and then trip over your own horrible generalisations, frankly sounding like a complete twat (all liberals have "usually have never worked a real day's work in their life"? - you fucking what?) Are you really so arrogant as to say that anybody that doesn't think that the lying, cheating, money-grabbing little retard that you people have in power has done a good job simply hasn't thought it through properly? Hang your head in shame you complete joke of a human being. I suspect that you are a particularly disliked person in your real life as well, not just in your talkback life.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:12 a.m. CST

    West Coast?

    by Playhouse

    Is this just being pre-empted on the East Coast, which would mean 5:30 to 6:15 on the West? Or are they going to stupidly push the show to Sunday for the entire country? I don't have a problem hearing out what our president has to say when it is something important. But if this has to do with anything related to Richard Clarke and the 9/11 hearings (which I don't agree with to begin with), then he could just as easily say that stuff on a Saturday or Sunday than in the middle of the week.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Join Jenna and Barbara in "Daddy's Drinking Game!"

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    IF THE PREZ SEZ "Evil Doers" - THAT'S A SHOT!....IF THE PREZ SEZ "Bin Laden is on the run" - THAT'S A SHOT!...IF THE PREZ SEZ "we got rid of Saddam" - THAT'S A SHOT! - IF THE PREZ SEZ "pockets of resistance" - THAT'S A SHOT!...IF THE PREZ SEZ "godless cleric" - THAT'S A SHOT!...IF THE PREZ SEZ "there are new jobs" - THAT'S A SHOT!...IF THE PREZ SEZ "I am a war president" - THAT'S A SHOT!...And thus, we better buy by the case! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 4:27 a.m. CST

    GayMovieGuy

    by Vern

    Did I misunderstand that, or were you just defending Bush? That's question part A. And question part B is, doesn't your screen name seem to imply that you are a gay type individual? The reason I ask this two part question is because, maybe you haven't heard this yet, but that guy you were just defending recently announced that he wanted to go back and put an asterisk in the Constitution next to the part about "equal rights" so that it doesn't apply to gays. I would think that as a gay movie guy, maybe this might concern you in some way. Maybe he wasn't that serious about it though, it was only in some minor speech called "The State of the Union." Anyway I thought I'd let you know. thanks bud. Your friend Vern. p.s. Can you believe Bush actually said that the fighting in Fallujah was because "they hate freedom, and we love freedom, and that's where the clash is"? I'm not sure they hate freedom so much, because they seemed pretty mad when we shut down their newspaper.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:31 a.m. CST

    It warms my heart to see people who supported Bush change their

    by gurglesnap

    .... and I don't mean that in a "DEMOCRATS RULE/REPUBLICANS DROOL!!!" sort of way. I mean it reassures me to know that there are still people with enough intellectual curiousity to do a little research to see what's behind the spin that's pumped out and then decide for themselves about what's going on. People that try to convince themselves (and others) that either party is always right or always wrong are part of what's wrong with this country. Bush and his ilk don't deserve another term. John Kerry probably doesn't deserve the presidency either, but at least a Kerry presidency would serve to pull this country a little bit back towards the center of the political spectrum, which is where most Americans probably place themselves anyway.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Fictional Fictional President Vs. Real Fictional President

    by ShutUpRob

    I'll take the Fictional Fictional President (Palmer) over the Real Fictional President (President Cheney's Occasional Guest Mouthpiece, Dubya) any day. At least fiction featuring Palmer is honest fiction.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Actually it's the shitheads at FOX who are pre-empting Jack Baue

    by Regis Travolta

    Bush can't pre-empt anything, like all Presidents he has to notify the networks and REQUEST THAT THEY AIR HIS BULLSHIT NEWS CONFERENCE. Which means you really have to blame the shit for brains assholes at Fox who could easily air their regular programming and inform viewers that if they really want to watch Dubya they can tune into Fox Cable News channel. Jack Bauer should be assigned to shove a towel down Dubya's throat and pull up his stomach lining for being such a stupid piece of shit as to allow 9/11 to happen because he was too busy relaxing on his ranch to pay attention to the Aug. 6th PDB which stated BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. Yep that's a good little junior president, soon you'll have plenty of free time to play all you want on your ranch starting January 20th you imebcilic baboon. You can hunt and fish and clear brush and repair the fence because you sure as hell ain't going to be residing in the White House for four more years Mr. Resident you minority piece of shit.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Actually it's the shitheads at FOX who are pre-empting Jack Baue

    by Regis Travolta

    Bush can't pre-empt anything, like all Presidents he has to notify the networks and REQUEST THAT THEY AIR HIS BULLSHIT NEWS CONFERENCE. Which means you really have to blame the shit for brains assholes at Fox who could easily air their regular programming and inform viewers that if they really want to watch Dubya they can tune into Fox Cable News channel. Jack Bauer should be assigned to shove a towel down Dubya's throat and pull up his stomach lining for being such a stupid piece of shit as to allow 9/11 to happen because he was too busy relaxing on his ranch to pay attention to the Aug. 6th PDB which stated BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. Yep that's a good little junior president, soon you'll have plenty of free time to play all you want on your ranch starting January 20th you imebcilic baboon. You can hunt and fish and clear brush and repair the fence because you sure as hell ain't going to be residing in the White House for four more years Mr. Resident you minority piece of shit.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:12 a.m. CST

    reproduce...BUT DON'T YOU ENJOY IT!

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Does it bother anyone that we are being forced sexual repression and high bible morals from a president named BUSH and a veep named DICK?....just sayin'....And thus, can one stick his Cheney in her George? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Mr Regis Travolta

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Two Points: 1) While it is up to the news to air the press conference...this adminitration is really screwing anyone who does not give in to their demands...a la CBS and Miss Jackson....2)The president, as it turns out, COULD NOT READ THE PDB because he could not figure out how to download the "Adobe PDB Reader"....(finally, on a personal note...thank you for one of the finest user IDs I have even known, I have wanted to say that for years)...And thus, I have spoken! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 5:48 a.m. CST

    My lord, Herc

    by devanjedi

  • April 13, 2004, 5:50 a.m. CST

    My Lord, Herc!

    by devanjedi

    It seems people here have no sense of humor! You can't mention 'W' without turning these talkbacks in to a war zone. PEOPLE- Herc shouldn't have to say 'tongue in cheek' every time it is. He could have his tongue any place he wants without mentioning it, for that matter.

  • April 13, 2004, 6:01 a.m. CST

    How many votes is this gonna cost him, maybe 3?

    by Headless Roland

    Seriously, if pre-empting a couple of TV shows is going to cause someone not to vote for somebody that persons a fucking idiot.

  • April 13, 2004, 6:46 a.m. CST

    chatting politics here is really silly

    by pogo on my own

    As on most MB's like this any Republican is going to be outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1. A large majority of the people in here are folks that bitch and bitch, but dont vote because they are too busy jerking thier chickens to Buffy/Amidala photos.

  • April 13, 2004, 6:55 a.m. CST

    an observation

    by pogo on my own

    Disagree all you want, but Democratic politics is crafted to appeal to less educated Americans. The lower your level of educational achievement, the less you earn when you enter the workforce. The less you earn the more likely it is that you will vote for a Democrat

  • I mean, at least 24's fiction is entertaining. It's not like the Shrub is going to say anything of actual significance. That is, unless the White House Press Corps develops some balls and decides that getting the Shrub offscript -- ie: getting him to tell the truth -- is more important than maintaining their ability to get meaningless 'gets.' Since the Republican Party is controlled by people whose only interests are power and money -- not national security, not terrorism, not God 'n' religion and certainly not the truth, what has this idiot got to say that's more important than Jack Bauer tracking down the makers of the virus? Answer: absolutely nothing. If anything, the Mendacity Conference will be *less* important than the next episode of '24.' Unless the Shrub by some stroke of divine justice, uses the time to announce the resignation of himself and his entire, disgraceful administration. In the meantime, I'll start listening to real presidential press conferences when there's a real president in the White House. Which will be the third Monday in January, 2005, when President Kerry is sworn in. ***** Aside to Pogo: the reason that Republicans (that is, Republicans who mindlessly parrot the nonRepublican neoconservative -- really, neofascist -- party line) are outnumbered on most boards by 4 or 5 to 1 is that they happen to be wrong on every moral and ethical level imaginable, and *real* Republicans are finally starting to own up to the truth.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Bush Haters really are reaching

    by MarkWhittington

    Gee, but Bush haters are really reaching for reasons for their hate. So he delayed (not cancelled) a half way interesting show in order to communicate with the American people about real (not Hollywood) terrorist threats. I guess it'll do for an article of impeachment.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Dear cockringwraith

    by raffish

    This six-figure-earning libertarian/progressive hybrid, who spends at least an hour each day reading political commentary from all sides of the spectrum, has been leaning more toward the liberal side ever since your boy got appointed, because it's only too clear what kind of devastation he is capable of wreaking if granted a second term. I will give GWB this much: he has accelerated a schism within the GOP that has needed to be accelerated for a couple decades now. Sooner or later, moderate and libertarian Republicans are going to need to decide which they hate more: taxes and porn, or their children, onto whom the Bush clan is more than happy to pass the burden of our current unprecedented deficit spending. (They should be reminded that Bush doesn't give a crap about the children, because the children don't vote.) Ideally, we'd have a smaller federal government, with no DEA and a stripped-down FDA and FCC -- but you don't *really* think Bush is going to deliver that for you, right? If you do, I suppose you deserve what you get. The duopoly is the disaster.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Pogo

    by Slim_Goodbody

    Silly pogo- it's well known that most university proffessors and college-educated people are more moderate to liberal than far right. The fact that they have had to think critically about subjects makes them less likely to believe something just because they are told it.

  • April 13, 2004, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Vern - get it right.

    by badboymason

    George isnt infringing the equal rights of gays: Gay people and straight people both have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. Straight people don't have more rights than gays, straight people cannot enter same-sex marriages either.

  • April 13, 2004, 8:40 a.m. CST

    I love Bush

    by zacdilone

  • April 13, 2004, 8:47 a.m. CST

    i dont come here to read political..

    by rnor6084

    commentary from some fat useless liberal. I rarely come to this site to begin with because it usually doesnt have any good info to begin with. just a bunch of reviews of off the wall movies that i will never see. i dont wanna see political commentary on a entertainmnet site...kinda ruins the mood.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:09 a.m. CST

    God Bless Canada

    by aBoris26

    HAHAHAHA American suckers! You have to listen to your Texan dictator bitch and moan, while us Canadians get to enjoy the greatest episode of 24 yet! I'm proud to be Canadian. Have fun tonight guys! I know I will, suckers! Oh yah, GO LEAFS GO!

  • April 13, 2004, 9:21 a.m. CST

    hey, give us a break, Boris

    by Ryalto 3.0

    It's not like we ELECTED the asshole.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Screw George Bush!!! He's the American Taliban

    by Russman

    Dick Cheney - Americn Taliban, Colin "uncle tom" Powell - American Taliban, John "nazi lover" ashcroft - American Taliban, Colin Powell Jr. - American Taliban - I hope they all burn in hell. Traitors to the constitution and betrayors to the American People. Those of you fool who voted republican, this is what you paid for! Thanks a lot and screw you all too. Down w/ Bush in '04!

