SEP 1 - 15, 2004

VOL. 2 ISSUE 17

SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 – It's better overseas.

If you turn on the TV news in places like South America, what you are hearing now is that not only has President Bush begun to move ahead of John Kerry in some polls, but that he is is far ahead, past the margin of error, and that, even more, he will stay there from this point on.

We've been getting e-mails and reading the stories about how supposedly Kerry's campaign is in disarray, how George Bush is supposedly suddenly in the lead, how Democrats are freaking out.

Don't any of you remember last election?

Remember the "inevitability?"

Oh yeah, you forgot about that.

Don't you remember how as far as two years before the last Presidential election the entire media was reporting, and reporting, and reporting, that it was inevitable that an unknown Governor from Texas, George W. Bush, was "unbeatable" against Al Gore, the semi-incumbent in a time of peace and prosperity?  Don't you recall how basically every single poll reported that there was no way Gore was going to win, how Bush's victory was just a matter of time?  Don't you remember how odd and alarming you found that?

For those of you who have forgotten, let us remind you with a simple, factual stroll through memory lane.  We will simply list the dates, sources, titles and authors, then give you the direct quotes so you can relive it all.

We have taken only quotes from what are considered the most moderate, unbiased news sources in the non-Moderate Independent media.  Really pay attention to the dates so you can get the full effect, such as the fact that this first quote comes almost two years before the election, before virtually anyone in the nation had even heard of George W. Bush.

December 23, 1998, Chicago Tribune, GOP FACING ITS OWN TRIAL, by Michael Tackett and William Neikirk, Washington Bureau.

“(Senator Richard) Lugar noted that in the current handicapping for the presidential race for 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush leads Vice President Al Gore…”

Excuse me?  No one outside of Texas had even heard of Bush, while most of the nation knew Gore.

Just to confirm this was not one weird comment one time, here we are a few months later:

March 1, 1999, USA Today, Danger lurks for Gore as the field dwindles, by Richard Benedetto.

“Recent polls show Gore trailing... Texas Gov. George W. Bush…”

Again, excuse me?  No one except people in Texas had even heard of the man, while most people knew the Vice President.

Ok, now just to confirm this was not just two weird reports, this from a couple weeks later:

May 18, 1999, Chicago Tribune, SECRET SERVICE'S SECURITY CRIMPS GORE'S POLITICKING; PRESENTING A DOWN-HOME IMAGE CAN BE DIFFICULT WHEN POTENTIAL VOTERS MUST ENDURE SEARCHES IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING THE VICE PRESIDENT, by Mike Dorning, Tribune Staff Writer.

“Opinion polls consistently show Gore trailing... Texas Gov. George W. Bush.”

A week later:

May 24, 1999, Chicago Tribune, WHERE HOPE MEETS HYPE;
BUSH LEADS, BUT RACE LIES AHEAD, by Michael Tackett, Tribune Staff Writer.

“(Bush) is being propelled by the bandwagon effect …" said Republican consultant Mike Murphy, who is informally advising the campaigns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander.

“He has been anointed by the entire Republican Establishment and the media has basically gone along with it," said (Former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim) Hightower.

Wow, pretty rough, huh?  Nobody even heard of George W. Bush and somehow he was already leading.  You see it was pointed out above by Hightower that this was all a fiction created by the "Republican Establishment" which the entire media had "basically gone along with."  He was nice enough to point this out to the media at this early point.

Did it wake them up?  Nope, things got far worse for Gore just a few weeks later - or at least that's what was reported:

April 19, 1999, USA Today, Sagging poll numbers bog down Gore, by Richard Benedetto

“In hypothetical matchups, recent polls show Gore trailing by double digits behind the Republican front-runner, Texas Gov. George W. Bush.   A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last week… offered further cause for concern. It put Gore 21 percentage points behind Bush, a gap of landslide proportions if the election were held today.”

Nice, huh?  A little known Texas Governor, according to all major sources, is trouncing a sitting Vice President in time of peace and prosperity two years before the election, almost a year before the primaries even begin, before this Governor even has a chance to become the candidate for the Republicans.

