October 04, 2004
BREAKING NEWS: FOX News: "99% Sure It's a Black Pen" (UPDATED)
Posted by Bill
To employ a Ratherism: "I'd like to break that story." (though the objective assertion in my post is correct).
A FOX News representative has reviewed several versions of the debate tape and is almost positive that the object in question is a black pen.
"What he takes out of his pocket ... I'm almost 99% sure that it's a pen. It's a black, oblong object," a FOX News producer told INDC Journal.
Let's leave it at that. The debate rules were violated in letter, but not intent, and any charges of cheating against the Kerry campaign are undeserved and inaccurate. If the tape had clearly shown that John Kerry had removed a pen from his pocket, I would not have bothered to run the post, and any further speculation about the capabilities of "electronic pens" or oblong devices is strictly conspiratorial, partisan nonsense. I do honestly hope that this incident reinforces the importance of following the letter of the debate's Memorandum of Understanding, but I offer my sincere apologies to the Kerry Campaign for running the item and causing any undue negative speculation before obtaining adequate verification from FOX News.
UPDATE: I said "leave it at that." FOX News will probably run an item, so watch Special Report for the evidence that you seek ...
UPDATE: FOX News will run enhanced video from a different angle on the Grapevine segment of tonight's Special Report with Brit Hume (6PM Eastern).
Posted by Bill at October 4, 2004 02:00 PM | TrackBack (17)
ahahahhaa... do you need any salt for your big ass plate of crow????
Posted by: Carlos at October 4, 2004 02:10 PM
I'm not so worried about Kerry cheating at the debates (kind of to be expected, given the desperation of his campaign, really).
What worries me is the number of dead people who are going to vote for him.
Posted by: Textbook Stupidity at October 4, 2004 02:10 PM
I appreciate your gracious handling of this situation. Very impressive.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 02:12 PM
I want to see the high res video. Please ask Fox to post the first 40 seconds of the debate at the native resolution of their cameras. I am not convinced.
Posted by: Brett C at October 4, 2004 02:13 PM
Has Fox posted any videos or stills? Seems like the producer is hedging, a bit, and with modern technology there's no real reason we shouldn't be able to see what the producer saw - just think of the traffic they could attract to their home page!
Everything I've seen so far is pretty blurry - his movements seem consistent with paper to me - but I could also accept it as fiddling with a pen.
Still, I'd like to see what 'almost 99%' convinced Fox's guy...
Posted by: Parker at October 4, 2004 02:13 PM
Whatever Kerry's tangible object was, it represents a breach of the rules and it is to INDC's and Dailyrecycler's credit for having brought this to our attention.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 02:16 PM
So What If It's A Pen?
I don't really care if it's the first offering his oldest daughter gave up to the Tooth Fairy! Are we getting so complacent in this country that breaking rules is o.k. so long as no damage is done. Please say it ain't so! If you agree to a set of rules, then don't follow them, it's cheating - it shows your values - it shows your integrity - or lack thereof!
Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was
Posted by: PajamaGuy at October 4, 2004 02:21 PM
It's still relevant that he broke the rules (see: impression of wrongdoing), but it's not really a big deal.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 02:22 PM
Yes Bill eat your crow for being correct.
Since you said it was a foreign object(true) and that it may be something innocuous(apparently true).
Although the accusations that it may have been the lucky CIA hat were clearly unfounded. Shame on you. Everyone knows he had that down his pants.
Posted by: ctob at October 4, 2004 02:22 PM
Why does no one care that the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States broke the rules? Why is it trivial?
Because it was a fucking pen. He derived no advantage from it.
He broke the rules; he got caught; he enjoyed a day of bad publicity for his trouble. Case closed. The more we try to read some end-of-western-civilization message into it, the more people we'll alienate.
Let's quit while we're behind. Please.
Posted by: Allah at October 4, 2004 02:25 PM
The proper question is: Is that ALL he took out of his pocket? Or is the rep just 99% a black pen came out of his pocket? What is it that appears to be notecards or a piece of paper?
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 02:27 PM
How in the heck do you unfold a pen?
Posted by: Brian K at October 4, 2004 02:28 PM
putting silly comments aside for a second I think Brian K is right he seemed to unfold something.
BUT even so, Allah has the right of it and the powerline guys are right about preparations, next topic. So don't make Allah give you a divine whooping for being silly.
Posted by: ctob at October 4, 2004 02:35 PM
And, more importantly, what if the unauthorized pen actually had a laser pointer built in that Kerry kept using to distract the president, which is why he kept sounding like an simpleton 8-year-old saying "it's hard" and "mixed messages" all of the time.
Yeah, it was a laser pointer. Only explanation. Case closed.
Posted by: zadig at October 4, 2004 02:36 PM
I don't get it. What makes FOX News the foremost authority on what John Kerry took out of his pocket. I recorded the debate. My wife and I have been watching that part over and over, back and forth. We are not color blind. We absolutely could not see anything black. What he took out was white and flat and he appeared to unfold it. I can accept that it's a handkerchief. But definitely not something black and oblong. Nevertheless bring external object is still a breach of the rule. For students that will be CHEAT! It can't be anything else but CHEAT for presidential candidates. Wimpy Republicans afraid to reinforce their own agreement on Memorandum of Understanding. Why should everybody else?
Posted by: JokerryDown at October 4, 2004 02:36 PM
I guess trash talking and taunting are not really very sportsmanlike, so I will stop.
Seriously guys, obsessing over a pen just makes you like cracked.
Posted by: Jim Ausman at October 4, 2004 02:37 PM
Kudos for being forthright and gracious about this story. It confirms my high opinion of your blog, and highlights the stark difference in how news outlets (both blogs and the MSM) deal with clarifications.
Posted by: Anon at October 4, 2004 02:37 PM
What looks like 'unfolding' is the act of taking off the cap, flipping the pen around, and putting the cap on the other end, then transferring the pen to the other hand.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 02:38 PM
Holy shit entire right wing blogosphere, can you get a f'ing grip? THERE ARE ABOUT 2.2 TRILLION more important things in the universe than if Kerry brought in a pen to a debate!
If this is what you want to talk about then I guess you are more desperate than I thought> There are real substantive issues that will determine the future of this country being played out on the campaign trail and you wanna talk about pens??? There is a high likelyhood that a nuke will find its way into terrorist hands in the next decade. Why don't we talk about that? Your complaints will looks even more sad and pathetic the day such an unspeakable thing happens. Kerry steered the conversation in that direction, too bad we can't debate that.
Posted by: Carlos at October 4, 2004 02:39 PM
"What makes FOX News the foremost authority on what John Kerry took out of his pocket."
Having access to different angles and higher resolution video.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 02:40 PM
Go to LittleGreenFootballs. It is what is in his right hand that is the problem. He has something in both hands. We need tape of both hands. It the left hand pocket take out was to camoflage for what was in the right.
This is not right. I don't care what Rush, et al, say. It will matter that he cheated.
I don't buy that our country is quite into the zone of Democrats get to cheat on LIVE TV and the American Public will accept that Bush had to adher to a different standard. Bias is cultural, cheating is personal.
Clinton was a cheater with women and look where we ended up. If JFKerry is a cheater in all situations then God knows where we will end up. He'll sell all of our secrets and Heinz Kerry will paint the white house Ketchup Red.
There is too much fishy here. Fox want a close race like all the media.
Posted by: Katherine Lambert at October 4, 2004 02:40 PM
Posted by: diane at October 4, 2004 02:40 PM
Man, you're all missing it aren't you.
It's not what he pulled out of his pocket you should be focusing on, it's those stats he pulled out of his ass.
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at October 4, 2004 02:41 PM
i don't know what's going on, but I am absolutely sure Karl Rove is behind it.
Posted by: Tom Vaughan at October 4, 2004 02:43 PM
Look clancy has a reasonable epxlanation.
But even if it was a small "cheat" sheet. I mean come on he's been saying the same crap for a year. If he doesn't know it by nnow he'd have to be monumentally stupid.
So all you have is speculation it could easily be what clancy said. So either a) give em the benefit of the doubt or if your completely partisan then b) choose a better battle.
Posted by: ctob at October 4, 2004 02:43 PM
Why are all these lefties saying we are bitching about a "pen." The video available to us suggests it was notecards or a piece of paper. I am perfectly willing to accept the "pen" theory when it is verified by my own eyes. Now, if it is a pen, while being a violation of the rules and newsworthy, it is not a material breach. Though it does seem a bit fishy Kerry could be so careless.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 02:46 PM
I don't know, I still think this comes across as whining.