  • April 13, 2004, 9:43 a.m. CST

    American Putz

    by aBoris26

    It is airing on Global tonight, it has not been changed, i looked, and yes us Canadians do see shows even if you Yankee putzes don't, the O.C. (another FOX show) airs on Monday here, while you guys wait until Wendsday. The Canadian networks purchused the episodes before hand, they are broadcasting their own version of it not a tap of an american network, global even puts their logo at the beginning, and has diffrently timed comercial breaks. SO HA! We win! Censorship loving!!! What about the Victoria Secret Show being canceled down there this year because of the Janet Jackson boobie incidant. Enjoy the quagmire of Iraq you Yanks, soon enough you'll come running to us to advoid a draft! And don't you bad mouth God's team in the National Hockey League, The Toronto Maple Leafs! God Bless Canada.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:47 a.m. CST

    I love Bush

    by The_Goat

    And I like the president, too. So some of you are going to bitch and moan about 24 being moved to Sunday so our President (yes, he is your president if you did not vote for him and you are a citizen of this country whether you like it or not) may address the nation on several issues. I understand alot of you have no lives whatsoever and masturbating to photos of Michael Moore in a bikini is your idea of a friday night, but there is more going on in the world right now besides a TV plot to release bio weapons on this nation: it can actually happen! If you don't care what any president at anytime in our history has had to say in a presidential address then go to France and cower with the rest of your kind. And if you're pissed about American Idol being bumped, don't even talk: you are not worthy to breathe the air around you. Go smoke up and get busted on Ruben's tour bus (have you heard that news yet? Probably not because you are too busy trying to convince yourself that Al Franken is actually a comedian). You think attacking Iraq was a bad idea? Tell that to the thousands of political prisoners we freed from certain death and the 95% of the country that is under control and people are getting on with their lives. And if you are bitching about our troops being killed? Get over it. They volunteered for the military: they were not drafted. The purpose of a military is to kill people and in the process we will have people killed, too. That's the way it works, folks. More people are killed everyday in L.A. You think we could have prevented 9/11? Then what about the U.S.S. Cole? What about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Those were both al-Qaida plots we had preliminary intelligence reports on but there were no bipartisan inquiries into those incidents that made headlines for weeks and personally attacked members of the president's cabinet. As for the people left to deal with their losses on 9/11? A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA. "Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when." Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo. And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles. "Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11. How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by President Clinton, not Bush. And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives. Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened. * Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. * Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings. * In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice. * Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won. * In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well. Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars. But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Oh grow up

    by Alex Rogan

    The POTUS should schedule his life around YOUR TV habbits?!? Geez, it isn't like you will NEVER get to see it now. Scary that people that immature get to vote.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Rebroadcast

    by jrob529

    What happen to the rebroadcast of episodes (on I believe it was FX)? I use to love being able to watch an episode on FX when I missed one.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Doesn't matter...I'm watching KILL BILL VOL. 1 tonight...

    by SpyGuy

    Let's see...I can sit and watch the President spin the current Iraq situation like an empty Coke bottle, or I can watch Uma Thurman go hardcore on Go-Go Yubari and the Crazy 88...Wow, tough call. Don't worry, I'll catch the networks as they spin the President's spin tomorrow morning before work and all will be good. And ALIAS vs. 24? No contest...Bristows all the way, baby!

  • April 13, 2004, 10 a.m. CST

    FX rebroadcast

    by The_Goat

    Yeah, I miss having the repeats on Sundays as well. Oh well. Since The Shield is not affected by this, life is good.

  • April 13, 2004, 10:50 a.m. CST

    And the subect will be covering W's hindquarters

    by VibroCount

    ... about Iraq & 9/11. Not anything real like how he hijacked our economy. Yeah, we got gobs of new jobs in March... but none in California. And the jobs came because of tax cuts. Sure. Welfare would be cheaper. The recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the American economy created 308,000 jobs in March was greeted by President Bush with a proclamation that "The tax relief we passed is working." Naturally, Democrats took issue with Bush's conclusion. But for the sake of argument, let's assume Bush is right, and the tax cuts led to the job growth. We at The Gadflyer thought we'd do some quick math to calculate just how much each of the jobs Bush has created cost the American government. In order to add up the cost of the Bush tax cuts, you have to look at two sets of numbers, the cost if the cuts "sunset" and the cost if they don't. When the Republicans passed the tax bills, they set the cuts to magically disappear in later years, as a way of hiding their true cost. The assumption was that eventually Congress would make the cuts permanent. And in fact, that's just what Bush is campaigning for right now. So what did they cost? -- 2001-2010, with sunsets: $2.29 trillion -- 2001-2010, without sunsets: $3.25 trillion. Bush insisted that the purpose of these tax cuts was to create jobs. In various State of the Union addresses, the president made all manner or promises about the robust employment market we'd see if only we'd listen to his sterling wisdom and pass his tax cuts for the wealthy. Let's say the economy continues to create 300,000 jobs a month from here to the end of the year, something even the pollyannas in the Bush administration wouldn't predict. At the moment, Bush is still 1.84 million jobs in the hole, but 9 more months at 300,000 jobs per month would leave him at the end of the year with a net of 860,000 jobs created for his first term. That gives us the following: $749.1 billion (cost of tax cuts, 2001-2004) / 860,000 jobs = $871,046 per job. Those must be some jobs. Not exactly the most cost efficient way to provide work for 860,000 people, is it? Reading this, one naturally imagines how much cheaper it would be for the government to just pay people directly, instead of waiting around for the "trickle down" to take effect. Perhaps it's time for reporters to begin asking President Bush and his spokespeople just how much they think it should cost to create a single job. Right now there are approximately 10 million people out of work in the United States. If we gave each of them $143,512, it would cost $1.43 trillion, less than half the ten-year cost of Bush's tax cuts if they are made permanent. Now there's an idea.

  • April 13, 2004, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Win the War on Terrorism

    by JackBristow

    That's funny. Cause since we strolled into Iraq, we've probably helped create a couple million more terrorists. WIn the War on Terrorism, sorry not happening.

  • April 13, 2004, 11:21 a.m. CST

    free air time...

    by righteousdude

    Amazing that the Bush Administration is using the networks for a free campaign speech (and don't kid yourselves; that's EXACTLY what this is). Guess they don't want to dip into that $180 million war chest they've amassed; got to save all that loot for buying negative ads in swing states to distort Kerry's record. And excellent post VibroCount - that's just the sort of logic and critical thinking that Republicans love to ignore, calling it liberal poppycock. Can't let facts get in the way of tried and true GOP dogma. The fact is that the tax cuts are simply PAYOFFS to wealthy individuals who have supported Bush and the other Republicans in Congress. And it's a pretty damn good investment for them, too. For a mere $2,000, they get tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands (in Cheney's case for example), in "tax relief". The rest of us get stuck with the bill. Oh, and one more thing about all those "jobs" created last month: Would you like fries with that?

  • April 13, 2004, 11:47 a.m. CST

    "The sky is falling"

    by neuracnu

    This has to be belated april fool's - the joke is too easy to miss.

  • April 13, 2004, 11:47 a.m. CST

    A brief historical note

    by Bloodstained

    Constantly interrupting scheduled television programs for speeches and news conferrences, sometimes as much as twice in one week, was the beginning of the nation turining against Lyndon Johnson.

  • April 13, 2004, 12:05 p.m. CST

    re:free air time

    by The_Goat

    Every president has used free air time for political gain since the invention of radio. You act like it is something new and evil the republicans have devised. They don't need to run ad campaigns to distort Kerry's record: it's distorted enough on it's own. Dipping into that $180 million is well spent money since the democrats feel the need to weasel their way around the campaign finance reform laws they fought so hard for by coordinating with groups like moveon.org (who's coordinator was recently hired by Kerry, by the way). As for the ecomony: it's doing great. I got a well-paying job after finishing grad school, as well as several of my friends within the past 3 years. It's called working hard and finding the jobs on your own. Sorry if you think the government should just call you up and say, "Hey, we've got this great management position you would be perfect for. Let us know. We'll keep it open for you if you decide to get off of welfare." The fact is that tax cuts work. If you are so supportive of raising taxes, how about you pay mine next year? And if you think these tax cuts are benefitting only republicans: what planet are you from? The top wealthiest members of congress are ALL democrats and if you think they are not involved with special interest groups and cater to the wishes of their wealthy friends, then you are sadly mistaken. A politician is a politician. Higher taxes means sending money to new government funded programs that are contracted to the good friends of the "oh-so-caring" democrats who line their pockets with other people's money instead of fixing the problems we have now.

  • April 13, 2004, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Hey Cockringwraith

    by KazamaSmokers

    Your family's share of Bush's debt is $55,000. When can we expect payment?

  • April 13, 2004, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Politics Shmolotics...

    by FiMo719

    Don't you realize what this means? The time has come. This Sunday, the ultimate showdown of all time. Jack Bauer, inventor of the Jack Bauer Power Hour, and father of a mildy retarded Penelope Pitstop, will come up against Jack Bristow, the pioneer of the slow motion "I'm Gonna Kill You But Not Before I Check You Out Really Hard" stare. Who will win? Who knows... But one way or another, it's gonna be badass.

  • April 13, 2004, 12:45 p.m. CST

    oil is a WMD

    by neckbone

    here's another 'republican' who will not vote for bush under any circumstances. kerry is a marginally less-crappy choice than gore was. how aggravating these guys are the best options the american people are given. how refreshing would a john mccain or wesley clark be? granted they're still establishment guys, but at least they still have an idea where reality lies. here's a great read - http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/ long, but certainly worth the effort.

  • April 13, 2004, 1 p.m. CST

    Hey Goat, wake up!!

    by righteousdude

    Did you even READ VibroCount's post? Oh, I forgot, you people don't read. If you had bothered to take an Econ course while you were in grad school, you'd realize that tax cuts targeted to the rich DON'T WORK to stimulate the economy. This little economic boost we've gotten recently has come from increased production squeezed out of those who HAVEN'T lost their jobs yet, doing the work of 2 or more people and having their personal lives suffer for it. REAL job growth, i.e. replacing all the good jobs lost by outsourcing, corporate greed, etc. is nonexistant. If Bush really wanted to stimulate the economy, he would have targeted tax cuts at middle class workers, i.e. the payroll tax. Then, it would have gotten spent in ways that would have benifited us all. But then, those folks don't give millions to the Republican Party. Therefore, they don't count to this administration. And here's a news flash for you: you don't count either; only you're too busy watching FOX Propoganda News and listening to Rush to realize you're being played. Do a little research, read and think about the issues a little, then maybe you'll see the light. But I doubt it; you guys never do.