Seeing this is what really tipped me off that something weird was going on.  This was not a normal election.  This read much more like a black-op - the type of operation our CIA has been using overseas to install this or that "candidate" of choice during supposed "elections."  Never before had I seen anything like it in America.  Beginning two years before the election was to come, I knew there was something really odd brewing.  And being as it revolved around the son of a former director of our CIA and former President, George H. W. Bush, it was even more spooky.

Still a good five months before the primaries would even begin, a conservative professor from England gave a lecture:

September 1999, Institute for Public Affairs Review, titled Letter on America, by Dr Nigel Ashford is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Staffordshire University, England, and co-author of US Politics Today (Manchester University Press, 1999) and has written numerous articles on American conservatism.

“ACCORDING to opinion polls, the next President of the United States will be George W. Bush, Governor of Texas and son of President George Bush. He is the front-runner for the Republican nomination, way ahead of his nearest challengers, Elizabeth Dole and Steve Forbes.  In polls, he soundly beats the likely Democratic nominee, Vice President Al Gore, by as much as 54 per cent to 41 per cent.”

Astounding, huh?  It had even reached academic circles all the way in England.  Now even this professor realized how bizarre it was to be making claims like this so early on, and in his very next sentence he said that realistically it was far too early to be taking polls seriously.

But this fictional information - and it was just that - that George W. Bush was trouncing Al Gore - was everywhere: 

August 30, 1999, Jay Leno, as reported by The Bulletin Frontrunner:

Jay Leno: "The latest polls suggest if the election were held tomorrow, George W. Bush would beat Al Gore…”

October 31, 1999, NBC News’ Meet The Press, Tim Russert

“Let me show you a couple polls. First, a head (to head) race between George Bush and Al Gore… Bush wins 49:39.”

I'm sure all of you remember this as well from your own newspapers and the TV programs you saw.  All along it was clear it was not possibly true - there was no way an unknown Governor was beating a peace-and-prosperity era sitting Vice President before he even had a chance to introduce himself to the nation.

And in the end, we saw that it never was true.

We were told for two years that a George W. Bush victory was inevitable.  Right up to the very end basically every poll said George W. Bush would win.  No matter what Gore did during the campaign, no matter how Bush flubbed this or that, there was that "inevitability" reported, that "momentum" fraud.

Here is how things were reported in the days right before the November 7, 2000 election:

November 5, 2000, ABC News’ This Week, Cokie Roberts:

“ABC's tracking poll overnight shows this race… with George Bush at 49 percent, Al Gore at 45 percent and then take a look at the electoral map. You need 270 electoral votes to win this election. Safe for leaning to Al Gore, the light blue, the dark blue, 182 electoral votes. Safe for leaning to George Bush, the pink and red, 213 electoral votes.”

November 6, 2000, day before election, ABC News Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos:

“George W. Bush still at 49 percent in our poll. Al Gore still at 45 percent. And it has basically been like that for the--for 18, 19 out of the last 22 weeks.”

And here now is a great roundup of the polls the day before the election, the election during which Al Gore would win the popular vote:

November 6, 2000, Bulletin Frontrunner, Bush Holds On To Narrow Lead In Polls On Eve Of Election.

“Bush Has 9-Point Lead In Battleground Poll. This morning's release of the Battleground poll of 1000 likely voters with a daily rolling sample of 250 likely voters (+-3.1%) showed 46% of likely voters said they would vote for Bush; 37% would vote for Gore.”

“Bush Up Four In ABC Tracking.”

“Bush Up 46-41 In New York Times/CBS Poll.  The New York Times (11/6, Berke, Elder) reported that, according to "the final New York Times / CBS News poll," Bush "draws 46 percent" of likely voters, "Gore 41 percent.”

“NBC (11/5, Seigenthaler) reported last night that "the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Bush leading Gore 47% to 44%.”

“Rasmussen Shows Bush Up 48-41. The "Rasmussen Research telephone survey of 3,750 Likely Voters" was conducted for Portrait of America "on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, November 2, 4, and 5."

“Bush Up Two Points In Newsweek Poll. A Newsweek poll of 808 likely voters, conducted over October 31- November 2 (+/- 4%), shows 45% would vote for George W. Bush; 43% would vote for Al Gore; 5% would vote for Ralph Nader.”

“Bush Up Three Points In Pew Research Survey.   A Pew Research survey of 1,307 likely voters, conducted over November 1-4 (+/- 3%), shows 46% would vote for George W. Bush; 43% would vote for Al Gore.”