Yeah it matters on some level that he broke the rules, but the people it matters to probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. But honestly at this point it just makes Bush supporters look like whiners and sore losers.
Posted by: Just Me at October 4, 2004 02:47 PM
1) Kerry definitely removed something from his pocket. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was a pen.
2) It was against the rules of the debate for him to do so.
IMO, the best approach for the Kerry campaign would be to simply say "We screwed up, and forgot to have the Senator's pen brought to the podium before the start of the debate. We won't make the same mistake next time."
Instead, they stonewall.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 02:49 PM
The Bushies that are fretting about this are wimping out. Nobody is accusing Kerry of ANYTHING nefarious yet. We just need a better video clip to determine what happened, though it appears it is a notecard or piece of paper. It's petty? Well so is bitching about Bush's "smirk." That reminds me, do people know what a smirk is? Bush has a smirk, but he didn't smirk much (if at all) during the debate. He was serious, somber, and at times annoyed. That's not smirking, people.
Smirk: To smile in an affected, often offensively self-satisfied manner.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 02:52 PM
I really don't know how big a deal it is. When it comes to style Kerry can out debate Bush with or without a cheat sheet, but look at the following link...
That is not a pen.
Again, I don't think it had much to do with the outcome at all, and I have no idea if it was a "cheat sheet" or whether Kerry even needed such a thing (he didn't), but...
At least on the link above, THAT IS NO PEN.
Doesn't mean it was a cheat sheet. But it was not a pen.
Posted by: Tom Vaughan at October 4, 2004 02:52 PM
As for me, I'm already alienated. I've just been hanging around long enough to see how this UFO hunt played out.
Bill, your apology is as phony as your stated intent. If you meant this: "INDC Journal and the Daily Recycler aren't going to hyperventilate and claim that this violation influenced the outcome of the first debate ..."
"My explicit goal was to prevent further violations. Period."
Then why did you write this:
" Bush should just bring out crib notes of Kerry's verbatim flip-flops and recite them word-for-word in the next two debates.
"Without googling them, immediately recite Kerry's past 10 contradictory positions on the Iraq war, including partial stunning quotes and the date and context that they were uttered.
"If you can't tell the difference between ...
Bill, who are you fooling. You had your mind made up that Kerry cheated, and you caught him. WRONG.
Well, this fiasco's evaporated, and you still can't admit it was absurd whining from the start. I thought this was a rational blog. WRONG.
Quick, you can still catch a Bigfoot jaywalking across the street. He's breaking the RULES!
Posted by: gabe at October 4, 2004 02:52 PM
"IMO, the best approach for the Kerry campaign would be to simply say "We screwed up, and forgot to have the Senator's pen brought to the podium before the start of the debate. We won't make the same mistake next time."
Instead, they stonewall.
The Kerry campaign is not stonewalling - see the NYPost article:
Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade remained angry at the bloggers' guilt-by-insinuation.
Now why is the Bush campaign stonewalling the no-doubt absolutely true story about Bush wearing an earpiece during the debate? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 02:54 PM
How many of the people bitching at Bill actually looked at the video? At the enlarged video? It does not look like a pen at all. If it is, fine. But you can't blame someone for believing their own eyes. Of all the things it could be, a black pen wasn't on my list.
We'll see when Fox releases the video.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 02:57 PM
Just remember, it's not the mistakes that they remember you for, it's how you handle and recover from them. Nicely done.
Posted by: A.D. at October 4, 2004 03:01 PM
Posted by: kido at October 4, 2004 03:01 PM
The enlarged video is the same resolution, therefore provides no clearer picture than if you enlarged the original video on your own screen. At that resolution, you could be looking at his hands and thinking that's the top of the object.
A Fox News producer looked at broadcast quality resolution video - from different angles and a LOT more detailed than streaming video on the Internet, and he's pretty sure it's a black pen.
I'll take his word over yours.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 03:04 PM
Having not read the '34-page' MOU but having heard so much about it, I expressly remember watching them come out, wondering if they were allowed to bring any notes, and when I watched it for the first time, I saw the reach and my very first impression was that he was taking the cap off a pen.
Posted by: random at October 4, 2004 03:05 PM
I'll trade you Kerry's pen for Bush's notes and earpiece...Bush flunked, what did you expect?
Posted by: damon at October 4, 2004 03:06 PM
It looks like a black pen to you? Yes or no? If it is, there is some REAL funky things going on with that video, even though it is low resolution.
If you had to guess what he removed and manipulated from the video available to us, would it be a) a black pen b) notecards.....
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:07 PM
I'd seen that somewhat glib comment about pleading guilty to having a pen.
What I wanted to see was a less glib response to the incontrovertible evidence that Kerry removed something from his pocket.
Regarding Bush's purported earpiece, I've seen the accusation, but I've yet to see any message that explains which video in which its visible, and the (or any) time where its visible.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 03:15 PM
It's not visible, of course. They think it's some CIA implant. LOL
The accusation centers around the "let me finish remark." Bush appears to be responding to Lehrer's body language or something. I have a plausible explanation and link to the video at my blog...
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:19 PM
The resolution's too bad to see what it is, but the hand motions are consistent with the handling of a pen, and that's what I would guess. It makes more sense to me from the movement I can see and from the perspective of motive, too - see Powerline's comments today.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 03:19 PM
The response was glib because this is, seriously, a non-story. It's a huge deal in one small corner of the blogosphere, but that's about it.
The earpiece story, from what little I've heard, is complete and utter hogwash. I was being sarcastic above when I called it "no-doubt absolutely true".
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 03:20 PM
First off, Bill thanks for handling this in an honest way. I'm sorry so many of your readers act like immature children.
Second, listen to the smart people on this page and drop it. The right wing blogosphere is going to spend its newly found credibility and fame very quickly with this kind of silly nonsense. People care about more important things than whether or not Kerry pulled something out of his pocket.
Third, if you really want to make an issue out of cheating or using notes or whatever, explain these things.
In the following video, seek to 1:16:22 (the command is in the Play menu at the top), and tell me honestly that it doesn't look like Bush is checking for stats and the names of his own programs off prepared notes. It seems pretty obvious that he is.
Then there's this shot that looks very much like prepared, typed notes sitting on his podium.
And then there's the weird lump in Bush's back. What's up with that? (Sorry! just for fun)
Of course, you don't see the left blogosphere foaming at the mouth over these suspicious things.
Move along. There are better things to discuss.
Posted by: corpuschristi at October 4, 2004 03:24 PM
Dear rational conservatives:
Please look at your compatriots and really consider what they're saying: Fox news is hiding anti-Kerry evidence... secret pen weapons...
These are your allies, your side of the political debate. This is the core 20% who would vote for Bush no matter what he did or said.
I doubt you'll change your mind in the next month (especially if these are the kind of people you're talking to). But after the election, please, really think about who you've allied yourself with and how they see the world.
How did John Kerry manage to get a printed sheet of notes onto Bush's podium?
Posted by: bitter mastermind at October 4, 2004 03:27 PM
Forget about the debate opening. He appeared to be taking notes, with a white (not black) pen closer to the end of the debate. John Kerry is looking down with what appears to be a white pen writing.
Guess I can't get a pic in comments, but there is a still frame of it on my blog. Also you can view the video clip Part 7|Kerry: 'I Can Do Better' and see for yourself. Pay attention to the time frame from about 24 seconds to about 31 seconds.
Posted by: Sandi at October 4, 2004 03:28 PM
Other no big deals :
There are more but I thought if I listed them people would think I am making a big deal out of it.
Posted by: Dman at October 4, 2004 03:29 PM
#1. How do you know he didn't take the pen from teh podium and put it in his pocket earlier,and then take it out again? Would that be cheating? #2. I had a pretty low opinion of conservatives before reading this. But this is pathetic. I can't figure out if you're joking or not, so maybe it's just humor that is over my pointy head.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 4, 2004 03:30 PM
"The debate rules were violated in letter, but not intent, and any charges of cheating against the Kerry campaign are undeserved and inaccurate."
I say Kerry cheated the rules.
Call "spy pens" nonsense, but it's the main reason the rule is in place.
Kerry is above suspicion, fine. Why have any rules at all.