  • April 13, 2004, 1:03 p.m. CST

    From someone who WORKS in U.S. National Security Policy...

    by mustang_dvs

    I live next to the Pentagon (since July 2001) and I WORK in the heart of Washington, for a U.S. National Security Think-Tank (since February 1998).... Most of the country doesn't have a clue just how screwed up U.S. policy is, and how much more dangerous the world is for Americans since September 11, 2001 and March 18, 2003. And hell, I work for a CONSERVATIVE think-tank. As much as the Clinton Administration was maligned for being "soft" on terrorism and "reluctant" to use force - it actually did quite a bit to counter terrorist activities (much of which will remain classified for years, especially under Republican leadership) and that it was the JCS that was reluctant to commit U.S. troops out of concerns regarding readiness and combat casualties. (Of course, the Administration WAS reluctant to press the JCS to take action against their advice.) Just think of what the Clinton Administration could have accomplished had the Congress not been spending millions of dollars to investigate and impeach the President on the grounds that he received a blow-job! Of course, that kind of thing can't happen nowadays, because simply criticizing the President's (personal secretary's) choice of necktie is considered "unpatriotic" and "anti-American." The morons and crackpots currently dictating U.S. National Security Policy and Defense Strategy have no clue. They sat on their asses and ignored multiple significant indicators prior to September 11; they pussyfooted around committing serious operational deployments to Afghanistan and went soft on Pakistan when they had an opportunity to contain and eliminate the majority of the known Al Qaeda leadership; they focused disproportionately on Iraq, when most credible intelligence indicators pointed to places like Syria and Iran, both of which we have gone easy on so that we could punch the Iraqi tar baby; oh, and every time we eliminate a known Al Qaeda leader, we open the door for an UNKNOWN leader to assume that role, meaning we're actually UNDERMINING our efforts (as opposed to wiping out a bunch of them together, reducing their ability to compensate for the loss of leadership.) The civilian leadership is CLUELESS and the military brass is too CHICKENSHIT to say anything after seeing the way they tore apart Eric Shinseki and Tom White for simply stating the TRUTH about the number of troops deployed to Iraq (and they fired Jay Garner because he wanted to establish law and order in Baghdad, rather than let the Iraqis demolish their own nation, as was predicted in a classified November 2002 Army study and a public October 2002 USMC war game.) Oh, and expect to see the Department of Homeland Security FINALLY become effective sometime around 2012, assuming they finally figure out the jurisdictional hierarchy. Even though I tend to vote Democrat, the ONLY reason I will vote for John Kerry in November is in the hope that ANYONE else can do a better job than the Kennebunkport

  • April 13, 2004, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Just to give me a little more credibility...

    by mustang_dvs

    I don't just WORK for a think-tank -- I'm the Manager for RESEARCH and Communications -- meaning I'm not some lowly intern (which could be inferred by the fact that my account links to a very old and no-longer active college email account), but that I oversee all the information we produce, how it's gathered, how it's analyzed and how it's presented. Other than the Executive Director, I have final say on what we say and who we say it to, which means I have a pretty wide field of view and see quite a few things which CAN'T be publicly released (a few of them are even above my pay grade). Oh, and I particularly LOVE that POTUS has raised the bar so HIGH for "actionable intelligence" on September 11, that the only way the Administration feels it could have been accountable for 9/11 was if someone handed the president the NAMES of all 19 hijackers, the FLIGHT NUMBERS, the hijacker's SEAT ASSIGNMENTS, and the EXACT TARGET LOCATIONS... And one more thing to ponder -- the advice given to Bush (41) by Condoleeza Rice in late 1989-1991 is largely responsible for creating the political and economic collapse in the former Soviet Union and is largely blamed for the lack of a "soft landing." (But at least he didn't take her advice to roll the Berlin Brigade through Moscow in 1990 -- we needed them to ensure our half-assed approach to Operation Desert Shield/Storm.)

  • April 13, 2004, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Hey Mustang

    by KazamaSmokers

    My old college roommate works AT THE PENTAGON. He says half the staff attend Powell meetings, the other half attend Rummy meetings, and the two sides NEVER talk. They can barely stand to look at each other. This guy is a hardcore Conservative and he positively hates this administration.

  • April 13, 2004, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Bush sucks.

    by flave

    Why pre-empt the best night on TV? Presidents love doing this for the simple reason that this guarantees them a bigger audience. People tune in to see their favorite show(s) only to see George W.'s weasly little face. (It's a known fact that Reagan liked to pre-empt the Cosby show for this very reason.)

  • April 13, 2004, 1:41 p.m. CST

    man there goes my sunday arrested development

    by cornstalkwalker

    fox is probably loving this because they want to cancel the show.

  • April 13, 2004, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Exactly, KazamaSmokers....

    by mustang_dvs

    This Administration is best characterized by two things: 1) this is the most POLITICALLY motivated and SPIN-driven Administration in modern history, where the President's political advisor (Carl Rove) has sat in on significant policy meetings and has had U.S. policy influence since January 21, 2001 and 2) that there is a division between the 'old boys' network of former members of the Project for a New American Century and those who weren't part of it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc WERE, Powell and Armitage were not. Not to say that this is some sort of conspiratorial cabal, but they have very different world views. The PfaNAC had a very bi-polar, Cold War-esque view of a future characterized by military and economic confrontations with mainland China, a growing threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles and state-sponsored terrorist proxies. People who realized the world was different than in 1990, saw that China doesn't have a significant military force-projection capability, that ballistic missiles are of concern in a primarily regional context (in which they prove particularly destabilizing) and that very few purely politically-motivated terrorist groups exist and that radical, fundamentalist islam was becoming the dominant impetus behind modern terrorist groups. And to make matters worse, since both sides are so entrenched and believe that they truly "understand" the way the world works, neither will meet the other half-way and anyone who even "crosses the aisle" to the other side for a meeting is a traitor to both sides. And I don't even want to start about the domestic issues, other than the fact that Ashcroft wouldn't give FBI/DoJ/INS/DHS officials the time of day unless they attended his daily prayer meetings and that he was more concerned with protecting the country from the breasts on the statue of "Justice" than from the threat of domestic terrorist attacks. (That, and the consistent and ongoing efforts of Republicans in Congress and the current Administration to undermine Critical Infrastructure Protection efforts, as outlined in Clinton's PDD 63.)

  • April 13, 2004, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Hey Mustang

    by KazamaSmokers

    om: mustang_dvs Subject: Exactly, KazamaSmokers.... Comment: This Administration is best characterized by two things: 1) this is the most POLITICALLY motivated and SPIN-driven Administration in modern history, where the President's political advisor (Carl Rove) has sat in on significant policy meetings =============== Well, I think Acheson sat in on some JFK meetings (though he excused himself when the missile crisis reached a decision-making point). But I get your point.

  • April 13, 2004, 2 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but Acheson wasn't on the payroll...

    by mustang_dvs

    ...from Day one of the Kennedy Administration. Rove was given an office in the West Wing on move-in day. Much of the White House staff has to clear with him first before making announcements or policy decisions and he's much closer to POTUS and VPOTUS than the WH CoS, Andy Card in the decision-making process.

  • April 13, 2004, 2 p.m. CST

    This is not a place for Bush Bashing . . .

    by HarrisonsDad

    . . . Actually, a better place would be in the gallery during the speech so we could boo and get our butts thrown out. Just kidding. As far as I'm concerned anywhere anytime is a good place to bash Bush. I'm not one of those unknowing nerds who speak out without knowing the facts. Hell, I read two or three newspapers every single day. I watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and hell, I even watch Fox News network which brings me to my point. Fox news is so biased toward the conservative point of view that of course they will show Dubya's address to the nation. The thing is, like Chicken George pointed out, there are several outlets for Dubya's speech. What they need to do is show Dubya on one channel. Promote the heck out of it on all other channels and then see how badly Dubya gets his butt kicked in the ratings. Even a lot of Right-Wing warmongers would choose to watch "24" over Dubya. I have a feeling repeat episodes of "My Mother the Car" would beat Dubya. For the first time in modern history, we invaded a country for no reason other than the fact Dubya didn't like Saddam. Hell, I don't like Saddam and I'm glad he's gone, but we set a horrible example for the rest of the world. What's gonna happen if Dubya chokes on some Swiss Cheese? Are we going to send troops into Switzerland to protect the rest of the free world from the evil menace of that unholy holey cheese?

  • April 13, 2004, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Sorry, was I asleep?

    by The_Goat

    If you had bothered to take a common sense course before your GED exam, you would have realized that all of those "good jobs" that were lost were with dot com companies that over-inflated their stocks by cooking the books and claiming they would make a forture by selling socks for pets over the internet. If corporate greed had such a big hand in it, what does that have to do with the president? That's like saying, "McDonalds charges me $.10 more for fries. Fries are cooked in oil and Dick Cheney used to work for an oil company! Shadow Government! Black Helicopters! Corporate greed goes all the way to the white house!" Tax cuts do work and I do agree with you that there need to be more for the middle class of America. Since the rich can afford it, tax them. However, it is not fair to tax them a higher percentage rate than someone with less income. That is called redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as socialism. Again with claiming republicans are the only ones with rich friends. I live in DC and deal with political leaders every day. I see where and who the money goes to and it certainly is not partisan. Here's a news flash for you: I don't count if I don't vote. I've voted on both sides of the ballot my whole life and I am choosing to Vote for Bush because he is the first president we've had in a long to to stand up and make the world recognize what Iraq was doing to it's people. Does the word genocide ring a bell? The use of biological warfare against Iran? I guess you're too busy watching cBS, Dan Rather-full-of-Crap, and the other 99% of liberal media inject their opinion into every news story of the day. Unfortunately, it seems your idea of "research" involves watching Bowling for Columbine followed by the 6:30 evening news, then doing some reading on Streisand's website for dessert. Sure, there's plenty of light out there for me to see and it is all tinted with leftist lies. You're generalizations only hurt your arguement.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:22 p.m. CST

    by marvelcomicfan

    Being an Independant voter I will get flak from everyone but anyway: As far as the 9/11 which I am sure the speech will cover. Big changes are headed our way. If the government could restrict our freedoms even more than the Patriot Act, that would limit terrorists from being able to strike. But would also restrict everyones freedoms even more. Which covers Richard Clarkes ideal for how he would like to handle things. Thus his complaining why it was not and is not so possible. Bush believes the Patriot Act covers mostly the problem. Democrats say it goes too far. But in the hearings and commentary about them, question why a lot of it was not previously done. Need I mention a lot of people looking for more to be done in NYC, when the planes originated a bit far from there. Which also shows political posturing. Considering the Democratic nominee. From the Republicans it would be considered attacking, and the Democrats are avoiding. As far as complaints of 24 being postponed, both would like that to be the issue, but not foolish enough to state it. As for those torn between Alias and 24 on Sunday, learn to work a VCR this week. As for my vote as it stands now, I do not agree with everything Bush says. I do not agree with everything Kerry says either. But on my agreements with each only one has changed his opinion to disagree with me at a later time. So as usual my vote will be a hope for the best. Those that as now, get exactly what they want, or do not want will be the hold back to allowing me a better choice or understanding of the differences.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Tonights Press Conference

    by marvelcomicfan

    Being an Independant voter I will get flak from everyone but anyway: As far as the 9/11 which I am sure the speech will cover. Big changes are headed our way. If the government could restrict our freedoms even more than the Patriot Act, that would limit terrorists from being able to strike. But would also restrict everyones freedoms even more. Which covers Richard Clarkes ideal for how he would like to handle things. Thus his complaining why it was not and is not so possible. Bush believes the Patriot Act covers mostly the problem. Democrats say it goes too far. But in the hearings and commentary about them, question why a lot of it was not previously done. Need I mention a lot of people looking for more to be done in NYC, when the planes originated a bit far from there. Which also shows political posturing. Considering the Democratic nominee. From the Republicans it would be considered attacking, and the Democrats are avoiding. As far as complaints of 24 being postponed, both would like that to be the issue, but not foolish enough to state it. As for those torn between Alias and 24 on Sunday, learn to work a VCR this week. As for my vote as it stands now, I do not agree with everything Bush says. I do not agree with everything Kerry says either. But on my agreements with each only one has changed his opinion to disagree with me at a later time. So as usual my vote will be a hope for the best. Those that as now, get exactly what they want, or do not want will be the hold back to allowing me a better choice or understanding of the differences.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Politics of Envy

    by Attorney#1

    The politics of envy are alive and well on this board. Maybe if you guys would get off the da*n computer and get real jobs, you would make enough money to appreciate tax cuts. BTW, all tax brackets were lowered not just the top ones. Of course the rich get a higher tax break b/c they pay the majority of the country's taxes. We are capitalists not socialists - so deal with it! I deal with little bast*rds like you guys every day who feel they are entitled to something from their car wreck and product liability cases. But you know what? I just grin and take my 33%. Don't start the privileged crap with me either b/c I went to 7 years of college on scholarship - not a trust fund. Boo-yah.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:52 p.m. CST

    attorney1

    by neckbone

    "I deal with little bast*rds like you guys every day who feel they are entitled to something from their car wreck and product liability cases. But you know what? I just grin and take my 33%." was that from ethics 101 or 102? but thanks for censoring it with *s - i felt so much cleaner reading it. personal injury lawyers are no different than welfare cases. you're sponging off the insurance industry and it's, effectively, bottomless pockets; while they break the backs of rate payers. you're not a "capitalist", you're a whore.