Ironically, look at what one news source didn't have Bush ahead:

“Bush, Gore Tied In Fox News Poll.”

Sure it still had Bush at least tied, even though in reality Gore was ahead, but of all the media groups, FOX was one that at least didn't fall for the lie that Bush was "inevitably" ahead - probably because it was their friends in the GOP creating this fiction, so they knew better and covered their butts.  They knew Gore was ahead, but couldn't go so far as to say that, so they made it a tie, not letting themselves look like the others, who would all seem like idiots when they realized they all got it wrong.

We do actually get to give Kudos to one paper - a Florida paper, as luck would have it - that picked up on the fact that something fishy was up the day before the election.

From the 11/6 Miami Herald, as reported in the Bulletin Frontrunner:

“Fewer Voters Participating In Polls, Possibly Skewing Results.”

Yeah, possibly.

Now that we all saw the outcome, that after two years of being told a Bush victory of the popular vote was inevitable, that he was massively leading from the beginning, leading all the way to the end - every news source reporting that same information - and the outcome was the one they all said never could or would happen, Gore winning; now that we all lived as witnesses to that, how is it that you are shocked to see this lie of "inevitability" and "momentum" being created again, the entire media playing along as pawns once again?

What is surprising?  We told you back during the primaries in this article (THE HIT IS ON - INSIDE THE RIGHT-WING'S STRATEGY) that this was how it would be.  This is not going to be an election about issues or winning voters over with positions or policies.  It is a ground war.  From the article, written way back on January 21, 2004:

President Bush has a lot in store for the upcoming election, but it will be like his version of the War on Terror – covert, and on offense.  He will not simply present himself and try to win support.  There will be interference at every turn, every tactic used to make sure the Democrats don’t get heard, complete use of their media machine to personally attack and smear while the President seems to have nothing to do with it.

If the media is not dealt with, every argument on every subject will be twisted and, indeed, become irrelevant, and personal characterizations, like the ones being insinuated now about Clark, are what will determine the election.

This is the strategy.  The good news is that, if you realize the predominance of this issue, it is a straightforward one to combat.

As I said, we wrote this back on January 21, 2004.  In case any was wondering why we are the "Clear Frontrunner" in election coverage, now you know.

We wrote this almost eight months ago.  We saw the Swift Boat coming.  We saw this now fictional Bush rising/Kerry flailing coming.  We warned again and again that, no, it's not the economy, stupid, it's the right-wing domination of the media, stupid.

You have to realize that a lot of people involved in the Bush campaign are CIA people.  Don't be shocked, his daddy, George H. W. Bush, used to be their boss, and you know the expression, once CIA, always CIA.

You must remember how during the Florida fiasco last election it was reported that in Seminole country 14,000 Republican ballots were corrected by a "former" CIA employee on behalf of the Bushes, while the defective Democrat ones were thrown out - enough to decide the election right there. (read AP Story)

You must recognize how what the "Swift Boat Vets" are doing uses the exact sort of tactics we use in places like Iran or Venezuela to try and destabilize a government or promote our leader of choice.

And you must recognize, seeing these people be so successful at it again and again, against McCain, Cleland, now Kerry, that these are experienced, well-trained pros at work.

You saw how they completely controlled the media message last election.  You saw how they did it with the Iraq war.  You saw how they did it in the primaries (which we documented step by step for you as they pushed first Dean, who, not coincidentally, sprang into the lead, then pushed Kerry and Edwards for the sake of burying Clark - and, not coincidentally, Kerry and Edwards then went ahead and won.  If you missed all this, go back and read our primary coverage.)

So here it is again.  The Bush campaign is making "complete use of their media machine to personally attack and smear while the President seems to have nothing to do with it," as they have before, as we knew they would.  And again the "inevitability" is beginning to be reported - not just in one paper, not just in a few, not even just here in this nation, but around the world, from ABC News to O Globo in Brazil.

As we've said again and again, there is really only one issue this election, and it is the right-wing domination of the media.  Kerry and the Democrats have to acknowledge this and take it on publicly, constantly, and directly.

Whether they will or not, at least now you will know what you are seeing and won't be so surprised from here on out.  Stick with The Moderate Independent for your coverage, and you will never again be caught off guard by the obvious.