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 03:31 PM
Looks like you're clueless. Big surprise. They candidates can have pen and paper but not bring it to the podium themselves. About if anything is printed on them, there isn't. I zoomed in and nothing. Blank piece of paper. Nice try.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:33 PM
I don't think the spy pens are the reason. It just becomes difficult when the candidates bring something to determine what exactly they brought (look at our current situation). To avoid this problem, the candidates were not supposed to bring their own pen and paper. I find it difficult that Kerry just got careless about such a critical moment in his life. But we'll know (hopefully) soon enough, when the higher resolution video is released.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:36 PM
You didn't answer the question. Maybe he did give up the pen before the debate. Then just put it in his pocket out of habit (do any of you do this after you write something down?). Then he took it out again when he had to write another note. Was there a rule that said the pen had to stay on the podium and could not be placed in the pocket? If not, then your whole case is shot like Old Yeller.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 4, 2004 03:36 PM
Are you frigging serious? Have you been to Democratic underground? I'm not about to claim there aren't whacky conservatives. But if you think there aren't alot of progressive nutjobs you need help.
Second I don't base my views on whether some people who share them are nutjobs. I can think for myself. But ,hey, thanks for rational condenscension I know your looking out for me, bud. I'm gonna go stick my tongue in a light socket now cause me to dumb to vote fer kerry.
Posted by: ctob at October 4, 2004 03:37 PM
Let me clarify by saying I have no particular reason to believe Kerry had a "spy pen",except that he skirted the agreed procedure for having items, including pens, placed on his podium.
Bush's performance rises or falls on it's own merits and I dont' think Kerry's pen affected George Bush, or Kerry, or the outcome of the debate.
I simply think neither candidate should get the benefit of the doubt when they are on video breaking the agreed rules.
I would disqualify test results of the students I test for equivalent infractions.
It's not okay, even if you didn't mean harm.
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 03:38 PM
One last thing. If any of you actually wait for the high-resolution video to check this thing out further, well, let's just leave it at that.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 4, 2004 03:38 PM
It looked like he checked off a talking point while he was speaking with that pen.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:40 PM
Fox organised the video coverage on debate night, so they have the primacy evidence and they still can not make a definitive statement. Thus, the 99% thing means that there is no compelling evidence, either way. For all that I know they could have said 50% or 10%, it's the same thing - no proof. And that's probably how this story is going to end.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 03:43 PM
I agree that its a non-story -- if its indeed a pen :-)
But IMO, this is one of those situations where a reasonable response would quickly put the story to rest.
I didn't realize that you were joking about the "earpiece".
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 03:44 PM
Pen, paper, it's amazing the amount of time spent here on this, yet not nearly as much on fabricated quotes on FOX News web site.... "fatigue" is now an acceptable excuse for anything....
Posted by: ed at October 4, 2004 03:46 PM
Regarding the "earpiece":
Thanks for the link. I watched the video.
THAT'S all they've got as "proof" Bush was using an earpiece?
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 03:46 PM
There is no way this TIVO picture shows a pen--it's white and at least 3 inches by 4 inches; although there might have been a pen too. Indeed, I think there probably was a pen in light of Fox's comment and the white squarish object might have been the inside of his coat pocket--but it wasn't a pen! I don't think it's being petty to want to know what the white object is.
If there was only a pen--it's the equivalent of committing a (missed) illegal motion during a football game--a violation of the rules, but not worth fighting about, since it's not really "cheating." If there were notes, it would be worse--perhaps like a 12th man for most the game.
Posted by: alfonso at October 4, 2004 03:47 PM
I'm working on the fox news gaffe and I've commented on it.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 03:48 PM
Posted by: bitter mastermind at October 4, 2004 03:50 PM
Yo Palooka, are you blind? bitter mastermind is talking about the sheet on the right, not the clearly blank sheet on the left which Kerry put there for reference. Zooming in on a small shot like that actually blurs the obviously visible text into looking more gray and uniform and even a little... blank. But I'll totally believe you if you're using the new CSI super resolution increaser 2005. Nice try.
Posted by: corpuschristi at October 4, 2004 03:51 PM
As I look at the closeup video, I see a white paper attached to the black pen he removes the top from at the end of the portion of video in question.
It was a ruse by which he now has an excuse for the media. Something's up here
Posted by: Jim Pfaff at October 4, 2004 03:51 PM
We have missed the TRULY IMPORTANT story here. On a previous thread I said maybe I am a klutz because I couldn't do what Kerry did with a pen.
I am now an official klutz. :-)
Mm. That crow was good.
Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2004 03:53 PM
Kerry removed the object from his [inside] coat pocket as he approached his podium at the START of the debate, immediately after shaking hands with Bush.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 03:54 PM
The pen in question, actually, is a state of the art radio activated morse code pulser.
I did worked on some of the initial engineering and provided samples to the Kerry campaign.
I spent a couple of days do tech work with Kerry getting him used to the amplitude and frequency of the morse pulses that transmit information to his thumb. Kerry spent a few hours reviewing his morse code before the debate.
It's not entirely fair, but I'd go to the end of the world to help John Kerry cheat in a debate with that articulate and intelligent George Bush.
Posted by: Joe Bu at October 4, 2004 03:56 PM
I detect a rabbit being pulled out of the pocket.... (gads)
Yep, the slaughter last Thurs. night on TV was due to pen/paper shenanigans.... Convinces me, I'm voting Bush. (gads, gads)
Posted by: ed at October 4, 2004 03:57 PM
I never asserted Kerry used a "spy pen", only that they exist, and it's one of the reasons items are supposed to be placed by debate staff on the podium before the debate.
I don't back away from that a hair, or my feeling that Kerry flaunted the agreed procedure. Looking at it in the light most favorable to Kerry, he cheated the rules.
I watched the debate. I thought Kerry did better than Bush, especially with regard to the debate's potential effect on the target audience, swing voters.
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 03:59 PM
There is no text visible. One sheet looks lighter than the other, that is all. Shadows maybe, or even different kinds of paper could explain that. Regardless, no text visible.
Where is the video of him removing the "printed" sheet from his pocket?
Or maybe Rove just teleported that piece of paper down to him when Bush used his new CIA implant to telepathically ask for it. Yeah, that'll be it.
I looked into the earpiece thing because the comment seemed odd, until you see the video. That's debunked, no you're imagining text where there is none?
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 03:59 PM
Is it possible that the white square seen in some of the enhanced video caps is simply glare from light reflected off a shiny metal accent on the body of the pen?
Perhaps in the process of digitally sharpening the image, the photo software interprets the "flare" as a square.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 04:00 PM
It looked to me like both pulled pens out. Bush clearly clicks a pen and IIRC it doesn't look like he got it from the lectern.
Posted by: Michael Farris at October 4, 2004 04:04 PM
What concerns me more is how he acts when his hands go to the podium, then they briefly rise and it looks distinctly like notecards. In color and shape and in his mannerisms. All suggest to me he is holding notecards. It's much more blurry for me when he removes the object. Anyway, enough of this crapola. Time will tell.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 04:05 PM
It's been brought up several times, you rule of law hypocrites keep ignoring it. Bush clearly interrupted and begged for exstensions when this was not within his rights according to the memorandum of understanding. Vice Versa this would be about the appaling lack of respect John Kerry showed for the President, the moderator, and the American public.
Posted by: jumanji at October 4, 2004 04:10 PM
Regarding the picture, shot from above, that shows "printed" text on the paper in front of Bush, since there's no time stamp on the vid cap, there is no telling at what point in the debate the photo shows.
I have to assume that what you're seeing are the notes that Bush wrote during the debate.
FWIW, I believe that both men began to organize their thoughts on paper at the first opportunity. IOW, I don't think that every note that they made was an intended response to the other, but that many were reminders as to points they wanted to make at some point during the debate.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 04:14 PM
palooka, you're being ridiculous. to any sane person looking at that shot, there's an obvious header and evenly spaced lines of text. by saying that's a blank sheet of paper, you're really throwing any credibility out the window.
But maybe they did put two different kinds of paper on Bush's podium. It's just that one of them clearly has a funny typewritten watermark over the entire page.
Posted by: corpuschristi at October 4, 2004 04:15 PM
I apologize for misrepresenting your position. You stick with that spy pen. It actually does make the world a far more interesting place.
So what pen scenarios were you're imagining? Here's mine:
Kerry brings an anti-matter pen bomb to the debate, and the first time Bush says "terraist" he blows the entire stage. The positronic blast takes out both candidates, along with that commie tool Lehrer, and leaves Dick Cheney in charge of the world. Manchurian Candidate indeed!