  • April 13, 2004, 2:59 p.m. CST

    No Alias Talk Back from Last Sunday?

    by The Bear

    I'm sorry to interrupt the very important political talk that I'm sure will sway everyone's minds, but is there no "Alias" talkback from last Sunday? Yes, it was on at 10:00 instead of 9:00, so did that mean lots of people missed it? Or am I just blind as a bat and can't find the talkback? It was, after all, another great episode. As for Bush v. Kerry...well, damn, Bush can barely pronounce his own name and seems clueless, while Kerry is so damned PC that he actually said a newspaper in Baghdad that advocated the killing of Americans was a "valid voice" in Iraq!! Holy shit! Who's left? Are we SURE Reagan's got Alzheimer's? Could someone call and just make sure? Thanks.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Unprecedented? What?

    by vikingkitty

    Am I missing something, or didn't Bill Clinton once go on the air for about five minutes just to tell us all that he'd lied his fucking ass off about Monica Lewinksy?

  • April 13, 2004, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Bush won't talk about Clarke

    by vikingkitty

    He won't talk about him for the same reason I don't talk about and give credence to the drunk bum that tries to convince me he's Jesus Christ every morning when I'm walking to work. He's an irrelevant idiot.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Mustang_DVS, the idea that you work for a conservative think tan

    by vikingkitty

    No chance in hell.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:14 p.m. CST

    My cousin's nephew's friend's retarded little brother . . .

    by vikingkitty

    . . . works for the CIA. He says Mustang_DVS is a big poopy head.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:18 p.m. CST

    You live "next door" to the Pentagon? Since 1991? Big fucking

    by vikingkitty

    I've been secretly living in the dome over the White House for the past two years. I heard G.W. suggest that you go "fuck yourself" a few days ago!

  • April 13, 2004, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Other than the fact that Attorney#1 is contributing to the decli

    by vikingkitty

    It is all about the politics of envy.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:31 p.m. CST

    "Articles of Impeachment"? Liberals don't need no stinkin' "Art

    by vikingkitty

    Since liberal thought is based on feelings and concepts such as "social justice", they don't have to actually explain their complaints in a logical manner. It's enought that that FEEEEL slighted.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:44 p.m. CST

    A Lazy, lazy man

    by The_Goat

    Yeah, he's lazy. When was the last time you showed up for work at 6:00 AM after jogging 5 miles and keeping a six-minute pace? What a sloth.

  • April 13, 2004, 3:44 p.m. CST

    my turn

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    I HAVE THE TALKING STICK!!!!!!! I HAVE THE TALKING STICK!!!!!! MY TURN! MY TURN! MY TURN! MY TURN! MY TURN! I HAVE THE TALKING STICK!!! I HAVE THE TALKING STICK!!!!!...And thus, who needs a really stiff drink? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Well, we had to expect this...

    by righteousdude

    Figures that that all the right-wing wackos would come streaming out of their holes to defend the indefensible. Fact is, Bush has made an unholy mess of things. Fact is, he will go down to defeat, probably narrowly, in November as the American public aren't ALL as stupid as you guys seem to think. Fact is, Kerry and a new group of grownups will come in and clean up the mess, just like Clinton had to do after the last group of Republicans mucked things up prior to '92. Peace and prosperity will return, and he'll repair relations with the rest of the world that Bush has degraded so badly. This will lead to greater international cooperation on terrorism and we'll all be safer. Not that any of you right-wing pukes will appreciate any of it; you never do. You'll just yell and scream, moan and groan, until the People forget and elect another Republican crook that will start the whole mess all over again. Which Bush will it be then? I guess it'll be Jeb's turn. God help us.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:08 p.m. CST

    mustang_dvs

    by BTR1701

    IF you REALLY work FOR a DC think TANK, I sure HOPE your WORK product IS more PROFESSIONAL than WHAT we SEE here. It LOOKS like A third-GRADER wrote YOUR posts, WITH every OTHER word CAPITALIZED.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Regardless of how one feels about President Bush Herc's comments

    by the G-man

    Anyone who complains that one of their TV shows is pre-empted for a Presidential press conference is clearly too immature and unconcerned about the world to be allowed to voice an opinion, let alone to vote.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Hmm... Laziness

    by The_Goat

    The reason he didn't get up and start screaming "The Twin Towers are on Fire! The pentagon has been attacked! Run for your life!" is because he was in front of a group of children. Obviously you have no chance of procreation, but it is a natural instinct for most to remain calm and set and example in the presence of children to help them through hard times. One would think that touchy-feely libs would get this concept. I thought he showed amazing courage to be able to stay where he was and to deal with what was about to happen.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Are people actually criticizing the way Bush reacted when he lea

    by vikingkitty

    What was he supposed to do? "Drop your fingerpaints and head for the hills, kiddies. It looks like those fucking towelheads have just blown up the World Trade Center!"

  • April 13, 2004, 4:20 p.m. CST

    A vote for Bush is a vote for tyranny (no, not Trannys)

    by Russman

  • April 13, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Kerry's foreign support

    by The_Goat

    "So, terrorists want Kerry to win? If you'd be so kind as to notify the proper athorities as to the location of these terorists with which you speak" ********* Only if Kerry would be so kind as to notify us as to who all of the foreign leaders are that supposively support him. Let's see, if I wanted to destroy America, who would I want to fight? A leader who has proven he won't take shit off of anyone, or a weak-kneed liberal who will look the other way as long as you don't mess with his ketchup. Of course, Kerry's friends have killed more people than Bush's (Hi Teddy K. Driven into any rivers lately?) so they may be afraid afterall.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Understands what?

    by The_Goat

    Kerry has voted time and again against military funding and new weapons. Every new weapon we use on the battlefield to keep our troops safe and out of harm's way was voted against by Kerry. He sure does understand War.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Talkbacks like these....

    by Lamerz

    Talkbacks like these are so fucking funny. Most of the people talking like they know shit when they obviously have only been listening to propaganda from one side or the other. Get a fucking clue or shut the fuck up. Sure everyone has a right to free speech, but everyone also has the right to think you are a fucking idiot if you are on here making stupid fucking statements. Besides, political discourse on AICN ain't worth shit, since THIS IS A FUCKING ENTERTAINMENT SITE!!! Retardz. By the way, Kerry won the primary too early. Now he is going to have to go out for an extended campaign against Bush, which will be bad for him. The more people learn about how fucking liberal Kerry is (more than Gore, Ted Kennedy, et al) the worse he will do. He has already fucked up on the numbers for his plans for the next 10 years. Even a liberal think-tank said his raising taxes on the rich will only bring in $400 million (the part he likes to say) over 10 years (the part he leaves out). Which my basic math skills work out to $0 bill per year. His plans for universal health care and other liberal holy grails will cost approx $275 billion, PER YEAR!!! Where the fuck is that money gonna come from? Hmmm, businesses? LESS JOBS THEN! The middle class? Let's keep taxing the fuck out of corporations and small businesses and then FORCE them to keep jobs here as Kerry wants to do. Are we going to subsidize them later because they cannot compete due to high taxes, wages, health costs, etc.? Kerry is fucking whacked out. People complain about Bush's deficit, but they are only starting to realize how fucked we'll all be if Kerry gets into office. Oh, and Kerry's plan to raise taxes on those making over $200,000? Let's see, 2/3 of those making over $200,000 are SMALL BIZ OWNERS. And who creates the most jobs? SMALL BIZ OWNERS. What happens when they have less money? LESS JOBS!!! This dose of reality brought to you today by People for Common Sense.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Oops, that was supposed to be $40 billion per year up there

    by Lamerz

    ... not $0 billion. For the haters that will try and discount everything because of one mistake.

  • April 13, 2004, 4:45 p.m. CST

    I think you're all pretty pathetic

    by mr.norman.bates

    You bitch when Bush doesn't have a conference, then you bitch when he does. You supported him, but then you did "research" and you found out he was a politician. Oh, and Kerry, Kennedy, Hatch, Daschle and Delay and the rest DON'T want to win? Has anyone paid attention to John "and I voted FOR the war powers resolution right before I voted AGAINST it" Kerry? At least Bush has been consistent. Even then, why should I always have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils when they're both still evil? (BTW, did we or did we NOT fid 400,000 dead corpses in mass graves? I guess you just can't keep down the NAZI in DEMOCRAT). I know, I know: it's not murder if you are aborting a threat to your life and your lifestyle.. you know, like that DEMOCRAT ad in Florida on Ashcroft. Reallll compassionate there, budds. Ugh! Oh, and Real Deal? Clinton was worse than Bush in that he LED us to this crap (too busy getting a job than doing his job): don't give me this shit about Osama when that fucktard has 3 attempts to have his head on a pike BEFORE 9/11 was even a plan. 8 years after the 1993 WTC bombing and NOTHING -Bush had 8 MONTHS and its all his fault. Uh huh. And Carter was even worse, for I have yet to see car lines at the gas stations. Nuff said. But I digress, and this is not to say that George McFly Bush is any better than his father (take that for what it is). I say let's stop pretending that either Republicans OR Democrats are actually any good and just add them to Don Henley's list. How about it? Will anybody trash Kerry for starting the "baby killer" mentality with the Winter Soldier hearings? Will anybody bash both Bush AND Clinton for allowing bad shit to happen (or is one exempt from the obvious)? And ENOUGH of this "stealing the election" crap. If it was that damn obvious, the Democrats and/or Republicans would have had an investigation by now... unless they did something wrong too. But I guess that took too much thought for all of these National Socialist bitch-a$$ slaves on this site to figure out. And what is REALLY funny is: how in the HELL do any of these political belches make it past the Harry One? Has anyone ever read the comments in blue to the right when posting? "In other words, being a jerkwad loser will get you banned". Well.. if that is the case, this talkback should be a complete blank (including my own post, you donkey-raping shiite muslim eaters).

  • April 13, 2004, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Rome is burning.....

    by Russman

  • April 13, 2004, 5:15 p.m. CST

    The experiment called America is near an end...

    by Russman

    Be proud kids, you're witnessing the end of an empire.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Russman, you are a retard

    by Lamerz

    The experiment called America is near an end. Why? Political disagreements? A couple of terror attacks? Or because the America haters think they smell blood when all it really is... is ketchup.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Democracy will fail..... civil war is inevitable

    by Russman

  • April 13, 2004, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Kerry was IN a war... :p

    by Lamerz

    That argument cracks me up. So because he was in a war, he automatically understands everything about war. Including how to manage a war. How to lead a country into war. Kerry was in a war. So what? Does that mean he is automatically qualified to be CINC? Is the factory worker at GM qualified to be CEO of GM? Well, gee, he was the one putting the card together!