Second choice: Kerry uses the antimatter in his pen to direct an EM pulse beam into Bush's earpiece, forcing it to play a poorly written MIDI version of "Stairway to Heaven" over and over. No wonder Bush did so badly -- there's no way I could debate under those circumstances...
Posted by: bitter mastermind at October 4, 2004 04:16 PM
You're missing the real story here.
At the beginning of the debate, W and JFK shook hands...and for the rest of the debate W displayed rhetorical skills that recalled his days as DKE's Rush Chair.
Clearly Kerry drugged him by hitting him with a mini-syringe during the shake. That's why Bush seemed inarticulate and lost the entire debate...
Posted by: moebius at October 4, 2004 04:17 PM
I agree that its a non-story -- if its indeed a pen :-)
Yup. If it's a cheat sheet, that would be a very different story. It would be a big deal.
But IMO, this is one of those situations where a reasonable response would quickly put the story to rest.
Reasonable response from whom? The Kerry campaign has said it was a pen. A Fox News producer has said that it's a black, oblong object (he's pretty sure it's a pen) - and therefore not a white, square object as some here are willing to swear, even if all they're looking at is highly compressed video with pixels a quarter of an inch on the screen.
It's a non-story that only has a few people on a few blogs excited, no more. Drudge is hardly the epitome of responsible reporting. He's gotten some things right and some things wrong, and his track record isn't that great. The 'Kerry cheated' story is not all that different from the Bush's earpiece story, and I don't see the Bush campaign racing to a microphone to deny it. Do you wonder why? No. Why not? Because that would give the rumors too much credence, something like that? Well the same goes for Kerry.
(I'm not addressing you directly in this latter part here, Dave - this is thrown out there more for general consumption.)
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 04:18 PM
You are a psycho if you actually believe it is a black pen.
BLACK THINGS AREN'T WHITE YOU MORON.
Posted by: Roy at October 4, 2004 04:18 PM
I'm sorry to extend this further, but it does appear, at the very opening of the debate, that Kerry is glancing down at the podium as if he is reading off of a cue card. And, the item that he pulled from his pocket...still...does not appear to be a pen.
Either way...you are correct, he did break the letter of the agreement. And...your reporting of such requires no apology.
Frankly, I would much rather think that it is a pen. I'd like to think that there's a shred of integrity in any man who's oh-too-close to the Presidency of the U.S. of A.
A non-event would be welcome.
Posted by: jmflynny at October 4, 2004 04:19 PM
Roy...to precisely whom is your "moron" addressed?
Posted by: jmflynny at October 4, 2004 04:21 PM
Like I said, Moonbats, where'd that sheet come from? Did Rove have it teleported to Bush?
There is no printed text on that paper which is visible. That's just a fact.
Posted by: Palooka at October 4, 2004 04:24 PM
Look folks, wash it anyway you want, the FACT REMAINS that kerry violated the rules, and this, in my opinion goes to his continued character flaws which keep showing themselves, his debate scheme withstanding.
Kerry changes positions on issues as much as we change our underwear each day.
He Violated the agreed to rules, no matter what it was. And there was no way Lehrer saw him do it since he was either looking down, flipping his own paper or looking at Bush while Kerry had his back to the camera, went off screen, and then the camera switch showing the violation deed.
This is just one more example of obvious Character flaws that define who kerry was in Vietnam, who he was when he met with the North Vietnamese, who he was when he lied to Congress in his testimony after the war, and his abysmal record in the senate where he fails to show up for most votes over the last two years, and is one of the most liberal voters on record.
Kerry wants to Give Iran Nuclear Fuel. (Maybe we should send carter to Iran, since his Moronic agreement worked so well with North Korea?)
Kerry says we should meet a Global test.
Kerry stated in the debate he never used harsh words like lying, and it has been proven that he did use such words.
These are Character Flaws, making him not fit for command. Kerry also suffered form sleeping disorders, such as walking in his sleep which under todays standards, would keep him out of the Military.
Kerry still has yet to sign a Form 180 releasing the rest of his military records. I wonder What he is hiding, and why?
Kerry stating those not on his boat didn't serve with him, is like telling all those who crossed the Delaware with General Washington(A real war hero) that they didn't serve with Washington either.
Kerry, in my opinion suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and that is enough for me to not want him as a Commander in Chief for our Armed Forces.
Wake up, research the facts about kerry and then make your decision. Your future as well as your childrens depend on your vote.
PS here are some screen caps I took noticing Lehrer's views during the Kerry Swipe. And Don't forget about that Lehere wink at the end of the debate either.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 04:25 PM
Per the agreement, the extensions are granted at the disgression of the debate moderator (Lehrer).
I don't believe that the agreement specified whether the candidates could (or couldn't) ask for the 1 minute extension (30 seconds each, starting with the person who was asked the original question).
I don't recall seeing Bush ever interrupt Kery, or visa versa. Bush did signal Lehrer when he wanted to ask for the extension.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 04:26 PM
"Anyway, enough of this crapola."
Yeah, right. Both sides of the aisle have spent much of the weekend prattling on about whether Kerry had notes (or a pen) and if Bush has some secret earpiece so Rove can feed him answers. The question I have is, is there any point to any of this? Nothing will actually come of any of it, footage be damned, especially considering the Commission on Presidential Debates didn't even sign the agreement.
Posted by: mantis at October 4, 2004 04:27 PM
I looked at the debate again and I did not see Kerry use a 'black' pen. The pen he used was definitely white, silver or gold. Couldn't tell exactly because of the lights. I did notice that Kerry propped up what appeared to be a note card on his podium when Bush was talking about the summits that were scheduled, approximately 1/3 of the way through the debate. Did he have empty note cards on his list of items to be provided for him during the debate?
Posted by: Rick Rasmusson at October 4, 2004 04:30 PM
Clancy, I think the reference was to the quotes originally to Drudge. The interesting thing is that even when the Kerry camp apparently had the truth on their side they waited until the video was analyzed.
Note the following from the weekend:
When pressed on the fact that even brandishing a pen from his jacket would have violated debate rules, the Kerry staffer laughed, adding, "See you at the inauguration, Drudge".
The Kerry campaign did not commit to the story until it was proven.
Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2004 04:31 PM
And we are supposed to trust Drudge in properly quoting people? Come on.
Posted by: mantis at October 4, 2004 04:33 PM
Damn. You guys are like a hive of ants in a summer drought.
Well, more power to you. And I sincerely hope you manage to bust the lid off the liberal conspiracy at Fox News. I for one will be grateful to finally have that nest of socialist swine exposed for what they are!
Posted by: bitter mastermind at October 4, 2004 04:35 PM
Heh. The leftist mouth-breathers are out in force.
You guys are still desperate, huh?
Posted by: Textbook Stupidity at October 4, 2004 04:44 PM
"There is no printed text on that paper which is visible. That's just a fact."
Oh, OK. I just needed someone to tell me that what I see with my own eyes isn't real. I'm all better now.
There is text on that paper. Even Dave agrees to that.
The whole point here is that if you want to make up a mini-scandal about Kerry, it's also possible to start one about Bush. No one should want this though. There are better things to discuss.
Posted by: corpuschristi at October 4, 2004 04:44 PM
I don't blame Senator Kerry for keeping the help's grubby paws off his anti-matter pen.
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 04:47 PM
I'm saying that my preferred "we forgot to give the Senator's pen ..." response from the Kerry camp should have come yesterday.
IMO, the admission that there was an inconsequential violation of a rule that [I believe] was designed to prevent both possible cheating and the IMPRESSION of cheating (if Kerry hadn't reached into his pocket, we wouldn't be having this discussion) would have quickly defused the incident.
Once the "reasonable" explanation was made, then the staffer could have jokingly said something about being guilty for producing the pen.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 04:48 PM
I didn't zoom the picture, so I didn't actually see any text. Its just that the paper on the right appears to be somewhat more gray than the sheet on the left, so I interpret that as something, which I assume to be what Bush has written.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2004 04:54 PM
It's extremely clear that Kerry has a white colored pen in his right hand. His left hand, which goes into his jacket, pulls out a square piece of white paper.
Where anybody got a "black pen" is frankly bizzare. And if a producer determined that it's a pen with black ink, then how the hell did the producer determine that from a video?
This is still not over.