  • April 13, 2004, 5:26 p.m. CST

    To:

    by mustang_dvs

  • April 13, 2004, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Great One... lest you forget...What other country used WMDs on a

    by Russman

    The United States of America. Please remember that in the 200+ years that this country has been in existance we have done much worse than Sadam.... Ask the Native Americans, ask the Japanese civilians who survived the atom bombs we dropped on them...

  • April 13, 2004, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Kerry is not more qualified than Bush because he was "IN" a war

    by Lamerz

    ... more qualified to make up stories about soldiers killing babies, raping women indiscriminately, burning people, etc. If he knew about all this, why didn't he name names? If he only "heard" about it, then why didn't he do some verification before making the accusation? Kerry's war experience is shit. I feel for the man for having to see the violence of war, but his post-war conduct is pathetic. More qualified to vote against most of the major systems we use today. More qualified to vote "for the war before he voted against it." He's qualified to run the army of France.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:37 p.m. CST

    The Goat..... hey what other country practiced and commited gen

    by Russman

    You're right - The united states. What other country used germ warfare to kill women, children and elderly people? You're right again! The united states. What other country kidnapped thousands upon thousands of people forced them to work as slaves and used the A.) Law and B.) Religion to justify it. Bingo!! The united states again!! What's the name of that country again that didn't allow women to vote until sometime near the mid 1900s (okay you got me, I forget the date, so sue me)? Did you guess The united states of america??? If you did, congrats!! You answered correctly again. And for the final question... which country, claiming to love democracy and freedom, has overthown elected officials with brutal dictators and tyrants who ruled with an iron fist and often killed thousands of men, women and children at will? Again, you are right!!! The united states of america. Yes, a country founded under god who has given us the divine right to murder and slaughter anyone who disagrees with us. god bless the USA. (sigh)

  • April 13, 2004, 5:42 p.m. CST

    A bomb?

    by Yellow Ledbetter

    So we're bad people for dropping the A bombs? We actually saved lives by dropping "the bomb" on Japan. By the way, Democrats Roosevelt and Truman decided to build and drop the A Bombs. [Sarcasm]Those evil bastards. [/Sarcasm]

  • April 13, 2004, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Russman - your tired hatred of America is pathetic

    by Lamerz

    What country ended slavery? America. What country amended it's constitution with an equal protection clause. America. What country guarantees all citizens over 18 the right to vote. America. What country do people all over the world risk life and limb to get to. America. I forget what your other tired arguments were and it really does not matter. You and the other haters cannot do anything but dwell on the past, because America has constantly improved itself. Who here claimed America was perfect since inception?

  • April 13, 2004, 5:52 p.m. CST

    To all those who are bitching about show changes!!!

    by CyberBeavis1326

    Learn about an invention called the VCR or TIVO you dumb fucks. Yes, I'm bitching about the two shows being shown together at the same time, I give a fuck, so I'll record "Alias" and watch "24" at 9 sunday, since my whole family watches that. So my sunday will be AFV at 7, Extreme House Makeover at 8, and 24 at 9. I will record Alias then. Maybe you should too. So who cares if you're not in the demographic that's watching "Alias." My bet is you're probably not a neilsen family, so who cares. If you have a habit of watching all three, well get 2 VCR's, or tivo both. And please for the love of fuck, quit bitching, your making George W's complaints seem petty.

  • April 13, 2004, 5:54 p.m. CST

    To: "The GreatOne," "VikingKitty," "BTR1701"

    by mustang_dvs

    First off, if any of you morons could tell time, you'd notice that all my posts were during lunchtime, between the end of former-AG Reno's testimony and before the testimony of Cofer Black and former-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard, so who cares if I visit the board on my own time? //**||**\\ As for my choice to write some words in ALL CAPS which seems to bother so many of you -- well, if this board supported italics, bold, or even underlining, the words in ALL CAPS would be in one of those font face styles, as that would allow me to emphasize certain words. //**||**\\ As for my personal political views -- I'm what is traditionally called a "Jackson Democrat," a reference to the late-Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, who was quite liberal on domestic issues, but fairly conservative on foreign and defense policies. (Certain Jackson Democrats who are a little more conservative on domestic views are often referred to as "neo-Cons," nowadays.) //**||**\\ And, for those of you who wish to dispute "What Ifs" and "What really happened," well I suggest you consider that I have seen, read and heard many things which people without security clearances haven't and won't for years, if ever. I'm not saying I'm omniscient, or even particularly well-connected, but I sincerely doubt few of you have been cleared for non-escort status in the West Wing or Fort Meade, been in the National Military Command Center with the Joint Staff during a time of crisis, met with SACEUR in SHAPE during Allied Force, taken part in SF training at Camp McCall, or been personally briefed on multiple occasions by two successive Commanders of USSOCOM. And, no, I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or affiliates. //**||**\\ As for my employment and identity I have been completely honest and truthful, I have been employed by this particular think-tank since February 1998 and have been the Manager for Research and Communications since September 1st, 2001. As for the specifics -- well, I already receive enough bomb threats and personalized death threats at work and thankfully, have only had one delivered to my home (it was forwarded to my new address, from my prior residence -- the culprit had some interesting chats with his local FBI field office), all of which come with the territory of being publicly critical of radical, violent islam -- so I am remiss about giving out personal information. However, given that my email is listed above and my last name is sufficiently anonymous -- I will disclose that my given initials and surname are: D.V. Smith. If you're truly Google-saavy, I'm sure you can find some of my public writings and my place of employment (and undoubtedly my shoe size or some other odd bit of personal info). //**||**\\ And, yes, I live 1/3 of a mile from the U.S. Department of Defense and have since Friday, July 13, 2001. Though it's technically part of Arlington, Virginia, the area is colloquially known as "Pentagon City" and features a Best Buy, Harris Teeter and the best Lebanese Taverna in the D.C. metro area. //**||**\\ Now, I you don't need to respond -- you're more than welcome to, but well all know you're better-off if you just continue masturbating to your Xena-She-Ra-Catwoman lesbian fan fiction. //**||**\\ FLAME-ON!

  • April 13, 2004, 6:28 p.m. CST

    The point Gentleman.....

    by Russman

    You must know your own past before you can condem others. This country's history is bathed in the same amount of blood as most other nations (England, France, Spain, Iraq, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Italy...). Know that we helped Sadam get into power. We sold him weapons. This country MURDERED people for their land. No noble war - straight up murder, gun to the head, knife through the gut murder. What you fail to see is that regardless of how this country has changed, it's still on a path to self destruction through it's policies toward other countries and to it's self (take a look at W's environmental report card). Funny how one said that we are haters of this country... I'm just stating facts. Pointing out that in our short history we've done just as many horrible things and benefited greatly from them. Sadam's invasion of Kuwait was just as legit as our invasion of North America - or of Mexico one day trying to reclaim Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Cali. It's all relative folks. You can call each other names and go back and forth with which side is right and which side is wrong... but no one ever asks why? Don't be afraid of asking Why. Just because the people who hold the banner you serve don't ask, doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask. Ask Why. Find out Why. And when you find the answer and eventually truth, no matter how much it hurts, you have to be able to make the right decision about what you want to do next. It's usually not easy or clear cut, but an effort must be made. W has ruined this country that you claim to love and you don't even see it. You're about ready to put a shit sandwich in your mouth but you won't listen to people who are trying to get you to stop. Dude, it's bad for you, put it down.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:07 p.m. CST

    *meanwhile, in Canada*

    by Archduke_Chocula

    We watch it on local channel 11 Global, hahahahahahaha.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Russman

    by The_Goat

    We know America's past and you know what? We've changed in 200 years. Was Saddam 200 years old? Was Iraq? Didn't think so. He was well on his way to doing far worse and needed to be stopped. America is a great place to live compared to middle-eastern countries and Europe for that matter and if you dissagree, feel free to test my theory.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:33 p.m. CST

    A positive spin on this....

    by thommy_rotten

    Come Sunday there will be two new episodes of 24 in three days. That will rule!

  • April 13, 2004, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Still missing the point Goat

    by Russman

    Somethings have changed, others haven't. And we're still making the same mistakes and errors in judgement when it comes to foreign policy, which is why our "friends" are really pissed off at us. And as far as changing, it doesn't mean that our past ills are cured... it won't take much for this great nation of ours to snap back to it's former barberic self. One wonders if the amount of patriotic furvor coming from you is just a mask for darker feelings. After 9/11 did you ask Why it happened or did you simply spout off a bunch of ethnic slurs? Bet it justifies the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the war crimes that are being commited by our soliders (oh yes, war crimes son... some have already been reported, it'll be a few years before the rest come out, but they will.. that is if our weak media chooses to report it).

  • April 13, 2004, 7:41 p.m. CST

    "at least Bush has been consistent"

    by Peter Venkman

    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Does the phrase "compassionate conservative" mean anything to you? Name one thing Bush has had compassion for other than greed and pushing his religious agenda on our nation.

  • April 13, 2004, 7:56 p.m. CST

    I love 24, but this is the President man...

    by Supermonkey321

    ...I think what is going on in the real world (the place outside your TV, not the piece of crap reality series) is just a little more important than a TV show. Especially when 24 isnt nearly as good as the previous two seasons (not to say its bad, cuz it is still one of the best shows on TV). Anyway, great job of having to go and alienate any of your Pro-Bush readers... why is it AICN had to go and start getting all political?? This is a site about TV and MOVIE news, not politics! Jeez, save your political opinions and give me your opinion on the next episode of Angel or some other good show because thats all I come to this site for. Dont get me wrong, I still love ya Herc, cuz I cant help but like someone who loves Buffy as much as you do, but your really pushing it man. Well, those're my two and half cents. P.S. I HATE Harry, he is such a tool, I cant even read his reviews or articles anymore, Moriarty should run the site! Supermonkey Out!

  • April 13, 2004, 8:06 p.m. CST

    And you're wrong Goat... America was just as bad...

    by Russman

    Native Americans - women raped and murdered, men, children and elderly murdered in cold blood. IRISH - beaten and discriminated against. ITALIANS - beaten and discriminated against. AFRICANS - kidnapped, slavery, beaten, castrated, freed, opressed leaglly by the government. MEXICANS - beaten and discriminated against. HAWAIANS - Queen dethroned and Islands Annexed by the USA (just like Iraq annexed Kuwait - which was once part of Iraq but was carved off by another dead empire that was ruled from England).

  • April 13, 2004, 8:07 p.m. CST

    ChickenGeorgeVII

    by Darlef

    Thank God you

  • April 13, 2004, 8:40 p.m. CST

    about the president's tie...

    by Toe Jam

    i wonder how many points it will cost bush in the polls. not only is it distracting as hell, it's almost giving me a headache. given how meticulous his handlers probably are, i'm really surprised someone didn't realize it was going to look fucked up on tv. does that shit show in high definition, too, or does hi-def have a faster refresh rate that avoids such technical issues?

  • April 13, 2004, 8:45 p.m. CST

    also...

    by Toe Jam

    anyone else notice how he fudged up and referred to both powell and rumsfeld as "secretary of state?" yeah, he did it right in succession. just goes to show you how clueless he really is. even with a script and a teleprompter he can't get key members of his own administration straight. and don't give me that simple mistake shit. he's a total fucking idiot.

  • April 13, 2004, 8:49 p.m. CST

    more yet...

    by Toe Jam

    i think if they ever make a movie about dubya - and shit, why the fuck would they - i think robert de niro could pull off the starring role. i noticed a lot of facial mannerisms that i've seen de niro deliver in other movies.