Posted by: ed at October 4, 2004 04:55 PM
You do realize that people are allowed to make notes at the lectern right? The resolution of the image is just way too grainy to make the determination that they're typed. They could just as easily be hand written bulletpoints jotted down as notes. This isn't prior to the actual debate, like with the Kerry images, this is during the debate.
Got a better image to prove your point? Or is this the best you've got?
Posted by: ed at October 4, 2004 05:04 PM
You want a scandal then you're going to have to come up with the goods. Show me that they couldn't be handwritten notes.
Posted by: ed at October 4, 2004 05:06 PM
Do you seriously believe that a pen gave Kerry an unfair advantage in the debate? Do you think Kerry would have lost the debate without a pen, or do you have common sense enough to see that it doesn't matter? There were other rules that were broken in the debate, but I don't see mention of them in this forum (ie. Bush interjecting a retort whenever he felt like it). You all need to determine what is important in the next 4 years. If the only thing you can come up with is a petty debate about a pen, then we are all screwed.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2004 05:07 PM
"I'm saying that my preferred "we forgot to give the Senator's pen ..." response from the Kerry camp should have come yesterday."
Again, this is a tempest in a teapot, something that swirled around a few blogs, no more. Who knows if the Kerry campaign was even aware of it before Drudge called them up. It certainly wasn't the kind of thing where they were under public pressure to straighten matters out - even if it seems like that to us when we have a few blogs in front of us that make this seem like the most important issue of the year.
So Drudge called up the Kerry campaign, and all we know about that exchange is this:
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract.
Who knows what that staffer actually said. For all we know, he said some variation of your preferred response right before Drudge pressed him on the fact that even that would have violated debate rules.
And at that point, with the staffer probably somewhat incredulous that somebody would even think of making a federal case out of Kerry bringing a pen to the debate, he laughed and concluded the conversation.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 05:11 PM
Kerry and Bush both had white Bic pens with black caps on the podiums. In addition, Kerry reached into his pocket and pulled out a 2 piece balck 'writing' pen. Removed the cap, placed it on the end. He is seen using both pens throughtout the debate, alternating back and forth. I would assume one ink was black and the other blue, so as to follow his notes better.
But the real story should be why Senator Kerry did not immediately make an announcement indicating he made a mistake and was sorry. That would have settled everything. But it took 3 days to come up with an answer? Shameful.
Posted by: Bushman at October 4, 2004 05:15 PM
But the real story should be why Senator Kerry did not immediately make an announcement indicating he made a mistake and was sorry. That would have settled everything. But it took 3 days to come up with an answer?
By that logic, the same could be said about the Bush campaign, re: Rathergate.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 05:17 PM
"There were other rules that were broken in the debate, but I don't see mention of them in this forum (ie. Bush interjecting a retort whenever he felt like it)."
I've heard mention of this a couple of times (jumanji mentioned it earlier). While watching the debate, I remember there being some moments where it seemed the protocol had been violated, and there was one moment where Bush interjected something, and Kerry said something like "I'd be happy to change the rules", but I can't find any mention of this in the official transcript.
Can anyone pinpoint where these exchanges occurred, or where Bush or Kerry interjected retorts in violation of the rules?
(Strictly speaking, the little back-and-forth about Bush's daughters was a violation of the rules - how dare Bush interject at that moment! I mean, what does that say about his character, that he doesn't follow the rules?!)
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 05:18 PM
BANNED. Everyone has the right to criticize me. Not everyone has the right to call people "fing morons" in my comments section.
Posted by: Jack at October 4, 2004 05:20 PM
Posted by: Xoxotl at October 4, 2004 05:23 PM
Actually, I just found that bit - seems legit to me.
Kerry: [concludes 90-second text]
Not a violation, IMO.
So are there any examples of Bush or Kerry interrupting the other at will?
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 05:25 PM
Jack - still smarting at your boy Rather being caught making the news, huh?
Posted by: Xoxotl at October 4, 2004 05:25 PM
The "issue", Jack(ass) is that Bill adn others like him have, are, and will hopefully continue to ask questions that might or might not pan out. That's called being a responsible citizen. And also what being a responsible citizen entails is owning up to the fact that your line of questioning had no basis in fact, if and when you find out that is the case, in spite of the near certainty of assholes such as yourself claiming there's egg on someone's face for doing so.
Thanks for asking questions, Bill, and thanks for your impeccable ethics and honesty for owning up to when you speak too fast or make a mistake. It's greatly admired.
Posted by: willow at October 4, 2004 05:27 PM
That being said, at least my "assertions" had impeccable basis in fact.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 05:32 PM
You guys are frikkin' clowns. Just like the Prez you have lost touch with reality. Kerry kicked Bush's ass because he had a better pen. R U kidding? Your guy as a set of notes and an earpiece but Kerry's pen is the story. Maybe Bush just had an MP# player on a loop - 'bein' president is hard work, Kerry is flippity floppity, I like sasparilla and naps, Poland what about Poland'
Posted by: salt at October 4, 2004 05:33 PM
RE: UPDATE: FOX News will run enhanced video from a different angle on the Grapevine segment of tonight's Special Report with Brit Hume (6PM Eastern)
Great. Now I will be able see for myself. I hope it is conclusive and clear.
Posted by: Brett C at October 4, 2004 05:34 PM
Thanks for your insightful analysis.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 05:35 PM
By that logic, the same could be said about the Bush campaign, re: Rathergate.
Bill,I don't follow the analogy.
Kerry comitted a breach of protocol on videotape. Why shouldn't he cop to it and apologise?
Why is he immune from being questioned about something he did in front of God and everyone?
In what way analogous to the memos is that videotape questionable? Kerry KNOWS what he did, Bush can't speak for Killian.
All Bush could do was reaffirm he met his guard service obligations. He did that, too.
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 05:43 PM
Also to be fair - the news cycle was on a weekend, and they'd copped to the pen angle before Monday morning.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 05:46 PM
Bill wrote: "By that logic, the same could be said about the Bush campaign, re: Rathergate."
I guess I'm confused here. You are comparing the Bush campaign's refusal to respond to forged document allegations to that of Kerry who is caught on tape violating the debate rules. As I remember, the Kerry campaign has finally admitted he violated the rules. So where is the followup apology from Kerry's mouth, even if it is as pathetic as Rathers?
Posted by: Bushman at October 4, 2004 05:46 PM
Shrug. I think you guys are dreaming. It's better for them to play it as just a pen, no big deal, and I don't blame them for it.
It would be an entirely different story if it was notecards.
Frankly, anyone that still vociferously complains about it sounds whiny. You can certainly call Kerry a dumbass for breaking the rule, but getting indignant about a pen is politically favorable to the Kerry campaign.
You should realize that.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 05:49 PM
"That being said, at least my "assertions" had impeccable basis in fact."
Absolutely true. Regardless of whether the 'spirit' of the agreement was upheld, it would seem that the letter was not (disturbingly, this doesn't seem to bother a whole lot of people.) The fact that so many people seem to have become unhinged by your mention of that tells me you've touched a nerve. :)
And even though I have to side with the 'ultimately it's probably nothing' crowd, I'm glad you brought it up, and I don't think blogger credibility is in danger because of it.
Posted by: willow at October 4, 2004 05:49 PM
This country continues to slide down the slippery slope.
Why can't we call a spade a spade anymore? He broke the rules, an apology (from him) is appropriate. Be a man, at least once Mr. Kerry. I guess I am expecting too much from our public officials.
Posted by: Bushman at October 4, 2004 05:58 PM
I guess I am expecting too much from our public officials.
I'm not saying that you are incorrect in spirit, just that yeah .. probably expecting too much.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 06:00 PM
they'd copped to the pen angle before Monday morning. -
Posted by: SarahW at October 4, 2004 06:05 PM
Totally agree with Willow and Bushman. Owning up immediately would have been better politics since it would have prevented the Drudge headline - without which the story would have never spread this fast.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 06:09 PM
"What worries me is the number of dead people who are going to vote for him"
What saddens me is that there are 1062 dead people who will never have the chance to vote for him.
Posted by: tommypain at October 4, 2004 06:10 PM
Drudge had it too fast, and the presidential campaigns can't respond to every blog accusation.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 06:15 PM
What did they do, find 1062 dead people on the rolls in Milwaukee?????
wouldn't surpise me.
BTW tommypain, where is all your sadness at all the Murders that occur in Cities like Chicago, where handguns are banned. Oh those deaths don't bother you do they?
Nope, only deaths where partisans politics can play into it huh?