  • April 13, 2004, 8:50 p.m. CST

    lkija cweoiu ijocw3`

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    kjnev oivoirv liwsl THE oiaoi oioc DRINKING GAME oijwiuh oiues IS GETTING THE BETTTTER oiuhk OF ME kjcd2qi9876@$%swkzalk ....And thus, Drinking from the big gulp cup to keep up! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 8:52 p.m. CST

    IMPEACH BUSH

    by s1lverspaceb0y

    Pre-empting 24 aside, this man has lied and lied and continues to lie about BIG STAKES things. Clinton lies about having sex with an intern and gets impeached by the house. It's totally unfair. BUSH SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR LYING ABOUT WMD'S AND HIS POLICIES WHICH ARE MEANT TO PILLAGE OUR COUNTRY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RICH AND THE DETRIMENT OF EVERYONE ELSE. HE'S A PIRATE AND NOTHING ELSE AND NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED IMPEACHED IMPEACHED!

  • April 13, 2004, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Damn, everyone else see Terry Moran go for the throat?

    by 007-11

    Bush sure seems to care about Jews nowadays.

  • April 13, 2004, 9 p.m. CST

    A GREAT QUOTE:

    by s1lverspaceb0y

    "In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush made the case for invading Iraq even though we lacked specific information about the threat it posed to the United States. He said: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? Now, Bush is coming under fire for not stepping up the fight against al Qaeda after he received the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, which was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." What is his excuse? Why did he not act? In a press conference on Monday, Bush answered the question: There was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.' This goes beyond self-contradiction: it's about a fundamental failure of our president to take responsibility." - From Air America Radio DOT COM

  • April 13, 2004, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Dr Who would be a terrible president

    by SLEAZY DINOSAUR

    And besides, he wasn't born in the U.S. so he couldn't run anyway. If we were going to go with a fictional character, then it should be Captain America, president Rogers has a nice ring to it. Tony Stark would be ok if he could stay off the sauce, and how cool would Thor be as POTUS, imagine the God Of Thunder making decisions, and his mortal identity is an American, so no constitutional problems there. Just don't let Bruce Banner run, we don't need the Hulk rampaging through the White House everytime he gets into tense negotiations.

  • April 13, 2004, 9:22 p.m. CST

    AND NOW...a word from our sponsers....

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Do you have the annoying itch and burning from "War Footing"???...Then try DOCTOR SCHOLL'S WAR FOOTING RELIEF PADS!! BRING THAT BURNING ITCH TO A COOL SENSATION!!!! (keep away from direct sunlight and open flame)....And thus, does war footing come in size 13? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • April 13, 2004, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Let's Get a Little Perspective Here

    by Jervis Tetch

    Bush, Kerry, Kerry, Bush...whoever is President will never be as important as Tom Cruise. Because Tom Cruise makes $25 million a picture, minimum. That's why movies are more important than politics. You think Bush gives lousy speeches? The guys who give good speeches we pay $25 million. Tom Hanks gives good speeches. $25 million. Also -rans like George Bush, or, frankly, Bill Clinton (was he ever as good an actor as Tom Hanks? Remember, Tom Hanks TURNED DOWN playing Clinton in that movie) get paid a lot less, because they make worse speeches. (OK, Clinton's getting paid more now. But not as much as Tom Hanks!) Movies are the most important thing in the world, not politics. Mel Gibson will make $250 million personally for that Christ movie. What's a President make? $250 thousand? Perspective, people. Movies, not politics. Hell, "The Apprentice," not politics. Christ, "Survivor," not politics. American friggin' Idol with kids who can't sing being hassled by a British guy for chrissake, and getting million dollar contracts to sing worse than Donny Osmond. not politics. The movies. TV. Reality shows. That's where the money and the power and the glory is. The market says so.

  • April 13, 2004, 10:53 p.m. CST

    At least Bush shares traits with 24...

    by Just Plain Steve

    Just like 24, Bush leaves a lot of unanswered questions until the very last moment. And 24 has this thing about delaying punishment of the CTU employers until the threat at hand has been stopped. Jack Bauer for a good deal of the series stays on duty because he makes people believe is absolutly necceassary to the current operation (altough he often is the key anyways.) Bush beleives as long as he can keep up this immenent threat, people will forget Bush does little else (beside gay bashing)

  • April 13, 2004, 11:01 p.m. CST

    The first line of Bush's Speech...

    by TheSeeker7

    "It's been tough weeks lately in Iraq." 'nuff said.

  • April 14, 2004, 12:17 a.m. CST

    by marvelcomicfan

    In a previous post addressing the War in Iraq where President Bush said "We can not wait for an imminent threat" this was posted (In a press conference on Monday, Bush answered the question: There was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.' This goes beyond self-contradiction: it's about a fundamental failure of our president to take responsibility.") the poster, and or reporter overlook the fact that 9/11 happened prior to the Iraq war. Which was the basis for "We can not wait for an imminent threat. I do not mind disagreement as to whether it was wrong or right to go to war in Iraq. But this argument is just partisan. Same as alot above, but this one was not called on it.

  • April 14, 2004, 12:43 a.m. CST

    President Bush is doing an amazing job

    by Whedon

    He hasn't wavered at all in the face of a series of liberal assholes who really have no original ideas about creating a solution but instead get off patting each other on the back saying what a terrible job this president is doing. Tell me left wing how would Kerry deal with this situation that would make you so happy? George W is sticking with his principles in the belief that what WE are doing in Iraq is right. I won't hesitate to vote for him again in November.

  • April 14, 2004, 1:19 a.m. CST

    by tiredmommy

  • April 14, 2004, 1:28 a.m. CST

    The Tie!

    by tiredmommy

    Ok, really tired, but gotta say that tie really looked screwed up, I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices stupid crap like that. As to the "political debate" that we have going on here, I would like to say that, although I may be considered a "compassionate conservative", at least I stick to my principles, unlike Mr. "Ride bothe sides of the fence" Kerry. Now, I don't think W has done a perfect job, but I don't sit an pontificate about how horrible he is, because you know what? It's a tough frickin' job, and I dare any one in this talkback to do better. I have many "Liberal" friends, and I will tell you exactly what I tell them, "You people are NEVER happy"! I mean this world is never going to be Happy Castles in the Sky (from my own made up Kusinich (sp?) speech.)! What does the government have to do to satisfy you?.......And BTW TiVo rules, I never miss a show I like, so I could care less if 24 is postponed, there are more important things in life people. That's my 2 cents, now I'll depart so everyone can jump my shit about being a conservative. PS-Have a great day!

  • April 14, 2004, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Gee, if Herc could've made his anti-Bush feelings known AND stil

    by Commando Cody

    What a fucking silly post, Herc. If you want to say 24 is delayed because of the Presidential news conference and you want to alert fans not to look for it or set their VCRs, you simply say that. Period. Though why do you even need to say it and waste AICN bandwith? What, you don't think people check out listings or follow news for themselves? But, hey, why not tell everyone 24 is delayed AND use it as an excuse to make a few groan inducing comments about your political beliefs. I'd label you an utter dork, but we're already forced to roll our eyes as we watch you drool out of the side of your mouth and wet your pants in a big obnoxious stain every time you mention Joss Whedon, so we pretty much know what to think anyway...but this posting and its particular wording was utterly stupid, even for you.

  • April 14, 2004, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Thank God for BitTorrent

    by moviebuff2

    Sunday night I'll record Alias & Bittorrent 24, Sopranos, and Arrested Development(they better renew or else) Busy night - Late

  • April 14, 2004, 2:57 a.m. CST

    I pity the fool that voted for the lazy, drunken bastard

    by AlwaysThere

    My God, our president is a disgrace.

  • April 14, 2004, 3:37 a.m. CST

    Bush is the man and will win in November. Meanwhile Kerry will

    by Big Dumb Ape

    I was proud to vote for Bush the first time to keep a robotic dolt like Gore out, and come November I'll be even prouder to vote for Bush AGAIN since he actually has a spine for fighting terrorism -- a concept that the Left wing, much like their fellow brothers in France, can't intellectually fathom or even come up with a clue as how to approach. Which is why I'll be casting my vote for Bush. And to keep a total joke and utter asshole like Kerry out of the Oval Office. What a nightmare and new 9/11 waiting to happen he'd be for 4 years...

  • April 14, 2004, 3:42 a.m. CST

    Herc's ill fated political view

    by noodles007

    Maybe it's just me but don't you think everyone who bitches about W. has something to sell which is usually bullshit anyway???

  • April 14, 2004, 7 a.m. CST

    Jack with W or JFingK

    by Imperfect Tommy

    Since we had to do without our 24 fix, we can imagine how our real Presidential alternatives would deal with Jack Bauer. Jack: Mr. President, to deal with this terrorist, I may have to cut some corners. W: Do what you must to protect the lives of our people. OR Jack: Mr. President, to deal with this terrorist, I may have to cut some corners. P. Kerry: I'm sorry, Jack, I don't have the &*%^$ authorization for that. Let me talk with Kofi and President Chiraq. Jack: But Mr. President, time is of the essense. P. Kerry: I'll take all the time I want to, you little *&%$*@, why I was dealing with danger in 'Nam while you were still in diapers.

  • April 14, 2004, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Misconception on my first post

    by marvelcomicfan

    Unfortunately I had the same information as Herc that the speech would be about the 9/11 hearings. Since it actually addressed Iraq, I must admit I was wrong believing the speech would cover the 9/11 hearings. Although I still believe the 9/11 hearings are important for the reasons I mentioned.

  • April 14, 2004, 11:39 a.m. CST

    DON'T KNOW IF I'D CALL THE UNPROVOKED FORCED OCCUPATION OF A SOV

    by hattori_hanzo

    there aliencaptive1013... fuck you for thinking people shouldn't be upset about missing 24, just so GWB can backpedal.

  • April 14, 2004, 11:58 a.m. CST

    OK Whedon, since you asked....

    by righteousdude

    Whedon asks what Kerry would do to deal with the Iraqi situation, smug and happy that his Boy George is doing the right thing by "sticking to his principles"( whatever they are). Well, I'll probably regret this as I've come to regret my other posts on this thread, but I'll give it a shot. America's chief handicap in the war on terror is our ignorance and egocentric attitude. We actually think this is about us, an us-versus-al Qaeda thing. It's not. To paraphrase the last GOOD President we had: It's the madrasas, stupid. Almost every known Islamic terrorist who has blown something up in the last two and a half years was indoctrinated in these schools in the 1980s and 1990s. The difference is that back then, there were only a few thousand of these schools, most of them in Saudi Arabia. Today the estimated number of these schools across the globe exceeds 50,000, including those in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and in many of the former Soviet republics. That number increases every day, thanks to a seemingly endless flow of Saudi oil money. Yet in most American news reports on this subject, the problem doesn't even merit a mention. The chief aim of the radical Muslim movement right now isn't to annihilate America. They need oil money to accomplish their long-term goals, and we help provide that. Their goal is to use high-profile hits to accomplish their real aim -- recruitment and territorial occupation. They've been at this for 200 years, and they are masters at it. First, they infiltrate war and poverty-ravaged nations and proselytize. As the number of followers grows, they turn on mainline Muslims, eventually slaughtering those who refuse to adopt Wahabbi ways. Then, when no one is left to stop them, they rule. A small band of radical Muslims and the first member of the Saudi royal family conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula this way. Though few people know it, they also did this in Afghanistan. Wahabbi warriors came in at the tail end of the Soviet war, when chaos rained, claimed victory and then brutally suppressed the mainline, peaceful Muslims who lived there, including women, who before the war with Russia held 40 percent of the country's professional positions. These days, they're busy indoctrinating the youth of Pakistan. Over the last decade, so many of that country's children have been indoctrinated in madrasas, which provide food and education to those who would otherwise go without, that when it comes time for their generation to rule the country, radical Islam will rule as well. So what's the solution? It's not simple and it's not easy, but somehow we have to reduce our reliance on Saudi oil since that's what finances these people; not just us but the whole world. Bush and his advisors are profoundly unable and unwilling to lead on this issue as they're so inexorably intertwined with Big Oil. Iraq is nothing but a smokescreen and has distracted us and diverted resources away from the real fight. Liberals understand this; conservatives generally don't...yet. Kerry can lead effectively on this issue since he has no ties to Big Oil and is not influenced by the neocons twisted dream of American hegenomy. Believe this if you believe nothing else: Without a new approach, the price will be a world so filled with repression and terror that the last two and a half years will pale by comparison.

  • April 14, 2004, 12:06 p.m. CST

    The facts do not support Bush.

    by Lobanhaki

    I know there are many conservatives here who have more or less canonized Bush as a Republican saint, but I'm here to tell you, you have hung your hopes on an administration unworthy of them.---------------------------------------------------------------- It's really unfortunate that so many people just buy Bush line so unquestioningly. On examination the vast majority of the evidence for WMDs just dissolves into a mess of guestimates, qualifying language, and leads that just did not turn out to be the case. Neither the Aluminum tubes, nor the Yellowcake from Niger turned out to be true, and the building that was alleged to be the center for carrying out nuclear weapons research, when found, had no such equipment or material on site. The Chem and Bioweapons charges collapse as well. ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- Now this isn't just nitpicking, because the very law that enabled Bush to go into Iraq, only allowed him to do so on basis of a report to congress telling them the threat was real. If Bush put misleading information in that report, he committed an impeachable offense. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- Clarkes book demolishes the idea that Bush was better prepared to defend this country than Clinton, and the testimony before the Commission has indicated that the administration was more concerned with Rogue states and missile defense than counterterrorism. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- And now we are fighting a war where 674 American Soldiers have already died. This is more than have died in all the conflicts since Vietnam, including the Gulf War, the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, and Afghanistan combined. To what end? Is Iraq more stable? No. If Iraq was stable, we would not be having to retake cities.-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- What kind of mistake or tragedy will it take for people to realize that Bush entered the Oval office unready to do his job right?

  • April 14, 2004, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Yellow Ledbetter - you need a history lesson

    by ginta1971

    "We actually saved lives by dropping "the bomb" on Japan." At the time of Hiroshima the Japanese were already considering surrender. At the time of Nagasaki they were LITERALLY drawing up the papers for surrender. So tell me, what lives were saved? Especially by the Nagasaki A Bomb. Hiroshima I can ALMOST understand....Nagasaki was supposedly to prove we could do it again...to me it was just overkill and a hair trigger.

  • April 14, 2004, 12:52 p.m. CST

    and regarding the A-Bomb...

    by Russman

    We dropped it on a CIVILAN CITY with no military bases or strategic targets!! I don't ever remember reading that we were at Total War with Japan. Hey, guess who else used WMD on civilans? Our former friend Sadam. The fact that it was his own people doesn't matter. We did it twice. If there is any country ANYONE should be afraid of it's the US. A bunch of arrogant, ignorant apes.

  • April 14, 2004, 1:16 p.m. CST

    It didn't stop at A-bombs

    by 007-11

    Anyone that saw "Fog of War" knows that we fire-bombed every Japanese city we could. Since they were all made of wood they burned to the ground easily and killed millions of civillians.

  • April 14, 2004, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Moronic Rednecks

    by GrumpyCal

    I can understant totally why some might get upset about the current US president interrupting the primetime schedules. The way I see it is that if you're going to watch fiction then you shouldn't have any particular brand forced upon you. It's outrageous that Bush was allowed to interrupt your lives to sound off his usual brand of BS, especially when his motivation is not to inform the US public but merely to try and convince you all to vote him in for a second term in the face of falling poll numbers. To the retarded rednecks who've commented that W's doing a damn fine job sticking to his principles and not degenerating to some liberal agenda I'd point out this: *Bush & co are a bunch of lying corrupt bastards (faked links between Al Queda/Saddam, the Enron debacle and Halliburton for starters) *They are 100% responsible for 10,000+ civilian deaths (UN figs)in Iraq, a further 600 in the past week *They are responsible for more than 600 US military fatalities and wounded in the thousands, not to mention the losses inflicted on the rest of the ahem...'coalition' *It's not 'liberal' to think of more intelligent ways of applying force rather than the shoot first ask questions later approach I could go on. So I say if it's a choice of watching his brand of fiction or the far superior 24 then in the land of the free you should be given the choice (and then perhaps someone would post it on Suprnova and we Brits could dl it tomorrow).

  • April 14, 2004, 3:21 p.m. CST

    One day...

    by Aeglos Istarion

  • April 14, 2004, 3:22 p.m. CST

    ...you're gonna wake up...

    by Aeglos Istarion

  • April 14, 2004, 3:22 p.m. CST

    ...and see what this moron has done to your nation. And you will

    by Aeglos Istarion

  • April 14, 2004, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Russman: "If there is any country ANYONE should be afraid of it'

    by Commando Cody

    I don't know what you're bitching about so much, Russman. You say that like it's a BAD thing...

  • April 14, 2004, 7:55 p.m. CST

    mustang_dvs

    by BTR1701

    You say that you wouldn't use all caps if this site supported italics or bold-- well that would be just as ridiculously annoying and juvenile as capitalizing every other word. As for your security clearance, don't be so sure that you're the only one around with TS-SCI or can walk the West Wing without an escort. Since you're so fond of tossing around acronyms, here's one for you to ponder: USSS.

  • April 15, 2004, 2:39 a.m. CST

    by Jack D. Ripper

    so i was initially going to post some screed but after reading these over, it made me wonder about something a friend of mine said. say, bush wins and we have four more years of him. democrats will scream and moan. say kerry wins, facing a republican majority in congress who act to block him. even if he gets eight years he has significant challenges. basically, WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO REUNITE THIS COUNTRY? Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, these words, mere adjectives denoting a political affiliation have become de facto insults! and now that the left has started doing something ANYTHING after 3 years of complacency, theyre just as vicious and hateful as the right! will ANYTHING bring people in this nation back together? look at the way you're talking to each other! calling down hate and abuse and you're not even involved in policy! what has HAPPENED to america?

  • April 15, 2004, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Wow. This election is Bush's to win or lose...and he seems very

    by minderbinder

    He refuses to take responsibility on September 11, he clings to every mistake he's ever made as if changing his mind is an admission of something. But my favorite was when he was asked why Cheney has to hold his hand while he testifies...didn't even have an answer. At all. You'd think the guys pulling the strings would have anticipated that one, but no. At this point, Kerry's best strategy is just to sit back and let ol' Georgie keep shooting himself in the foot.

  • April 15, 2004, 10:07 a.m. CST

    If you make less than $200k and vote Bush, you are an ass!

    by Dr. Sid Schaefer

    Actually, if you vote for Bush at all, you're pretty much a clueless ass, but if you're making the big bucks, at least you'll see a massive tax break. BushCo is the most corrupt administration since Harding's. He and Cheney make Nixon and Agnew seem as if they were on sodium pentothal 24/7. BushCo is neither compassionate nor conservative. They are an entity bent on nothing more than foisting their particular brand of "democracy" on other nations while their corporate masters reap the economic benefits of the so-called global war on terror. End of story!

  • April 15, 2004, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Mideast oil, the A-bomb, and WMD

    by marvelcomicfan

    Above are some nice logic on terrorist supported by Mideast (Saudi Arabia specific) oil money. I agree, but unfortunately all the Democrats refuse to allow us to use other oil, specifically Alaska. I understand the Greenpeace type argument. But to say we will only go to alternatives will only limit the time Mideast oil can supply tyranical Islam, by XX (as in 2 undetermined digits)years as a minimum, XXX more likely including non vehicle uses. Which most refuse to discuss, and few care to notice. On the A-bomb it is nice to say we should not in the just Japan scenario, but Italy and Germany were also a problem at the time. Select factors are nice but you should look at the other factors, and consider what losing would have meant. Not that you are wrong, but limiting in view. As in early 2001, plane in China, Korean nukes, need I list more. Anyone who thinks Iraq did not effect North African decision in disarming is also blinded. Now on Iraq WMD at the end of the Gulf War all admit, bio and chem weapons were unaccounted for, and still are to this day. Am I the only one disturbed by not knowing where, when, or if they were destroyed, and if not where they are or went. The US was not the only to believe they had some, prior to the coalition entering Iraq, Hussien was the only to say none exist, as reported by 'Bagdad Bob' the Iraq Minister of Information.

  • April 15, 2004, 3:22 p.m. CST

    They need to DRAFT everyone under the age of 35 who voted for Bu

    by TimBenzedrine

    BTW--I already served my country,(and I didn't ask to get out early to work for some political campaign, to tell you the truth, I didn't even know it was an option, and I was in during two major elections) now it's your chance. Make us proud chumps, I'll be thinking about you every time I fill up my tank.

  • April 15, 2004, 4:01 p.m. CST

    What's the logic that Bush will win for sure in November?

    by minderbinder

    He's getting killed in the polls and his approval ratings are at an all time low. What exactly is going to happnen in the next six months that will change that?

  • April 15, 2004, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Presidential Politics, looks like Franken's "Air Ame

    by the G-man

    Since Herc brought this project up on a TV talkback once or twice before, I just thought I'd mention that they are going down in flames already, with only six stations still carrying it: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-040414airamerica,1,1031586.story

  • April 15, 2004, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Way to link to a story that you can't read without registration.

    by minderbinder

    But thanks for mentioning AAR, I found out online that they're on in my area, I plan on taking a listen.

  • April 15, 2004, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Man, I wish I was so crazy I could actually say, "The media isn'

    by vikingkitty

    Crazy talk.