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 06:15 PM
Or the 30,000 people a year that were murdered via political execution and the diversion of Oil for Food money in Iraq ... not to mention the 2 million that died in Saddam Hussein's wars of aggression.
Did tommypain complain about that?
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 06:19 PM
Let's make sure we have Bush come out and apologize and flagellate himself for violating the format of the debate by interjecting some comments when Kerry was talking about his daughters.
Bush clearly failed to uphold the letter of the agreement; sure, there'll be some stoned slackers out there arguing that it didn't mean jack sh*t to the spirit of the agreement, nor did it make any difference to the debate, but that's just moral relativism rearing its ugly head. It will not be tolerated.
Bush did violate the letter of the agreement, and therefore nothing but a public apology will be satisfactory.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:22 PM
And yes, that was sarcasm.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:24 PM
Drudge did first seek an opinion from Kerry's campaign.
"A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract.(...) "This is more lies from Republicans (...)""
I doubt Drudge would have gone with the story if the Kerry guy had said that it was a pen.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 06:25 PM
I know let's compare all the murderous deaths in cities where handguns are banned to the casualities in Iraq.
I'll go out on a limb and say there have been more deaths in these cities than Iraq.
But the saddest thing is where partisans throw out the death toll of these VOLUNTEERS who agreed to serve.
That is the sad part here. Why can't partisans just honor these heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
I live in a city with quite a few Military. To a tee, every single one I've talked to supports what we did there and are doing.
What this country does not need is a CIC who turns his boat downstream and runs away from the action.
What this country does not need is a CIC who turns over our foreign policy and our use fo Armed Forces to The UN, which is what Kerry has proposed in the past and it chimes right in with his Global Test Comment. That was the real kerry the other night. Not those pathetic sound bytes that Don't reflect his voting record in the senate, that is when he bothers to show up for work. (BTW, I wonder how kerry voted fo rthe tax Cuts signed into law today, anybody want to guess?)
Kerry is a Hypocrite of the highest sort, has Major Character and Personality flaws, won't sign a form 180 to release the rest of his Military records, and continues his Hypocrisy.
Kerry says he won't use such harsh words. BS... His new infomercial uses the those harsh words today, and accuses President Bush of Lying which is False.
Kerry said GLOBAL TEST.... It was his own words, for pete's sake...
Hypocrisy by the left.... different standards, huh?
Well, I have my integrity....
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 06:26 PM
I'm sorry but showing a STILL Shot and not a full Motion view of the pen does not settle this story....
How pathetic was that?
FOX can do better than that.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 06:32 PM
"I doubt Drudge would have gone with the story if the Kerry guy had said that it was a pen."
Why? Did whatever the Kerry campaign was saying stop Drudge when he was trying to push that fictitious intern scandal?
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:33 PM
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 06:34 PM
"I'm sorry but showing a STILL Shot and not a full Motion view of the pen does not settle this story....
How pathetic was that?
FOX can do better than that."
Yeah, 'cos Fox is trying so hard to cover up for Kerry.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:35 PM
Really? He didn't call them before publishing that?
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:36 PM
Sorry, I meant "yup" as in " I agree with what you said." My bad. Drudge just runs with things.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 06:38 PM
I posted a Screen Pic Here.
He still Violated the Rules, and that goes to Character, and that doesn't pass my Global Test for Commander in Chief...
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 06:40 PM
"Kerry said GLOBAL TEST.... It was his own words, for pete's sake..."
Yes, and he defined very clearly and articulately what he meant by that:
"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
That's pretty clear.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:40 PM
"He still Violated the Rules, and that goes to Character, and that doesn't pass my Global Test for Commander in Chief..."
Guess you can't vote for Bush either then. Nader maybe? He didn't violate the rules.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:42 PM
So now that Fox News has shown a close angle from the front, does anybody here still think it's a piece of paper or a notepad?
It looks like a black pen.
It looks a lot like a black pen.
Maybe it's a black pen.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 06:45 PM
Its a fact that Kerry removed something from his jacket.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 06:47 PM
Its a fact that Kerry removed something from his jacket.
Posted by: hm at October 4, 2004 06:47 PM
There was nothing about this exchange that could be classified as a debate. No pens, no notes, no verbal exchange between candidates. Why is everyone so outraged about the use of a pen(s)? Be outraged that we did not hear anything from either candidate that we had not heard before. Be outraged that we (US citizens) really need to experience both candidates under pressure, but we will never have that opportunity because of all of these unrealistic "debate" rules. Stop trying to create a scandal to cover up Bush's inability to perform in such a sanitized forum. By all rights, Bush should have won the debate on foreign policy. The fact that he didn't do well in the "debate" should make you think about his ability to think on his feet when he is faced with an unscripted and unsanitized exchange.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2004 06:52 PM
"Responding to that fact by saying "This is more lies from Republicans" is bound to create suspicion."
1. We don't know what Drudge said to the Kerry staffer. If Drudge said there was evidence of cheating or something to that effect, then the Kerry staffer was perfectly right to say "this is more lies from Republicans".
Drudge is giving a subjective retelling of the conversation, obviously leaving chunks out, and I'm sure you're aware he's hardly an unbiased filter.
2. Bottom line: the suspicion has turned out to be unwarranted. Or rather: anyone who insists on being suspicious past this point, with a clear frontal view of Kerry holding something that looks suspiciously like a pen, and not at all like a piece of paper, and with another bunch of arguments against the idea of Kerry wanting or needing to cheat on this, well anyone who insists on being suspicious past this point is in serious tinfoil hat territory.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 07:00 PM
"Stop trying to create a scandal to cover up Bush's inability to perform in such a sanitized forum."
What?!? Bush isn't an orator on the level of Churchill or similar?!? The hell you say!
And Anon, there's an incredible difference between being able to perform on a stage and being able to act in response to a real-world situation, mmkay?
Two murderous dictatorships toppled in two short years. That's good enough for me. Any questions?
Posted by: willow at October 4, 2004 07:00 PM
Why is everyone so outraged about the use of a pen(s)?
No one is really outraged about the use of a pen. Do you read the posts?
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 07:02 PM
I'm more outraged that people are outaged that people are asking questions about this, if you could call me outraged at all...
Posted by: willow at October 4, 2004 07:03 PM
"Or the 30,000 people a year that were murdered via political execution and the diversion of Oil for Food money in Iraq ... not to mention the 2 million that died in Saddam Hussein's wars of aggression.
"Did tommypain complain about that?"
Oh, you mean the 2 million that died after the Great Communicator let chemical and biological weapons "slip" into Saddam's hands, helping him live to fight another day?
Posted by: moebius at October 4, 2004 07:04 PM
"This is more lies from Republicans" is bound to create suspicion.
Do you mean it creates the suspicion that Republicans actually are lying? Or do you mean it creates the suspicion that Republicans are so painfully desperate that they're trying to descibe pens as evil brain weapons?
(Sorry about my confusion -- I'm surrounded by writing implements. I think they're affecting me....)
In any case, don't belive the liberal media hype -- I'm certain there's more to this story! Keep up the good work, pajamahdeen!
Posted by: bitter mastermind at October 4, 2004 07:04 PM
bitter mastermind -
It amazes me that people like you are so vitriolic after the clarifications and apology. Take a deep breath. This may surprise you, but you are the one making yourself look like a bitter asshole.
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 07:06 PM
"Bottom line: the suspicion has turned out to be unwarranted. Or rather: anyone who insists on being suspicious past this point, with a clear frontal view of Kerry holding something that looks suspiciously like a pen, and not at all like a piece of paper, and with another bunch of arguments against the idea of Kerry wanting or needing to cheat on this, well anyone who insists on being suspicious past this point is in serious tinfoil hat territory."
BTW, that doesn't mean that I think you should drop the subject.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 07:06 PM
I know we'd like to pin the Iran-Iraq war on Clinton...or at least Carter. But maybe if we had been more concerned with democracy than oil in the Middle East in the 60s and 70s, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Posted by: moebius at October 4, 2004 07:06 PM
You know what ? IT DOES MATTER !
a. It's not a pen
Ya know what else....I put all the pictures on my blogg. I will be checking. And if they don't match...I scream until someone listens !!!!
Posted by: Wild Ponies at October 4, 2004 07:14 PM
SO Clancy, you say context is everything huh...
Ok, I'll play along, thanks for Jumping right in...
Here is what the HYPOCRITE Kerry said when his boy Billy the IMPEACHED PRESIDENT was in office back in 1997.