  • April 15, 2004, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Minderbender, some reality checks for you and those on the left.

    by Commando Cody

    You asked what's the logic that Bush will win stating "He's getting killed in the polls and his approval ratings are at an all time low. What exactly is going to happen in the next six months that will change that?" Well, a few facts to consider. ------ (1) The polls you're talking about are NATIONAL polls, a sampling taken from across the country at random. Or you're seeing news sites reporting polls from their web portals, which again, being the Internet actually means those numbers cross state lines. But the leftists in this country still seem to have forgetten the PRIME lesson of Bush vs. Gore which is that it's NOT a national popularity election (ie. popular vote wins). It's a state by state election where the ELECTORAL COLLEGE decides the winner. And going back to election night 2000 and the famous Bush vs. Gore map (states in red = Bush, states in blue = Gore) if you go through all 50 states and divide them up based on CURRENT polls where each candidate currently leads... and award those electoral votes... RIGHT NOW, today, there are still MORE states in red going for Bush. In fact, if the election WERE held today Bush right now beats Kerry in the final electoral college vote by a good, clean margin. So don't let "polls" that are in part media hype throw you off from the reality of how the election will REALLY be determined. -------- (2) Along the same lines, there IS a lot of media hype going on as it tries to drum up a race for news ratings. But the fascinating thing is it's a dead heat. When Kerry won the nomination, he led Bush by double digits in polls...now he either leads only by the margin of error, he ties him, or in some he even trails Bush. What does that mean? I think it means the country is STILL as polarized today as it was in 2000, and come election night we're going to see another close one. I don't think AS close as Bush/Gore, but still close and competitive. And those on the left should NOT presume the polls are truly that scientifically correct, no matter what pollsters tell you. Speaking as someone out here in Hollywood, I have to take all polls with a grain of salt since these pollsters are the same rocket scientists who said Gray Davis would surive being recalled as CA governor, or that at worst Cruz Bustamonte would easily beat Arnold. After all, how could the body building actor win? SURPRISE! The lesson learned from that record turnout for Arnold? The lesson is that come election night you can never truly anticipate the full amount of mobilization that might -- accent on MIGHT -- turn out for EITHER party. After Bush vs. Gore, BOTH sides of the aisle know how close an election can be now. BOTH sides won't take this one for granted in ANY capacity. Come November, you'll see record numbers on BOTH sides, I predict. And going back to Bush vs. Gore, a common misconception the left has is that any state Gore won that night he won by a landslide, while any state Bush won he just squeaked by (aka Florida). So this time it'll be easier to win. But the truth is Gore barely some states (Ohio for example). Had Bush campaigned a bit harder in certain areas, he could've taken even MORE away from Gore. And current polls show (regardless of Kerry leading in any national popularlity polls) that on a case by case, state by state basis -- and again, going back to the Electoral College and how the election IS determined -- the race is STILL up for grabs. So, yeah, you say "How could you expect Bush to win given all the things going against him?" and my reaction is to say right back to you "Hey, with all the crap being tossed at him, he's STILL managed to reduce a Kerry double digit lead to even odds. That's pretty damn good." So come November, I DO think it's up for grabs. And we haven't even discussed other factors that will effect the race like Nader or other incidents that could happen timewise to tilt things (another terrorist attack versus actually capturing Bin Laden, the economy worsening OR showing improved numbers, etc.) In short, November is still a long ways off for EITHER side to consider it in the bag...

  • April 15, 2004, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Oh, 3 other things, Minderbender...

    by Commando Cody

    (3) A recent CBS/NY Times poll found that when people were asked "Who do you think is REALLY telling you the truth about "what" they stand for or actually believe in (ie. who is REALLY leveling with you about what they'll do if they're elected), Bush beat Kerry resoundingly. 57% of those polled felt Bush was more likely to be honest about things. Now, before you say "Well, that's pretty bad. Only slightly more than half the people think Bush is telling the truth" the results for Kerry were even WORSE. Of those polled, only 25% felt Kerry was being honest about "what" he'll do if elected President. In other words, 3 out of 4 people currently feel Kerry ISN'T telling the truth about "what" he believes in or is willing to fight for. ------ (4) There's also the question of the minority vote. Several months ago, there was an internal memo leaked from the DNC high command which noted that it was getting worried about something it used to take for granted, namely minority voters. Seems that AFTER Bush vs. Gore, they did some studies and concluded that the 2 fastest growing minority blocks in the U.S. are the Hispanic and Asian-American vote. Both groups are leap frogging in very large numbers. However the memo noted that the DNC was extremely worried because BOTH groups are registering far more heavily in numbers as Republican than Democrat, and they weren't sure how that would ultimately effect the next Presidential race. In fact, it's still a question out there...guess we'll see in November. ------- (5) Finally, keep one last thing in mind. Alot of people LIKE Bush. As much as those on the left really, really hate him, there are those on the right who really, really like him. And in the Gore election, while many polls showed that most people felt "intellectually" Gore won the Presidential debates, Bush was far more "likeable" and came off better as a person, whereas Gore came off cold and robotic. And let's be honest -- Kerry is no bucket of warmth himself, quite frankly. Plus, there are those out there who feel Bush is getting a raw deal from the Left over things that aren't even his fault (all economists now agree the current recession REALLY began under Clinton, and, come on, the 9/11 Commission is now officially a televised DNC grandstanding joke). So come November, I think there's going to be quite a surge on the Right to turn out and vote and get back at the Left. But we'll have to see. Going back to my first post, I'll say it again: it's a long way till November and all numbers show this one is STILL up for grabs...

  • April 15, 2004, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Yes, BUT...

    by Commando Cody

    I don't agree with you, DougCrane. Here's an example: right now, I know of at least 7 people, my brother included, who voted for either Bush OR Gore in the last election but who have told me they DO plan for vote for Nader this time as a protest vote for "none of the above." Example, my brother voted Bush the first time, but is disappointed in him. BUT at the same time, he refuses to switch to Kerry because he thinks he'd be even WORSE. When I said "Well, that kind of thinking could give the election away" his response was "Well, then fate will decide it, but I want my vote counted in the Nader column as a protest vote that BOTH parties put up lousy candidates and I feel BOTH parties are undeserving of my vote/approval." So don't kid yourself -- the Nader factor is definitely still out there. And the whole "500,000 more people voted for Gore last time" popularity argument is mathematically irrelevant this time. That was a one time event and can only be looked at AS a historical even. But the bottom line is that it doesn't reflect HOW those same people might vote this time -- or more importantly, how many MORE or LESS might turn out this time around. Plus, you mentioned "swing voters are less likely to vote for Bush this time around" to which I reply "Says who?" ALL polls show that when it comes to "Who will do the best job fighting terrorism?" Bush leads Kerry by almost a 3-1 margin among likely voters. So again, IF there was a major terrorist event between now and November that would actually push more of the swing voters you're citing towards Bush, defeating your very argument. The bottom line is that you can NEVER predict who the swing vote is going to go with UNTIL election night because by pure definition they are SWING voters -- in short, people who are not diehard Democrat or Republican voters, but who vote emotionally and who could go EITHER way on election night based on something that literally happened THE WEEK of the election. So I think you're counting your chickens before they're hatched, DougCrane, when you start saying swing voters are for sure going Kerry this time. A lot of those swing voters are part of that same group who now says "I want a President who'll strongly fight terrorism", so many of them SINCE the Gore election might now be saying "This time I WILL back Bush because NOW that I've seen what he's willing to do, I'd prefer him over Kerry who only wants to suck the UN's dick."

  • April 15, 2004, 10:40 p.m. CST

    Commando's right on one thing, and ultimately I think we're in f

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Cody's right about one thing since I've seen it reported on all 3 major cable outlets (CNN, MSNBC and Fox). Namely, that IF the election were held today, Bush would actually still win since the states where he IS leading in the polls would more than enough give him the electoral college and thus the White House again. Now, come November, that may change and Kerry will win. I don't know. I agree with most that it's going to be a VERY close race again and there WILL be record turnouts on both sides of the political aisle. However, what I'm afraid of is that the election will be very close AND because of that (hey, no one likes to ALMOST win) we'll get 4 more years of sour grapes in Washington and a bitter tone across the land. The Democrats really WERE sore losers the last time around -- sorry, you guys just were -- and if Bush wins again, I figure that'll only give them MORE fuel for their fire to be even MORE bitter for the next 4 years. On the flip side, if Kerry wins by a nose (or even a wide margin) I figure the Republicans will consider it open season on him to get some payback for all the shit the democrats pulled these last 4 years. So the way I see it, no matter who wins in November, we're in for 4 more years of some VERY divided politics in this country -- probably even worse than these last 4 years. Bush may not have been the uniter he promised to be, but in the end I think Kerry won't do any better...in fact, I think he stands a chance of being as much or even moreso of a divider himself. Man, why couldn't both parties have just put up better candidates! NEITHER of these guys should be who we have to choose from!!!

  • April 16, 2004, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Can not judge on capability against terrorism

    by marvelcomicfan

    Wait until the debates, Bush will have to state how he is defending terrorism. Kerry will have to say what is wrong and how he will do better. Both will do so to win the undecided without upsetting their base. Both will have their records put against their answers. For your statement to be true Kerry would have to refuse to debate. Because believing the subject will not come up, I do not believe even you believe.

  • April 16, 2004, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Not sure I agree with you on things being in Kerry's favor, Doug

    by Commando Cody

    In terms of the fall Presidential debates, you said "the situation is slightly in Kerry's favor because in the debates Kerry can state what he intends to do vs. what Bush has done." Well, the flip side of that is that Bush HAS done things that he can point to as positives, actions he TOOK versus inactions the Democrats under Clinton DIDN'T take. For all the talk that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, let's not forget that it was under Clinton's (ie. Democratic) watch that the 9/11 terrorists actually entered the US after terrorists had ALREADY attacked the Trade Center once before also during his watch... they made their plans... they gathered their funding... they took their flight lessons... and they freely communicated back and forth amongst cells. So under a Democratic watch, they weren't watching the hen house too well, either. And all this while Afghanistan coddled Bin Laden as a protected government sanctioned "refugee." Yes, to his credit it's true Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles AT Bin Laden to try and take him out, but let's face it -- he missed every time. HIS intelligence failed him as well. At least Bush can say he DID take major league action and DID knock the Taliban from power and thus put Bin Laden truly on the run. But whether you agree with all of that or not, going back to the debates and any supposed advantage you think Kerry might have, while Bush will have to defend his actions, Kerry WILL have to defend his Senate voting record on military and economic issues which ARE in many cases contrary to what people feel. I think when Kerry's New England Ted Kennedy-esque liberal voting record IS put on the table front and center and unavoidable in prime time debates, Kerry will be squirming a bit too. Like having to defend that he ranks as the number ONE recipient in the Senate for accepting special interest money. And in terms of the war on terrorism, he'll have to explain comments like... (1) "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 -------- (2) "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. -------- I mean, fine, bring on the debates. Can't wait to see Kerry explain that LAST line there!

  • April 16, 2004, 2:10 a.m. CST

    "Because believing the subject will not come up, I do not believ

    by marvelcomicfan

    That sentence is quite rough to read. Basically, I was summing up my problems with Kerry not having to answer on handling of terrorism being impossible in this presidential election.

  • April 16, 2004, 8:27 a.m. CST

    So you think we'll see another popular loss but electoral win fo

    by minderbinder

    That's an awfully long response considering how little I wrote. You seem to be agreeing with that I said: there is nothing to suggest at this point that Bush has the election locked up. As you say, anything can happen, so comments like "he's gonna win, just accept it" are just dumb. Sorry, I didn't finish your posts, you seemed to get pretty redundant pretty quickly and it had nothing to do with what you were responding to. Question for you - you say that Bush would win today based on electoral votes. What's your source, I'd love to see the map with the numbers.

  • April 16, 2004, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Name one sacrifice this administration has made for "War."

    by Gul Shah

    Has it raised taxes or restrained spending? Not by a long-shot. It has, in fact, done the exact opposite. They say that "9/11 changed everything." It sure as shit didn't change the second tax giveaway to the super-rich! (When former Treas. Sec. Paul O'Neill asked why we needed a second cut, Cheney answered, "This is our due.") Hell, 9/11 didn't even changed the President's R&R schedule--he's spent about 40% of his presidency ON VACATION. (And don't give me that "working vacation" crap. If it was, then why did CIA director George Tenet only meet him once during the month of August 2001--a month that capped off a summer of terror warnings.) I'll say it again: this administration is neither compassionate nor conservative. It is a shabbily run corporation that is dangerously out of control.

  • April 16, 2004, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Good News...

    by thommy_rotten

    Just read that Sunday night's 24 will also air on FX - Monday @ 11pm and Tuesday @ 6pm. That makes things a little easier on Sunday night - as there are too many shows I need to watch this week - 24, Alias & Sporanos!

  • April 17, 2004, 9:43 a.m. CST

    G-man, thanks for the heads up on Air America, it's back on in C

    by minderbinder

    Just heard a little bit so far, but it's interesting...many people I know will be glad to hear about it, thanks for spreading the word.