"Kerry on CNN "Crossfire" with John Sununu on Nov. 12, 1997
"There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country," said Kerry. "And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge."
"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."
Yeah, kerry only cares about himself and his position of the day.
Ok to use force using the same resolutions and authority in 1997, that President Bush cited in 2002-2003.
And now to please the liberals, he says he was against a war he not only advocated, but voted for in citing the same resolutions and authority...
Kerry = NO CHARACTER....
He is a HYPOCRITE, a LIAR, a Flip flopping waffling Coward who when confronted with combat turned his boat down river abandoning his Fellow boat crews, and dumping one over the side, in my opinion of course.
Enjoy the Hypocrisy.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 07:15 PM
or we can talk about how some of the Democrats who voted for Force to be used SHORTLY before the election to please constituants, then immediately after the Fall elections were suddenly against using force....
Funny Hypocrites, these democrats....
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 07:19 PM
"c. Who made Fox news the "image" experts "
Since when has Fox News been a friend of the Kerry campaign?
When the mouthpiece for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says there's no story...there's no story.
Posted by: moebius at October 4, 2004 07:20 PM
Or we can talk about this kerry HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE... Now is kerry a LIAR too Clancy...
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- 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."
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 07:23 PM
Sonar 5 is right, btw. Kerry's position on Iraq is unseemly.
Kerry should have been for GW I (a Just War) and against GW II (an Unjust War) from the start.
Of course, it's not nearly as unseemly as lying to the American public long enough to get us stuck in our generation's Vietnam.
Posted by: moebius at October 4, 2004 07:23 PM
Here are acoupkle more form kerry the HYPOCRITE:
"We do not need now to divide America over who served and how," it reads. No group "has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country." 1992 Defense of Bill Clinton"
But this next quote really brings in his GLOBAL TEST Theory back to life, and proves at least to me, this is the same kerry as before with his lying to congress, and agrandizing himself only for political gain, which I have proven with the above quotes, in my opinion of course...
READ THIS Clancy.....
"Global Test" - kerry 2004
"I’m an internationalist, I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
That confirmed for me kerry's view of our country, his disdain for our Armed Forces, his cowardice in running down river and dumping a crew mate overboard, and his continual refusal to release his military Records by signing a Form 180.
kerry believes the United Nations should APPROVE when pour troops act, and those quotes even in your full listed context above, show what Kerry really thinks.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 07:30 PM
a. It's not a pen
Then what is it?
Go to this site: http://www.aboutpolitics.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=64
... and look at the last picture on the page.
Is it a piece of paper?
b. He knew better than to turn his back to the
If he knew better than that, then was he completely oblivious to the fact that there were cameras behind the lecterns?
c. Who made Fox news the "image" experts ?
Umm, the fact that they ran the camera pool that evening and had access to multiple cameras at better resolutions than we have access to with a couple of crappy streaming video files?
Also, the fact that they're pro-Bush enhances their credibility in this case. If they had an anti-Kerry story here, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that they would bury it.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 07:30 PM
Sonar5, if you want to drag 34-year-old quotes into the game, don't forget quotes from 2002, when Rice and Powell said Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat.
I have an inkling who you're going to vote for. I don't even mind if he wins. It would be a shame if someone else collected the blame for the outcome of his policies; I wouldn't mind at all watching Bush try to clean it all up.
Posted by: clancy at October 4, 2004 07:34 PM
As one of the quotes refered to in the previous incarnation of this thread, I would like to clarify my meaning, and address your concerns.
In short, if this were to be picked up, as it looked yesterday (and it looked like anything but a black pen), and was run with by Rush or O'Rilley or someone in that group, and did turn out to be a nothing, then we look bad. The media spin from such an incident would make the next Rather memo thing exponentially harder to get across, because all that would be remembered was the Kerry debate thing. As it is, nothing is fine. At least it stayed online, and was not picked up elsewhere.
Posted by: Geoff at October 4, 2004 07:35 PM
go to the top of my page and start on that thread, will ya?
Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at October 4, 2004 07:36 PM
"there's an incredible difference between being able to perform on a stage and being able to act in response to a real-world situation, mmkay?"
Willow, thanks for clearing that up for me, however, I believe a president should be capable of acting, thinking, and speaking clearly under stress while he is in the public eye. Television is where his persona is formed -- for the U.S. citizens, and for the world. His performance was definately "Not a message a commander in chief gives." He seemed angry, tired, and indignant. He should have been confident and composed. He had "homefield advantage" if you will; it was a debate about foreign policy.
"Two murderous dictatorships toppled in two short years. That's good enough for me. Any questions?"
Willow, I have a question. Are you more concerned, or less concerned about terrorism now? I think more concern is the appropriate response here. There has been an increase in worldwide terrorism, and the evidence shows that it's because we invaded Iraq. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan and homeland protection -- instead we opened Pandora's box. You know how the rest of the story goes, right?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2004 07:37 PM
Clancy the 34 year old quotes are now relevant as it goes to Kerry's Character.
Not many have read that quote from the Crimson in 1970. I did. I have it SEARED into my memory.
That quote along with the Global test quote go hand in hand as to what type of President he would be.
What is Puzzling is kerry has no Integrity. If he believes this stuff, which I think he does, and his words prove it, back in 1970 and now Confirmed in 2004, the citizens need to be made aware of it.
What the RNC should do is run that quote of Global Test(The Whole Thing, I agree) along side his quote form 1970 and let the people decide what is relevant.
It goes to Character.
And besides, you would think the liberals would be up in arms about his NEW conservative positions, but they know he is full of it, and will be more liberal than Teddy once in office.
I'm just trying to do my part so that others know who kerry really is based upon his record which he never talks about, and not about who he is currently pretending to be.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 4, 2004 07:42 PM
Point taken about his appearance. I certainly wouldn't want his job and I'm just not surprised that he didn't do so well. His moments of eloquence are the exception, not the rule, and if there was someone with eloquence AND substance I'd take a listen to them. But for now I choose substance and I can tell it a mile away, even if it's hidden under inarticulate mannerisms.
When you ask if I'm more concerned about terrorism now, what are you comparing that to? To before 9/11? The answer, of course, would be now, considering everyone's more aware of it now. Bush had nothing to do with that; 19 evil jackasses from the bowels of hell who intentionally targeted and murdered around 3000 civilians that day did.
You can make evidence show anything you want, but it takes more than Monday morning quarterbacking (shoulda, coulda, woulda) to prove anything. And how do you know what is or isn't going on in Afghanistan? Are you privy to high-level military intelligence briefings? Do you know what SpecOp forces are left over there to route out the remaining mujahdaheen?
Is Iraq a mess now? Duh! When you lance a festering boil, what happens? You have a huge mess - 'Pandora's Box' if you will. And it hurts. And the bigger it was and the more time it had to fester, the more time it takes to clean it up. But if you keep at it, it gets a little air as well as a chance to heal. War has been knocking on our door for a long time now...the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first WTC bombing in '93, the USS Cole... What happened on 9/11 is they knocked the fucking door down. Have you ever stopped to wonder exactly what attacks have been stopped because of our actions? Probably not. But I can tell you they exist. Work is being done and we will win. You can have faith in that or not, but we will win.
Mr. Bush isn't pandering to fear - he's just facing it and doing something to fight it. Because obvioulsy the impeccable 'diplomacy' of his predecessor did nothing to make the bad men go away. Even so, I'll just bet that had he the chance to do it all over again, Mr. Bush would have done a few things differently, but that's the chance you take when you have balls enough to actually make difficult decisions, rather than put it off and hope it happens on someone else's watch. As it is, he toppled two murderous dictatorships in just under two years. I'm up for giving him four more just to see what else can be cleaned up.
Posted by: willow at October 4, 2004 08:14 PM
The still frame that you have on your site makes it look like a pen but the both the normal and the hi-res video fox video from the backside make it look like something white and rectangular. So I find it hard to believe that it was a pen. How is that explained?
Posted by: Scary Kerry at October 4, 2004 08:20 PM
"When you ask if I'm more concerned about terrorism now, what are you comparing that to? To before 9/11? The answer, of course, would be now, considering everyone's more aware of it now."
Willow, I am not talking about public awareness of terrorism. I'm talking about a real increase in the number of events deemed as "terrorist acts" by the State Department. The tally in 2003 was 169 significant incidents -- the highest annual count in 20 years. The average over previous 5 years was 131. The 169 events did not include (for some unknown reason) 4 terrorist events that occured in Turkey between November 12 and the end of 2003. So if you include these, the number is 173.
If you decide to do any research on this, don't refer to the Armitage / Black report. They claimed that global terrorism dropped by 45 percent between 2001 and 2003. Powell later insisted that the incorrect data was merely "a data collection and reporting error."
The 2004 numbers have yet to be released by the State Department, however, it's looking like we will be experiencing another record year.
The festering boil analogy is not quite logical. A festering boil implies that the abberation is attached to, or part of a single organism, and therefore our problem only. Terrorism is not unique to the US, and therefore should not be treated as a US-centric dermal issue.
A more appropriate analogy is a nest of bees. A nest of bees, if left alone will occasionally produce a biting bee. But a single bee bite every once in awhile is manageable. If you whack a nest of bees with a stick, the bees will spread out and attack any living object within their reach. If the nest is destroyed, the bees will regroup and build new nests. Bee keepers always approach a nest with caution and purpose. Upon entering Afghanistan, we were like patient bee keepers. Upon entering Iraq, we became impatient stick wielders.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2004 08:55 PM
Some of us are bothered by casual contempt for the rules, others of us aren't. Those of us who are don't vote Democrat anyway.
Posted by: ScottM at October 4, 2004 10:34 PM
"Some of us are bothered by casual contempt for the rules, others of us aren't. Those of us who are don't vote Democrat anyway."
ScottM: So in your analysis, those who follow rules are Republicans, and those who break rules are Democrats. Don't you think you are over-super-mega-beyond-all-reason stereotyping people? See, I had to string together all of those words to describe your ill-advised comment.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2004 11:02 PM
"BTW tommypain, where is all your sadness at all the Murders that occur in Cities like Chicago, where handguns are banned. Oh those deaths don't bother you do they?"
Oh, please. Would handguns have saved any of those people. Gun nuts are just so pathetic, they think gun play is like John Wayne and Bruce Willis, where you have time to jump and roll and pull out a gun and shoot the bad guy right in the eyes! Except in reality, you twitch and die. Guns are defensive when you know the enemy is coming and have them ready. Like in war, or cops going into a threatening situation. In civilian lives, they are all about offense. and it doesn't matter if you carry it in your hand, loaded and cocked, the guy who just walked past you can put his gun in your back, and then the choice is - give him your gun, or lose your spleen.
Yes, murders are very sad. but not nearly as sad as lying to people dedicated to their country in order to invade another country that was of no threat, just to seize the oil contracts and put in new military bases to help secure more oil contracts. Not nearly as sad as sending those troops into battle with inadequate supplies and body armor they have to share (some units refused to play lotteries - none wore it). Not as sad as finally asking to fund the body armor 8 MONTHS later, then threatening to veto the bill if it tried to hold the American contractors accountable for reconstruction money.
So, try to deflect all you want, but the truth still remains - George Bush got 1064 soldiers killed who never needed to die. And you should show some respect for them, instead of reducing their sacrifice to less than that of murder victims.
"I know let's compare all the murderous deaths in cities where handguns are banned to the casualities in Iraq. I'll go out on a limb and say there have been more deaths in these cities than Iraq."
You are already so far out on the limb, I'm sure you won't notice. You've probably fallen on your head a few times doing that, which explains the insanity of the comparison, much less the complete loss of perspective between the numbers of casualties in Iraq and murders in US cities.
Or don't the civilians in Iraq count to you?
Actually, I bet they don't.
"Or the 30,000 people a year that were murdered via political execution and the diversion of Oil for Food money in Iraq ... not to mention the 2 million that died in Saddam Hussein's wars of aggression."
Wow, where do you get that nonsense? 30,000 political executions a year? Man, how did they even find the time?
Wars of agression? You mean, the war St. Reagan encouraged against Iran to contain the foreign policy failures of the previous three presidents? The one where he authorized the shipment of arms, WMD technology and money to buy still more arms to Iraq, and then sold arms and intelligence data to the Iranians to make certain Iraq couldn't take advantage of any victory?
Or do you mean the time when Hussein ammased troops on the border of Kuwait for a week, and even told the US ambassador of his intentions (as if CNN say "Iraq continues to mass troops on the Kuwaiti border" wasn't clear enough), and George I did nothing to dissuade him from invading?
Or do you mean the time when George I told Iraqis to rise up against Hussein, and we would be there to help them, but then DIDN'T help them, and in fact let him use his helicopters again to crush the resistance, sometimes even within sight of US troops?
The hands of two Republican presidents were already saturated with Iraqi blood, which was why everyone with two brain cells and a synapse between them knew that they would not be that keen to see us.
Again, deflect all you want, but each time, reality will just bite you harder, and the truth of the original statement remains - George Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of 1064 US servicemen. Hussein was contained and monitored, and could have remained that way while we actually defended America against the terrorists.
Posted by: Tommy Pain at October 5, 2004 01:35 AM
then what is this? come on people. Just look at the picture, it makes it all clear as day.
Posted by: freen at October 5, 2004 02:50 AM
Also to those talking about rule violations.... Bush repeated violated the rules as stiplate by the negotiated agreement. Repeatedly. He spoke out of turn, interrupted Kerry, directly responded to Kerrys remarcks ( which oddly enough was not allowed according to the official agreement). Bush broke the rules so much that at one point Kerry actiually asked bush if he'd like to throw out all the rules. Go watch the debate again, while looking at the official agreement, and then tell me who broke the rules...
Posted by: freen at October 5, 2004 02:56 AM
Have you seen this?
Posted by: Martin at October 5, 2004 05:06 AM
Actually Kerry is master of sleight of hand, offending object isn't in his left hand, it was in his right hand.
Posted by: Ash at October 5, 2004 05:08 AM
You are discussing if Kerry broke some rules by pulling a piece of paper out of his pocket. Uuuhm. Dangerous.
Bush broke international law and killed +10.000 people. Now, how about discussing FACTS like this?
Posted by: Martin at October 5, 2004 05:09 AM
The video I have of Kerry shows its NOT a pen. He very obviously unfolds a piece of paper! Youre pen picture from front view is from later on in debate. The video you have STOPS just before he unfolds piece of paper. The paper part is clipped from your video!! Why is the most important part deleted from your video!!!Where can I post Picture and or Video?
Posted by: Lee Adams at October 5, 2004 05:27 AM
alert the media! i just noticed something worthy of days of mindless dribble! i uncapped a pen of my own, proceeded to drag it across a piece of paper, and *gasp* THERE WAS TEXT ON THE PAPER!!!!! WOW!!!!!
Also, Sonar5, going back to your attempt to dissuade people from voting for Kerry by use of 34 year old quotes, what about what was reported in Time Magazine that Bush said in March 2002? i believe it went a little something like this....
"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out!"
Hmmm...this was LONG before any fabricated connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda were fed to the public. The War Machine that is the Bush Administration just needed to come up with a reason to invade Iraq, and being the retards they are, WMD's that the U.S. gave Saddam the money for in the first place was the best reason they could think of. There was no threat. There were no weapons. There was oil, but not much else. I still cannot believe how quickly the public ate up the idea that Saddam posed an iminent threat when in fact he did not. How could people think that he was going to attack us? He knew it would be suicide just like he knew 10 years ago when Asshole Sr. was in office it would have been insanely stupid to launch anything at the U.S. for fear of the reprecussions.
And i still laugh when i think about members of Al Qaeda saying they wanted Bush to win the election since Kerry would actually give some thought to what he was doing in the Middle East instead of bombing everything in sight.
Posted by: Schorfheide at October 5, 2004 05:36 AM
Everyone is looking in the wrong place. The pen in Kerry's left hand is just a distraction. Look at Kerry's right hand. That's where the paper is at that he unfolds.
Posted by: Bob at October 5, 2004 08:20 AM
Apparently Bush should have used taken a few more notes himself...actually, it would also have helped if he learned to read and write.
Posted by: steeler at October 5, 2004 09:35 AM
has anyone asked Kerry what it was?
Posted by: Jude at October 5, 2004 02:51 PM
I've got an idea. Let's keep posting about this and see if the mainstream media picks up the story. Let's see if WE can become the story and, by simply talking about this BS, shape legitimate news coverage. Let's change the whole f***ing world through blogging!
Posted by: Jude at October 5, 2004 03:22 PM
sounds good to me
Posted by: Schorfheide at October 5, 2004 03:55 PM