Evidence that NPR whores for Republicans (follow-up on Clark story)

Yesterday I posted a thread about that piece on NPR's hit piece on Wesley Clark. If you haven't heard it, here's the description from the NPR site:

Critics Debate Clark's Military Record

Presidential candidate Wesley Clark releases his impressive military resume Thursday. Clark was first in his class at the U.S. Military Academy, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and commanded the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo and peacekeeping operations afterward. However, his critics from his military days see him as an opportunist. NPR's Eric Westervelt reports.

(you can listen to it here: http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=16-Oct-2003&segNum=2&mediaPref=RM)

Well, check this out: About a week ago a fake polling firm was calling people in NH and trying to pushpoll in favor of Dean, and against Wesley Clark.

One of the people called said the following:

In the next series of questions she said she was asked whether she thought candidate "A", which had the background similar to Gov. Howard Dean's, was best prepared for the presidency or candidate "B", who had a military and non-political background like Clark.

When she said she preferred candidate "B" she was then asked a series, she says, that asked her if she would still support General Clark (saying Clark by name and no longer using terms like candidate "B") more if she had known he had voted for Republicans or had his integrity questions by former General Hugh Shelton, Clark former commanding officer.

"The questions appeared to go from a regular poll that I usually take to getting slimy in tone," Mayer said in an interview. "At one point I said 'what are you doing', but she didn't say anything.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml

I would love to see the results of that push poll (if they were recording results) and compare them to what's in that NPR report. I wouldn't be surprised if the NPR report were an integral part of that campaign. In any event. I'm not surprised that that push poll sounded very familiar to yesterday's 'news'/propaganda about Clark.

It is absolutely disgusting that NPR is participating in this kind of crap (if they are...but it really looks like they are).

They're broadcasting a hard-hitting 1998 interview with the late Henny Youngman.

:)

I wonder who at NPR green-lights such blatant propaganda?

service record at about 5:15 Central last night.

They got in the Hugh Shelton remarks and also some remarks fro Hackworth. All-in-all it wasn't too damaging to Clark.

I think Clark's campaign is practicing sound politics here. They let the press get the story out and let his detractors have their shot so if it comes up again later in the campaign it will be old news.

I didn't hear the push-poll story.

Wow.

I think Clark knows he has detractors and decided to let the media do it's thing before the campaign really got serious. Better now than later.

NPR probably thought it was journalistly responsible for getting "all sides" of the Clark story. (wish they would do it more often with Bush*) Remember, Gen Shelton's comments have been out there for a long time. Clake knew it would become an issue so let 'em have at it. It's still over three months away from primaries.......

I'm not worried yet.

It made a feint towards providing both sides of the story, but it gave free reign to allowing a PNAC'er to spin out ALL THE SAME MANTRAS about Clark that the push poll seems to have been trying to implant in the minds of NH voters. Even the description in on the NPR sight is in the form of “people thing this about Clark, but people who know him say the opposite, and it ain't good.” That is NOT neutral.

I’m gonna insist that if you really want to defend this piece, you’re going to have to make a text-based argument. Cite your facts. State your case.

The biggest detractor of Clarks, was Lt Gen Funk (?). All the others had praise for Clark in one way or another. I was especially impressed with the retired Genreal who said that "Wes is the smartest man to wear the uniform in a long time".

Westerfield also mitigated negative comments, by pointing out that Clark "was not one of the bakcslapping boys" of the pentagon culture. He countered Funk's assertions about Clark's integrity by saying that Clark often tried to get around a "troublsome beauracy through European allies and NATO".

About the only thing that Westerfield didn't leave unchallenged was Funk's assertion that Clark as Commander-in-Chief worried him most of all.

Now, having said all that, I have to make another point here. Funk will continue to speak out against Clark under any circumstances. Gen Sheldon's remarks will be passed along again and again. The two enlisted men who said that Clark is not a "people person" and found him "cold" are going to be campaigning against Clark anyway. This is the reality. Clark has enemies. (btw, Dean and Edwards also have enemies) By releasing his military record now (hhhmmm did Dubya ever release his????????) Clark has intentionally drawn fire from his enemies. He now knows who they are and where they're coming from which is essential in combating them. All-in-all, I think Clark knew that somebody would look for people to counter his brilliant military record and force them to come out in the open now; before they can do more damage at a critical time in the campaign. Any criticism after this is OLD NEWS.

I didn't see the post on the NPR site but I'll certainly take your post as true. It's badly worded and meant to stir interest in the piece.

You don't see that? They make it sound like smart is a liability. Who'se that good for?

Don't you see the way this would go if Clark were nominated? Dems would say, "he's a Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in his class at West Point. What the hell is Bush."

And Rove would trot out this NPR tape and say, yeah, he's smart, but he was an ambitious general whom his (PNACers) colleagues hated and the soldiers didn't like (he did you see how Bush was such a buddy-buddy with the soldiers?).

That quote by Funk was the dramatic high point of the interview. It all built up to that. That was what you were supposed to take home with you.

Do you still think it wasn't a hit piece?

Why would lying stir more interest than telling the truth. Incidentally, that's not a "post" at the NPR site. It's the description of the piece. And, in fact, is a perfect summation of the story.

They set up Clark with praise for being smart and ambitious in the first 30 seconds and then the rest tears him down and turning those assets into liabilities.

The most humorous moment might be when someone says that he praised clark and then received a ton of letters from soldiers, half of which berated him for praising Clark.

Yeah, I wonder who wrote those letters. Col. Carracilla (sp?)?

and will allow that I am not the be-all-and-end-all of media wisdom and practice. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (and on my part without being disagreeable I hope)with our different views of how the story played. I've read a lot of your posts and respect your opinion.

What do you think of my other point? Do you think it was wise of the Clark campaign to get this out now? Do you think they did it strategically?

weeks. I think it's amazing that he's as hight in the polls without doing anything and without having an effective rapid response team.

I guess it's a reflection of the power of his persona when held up against Bush's.

So, I think they released it just to get a little pep and a little buzz about the guy.

I think the Republicans went after it because it has one part that is extremely powerful: Al Haig and Colin Powell praise Clark. Praise from those two guys packs a wallop which hurts Bush for reasons that go way behond the simple fact that those guys are Republicans. It also implies that those guys don't like "soldiers" like Bush.

The Republicans couldn't leave that out in the air for too long.

Also, back to my first paragraph in this post, just the BEING of Clark is a threat to Bush, so they definitely need to take him down. He bings a gravitas to the entire field. (Which is why Ma Bush had to come out of her cave and say that the whole field was a bunch of putzes -- they must have had polls that said that people were impressed by the field.)

So, I don't know anything really. But, if I had to guess, I'd say Clark needed some press, and this was the only thing they had coming off the assembly line until the next debate.

If it was Dean, I wouldn't be real happy, but IMO, it sounds Rovian.

After all, why get GWB's hands dirty when you can let the democrats kill each other by using a few dirty tricks.

becuase this seems to be coordinanted with NPR (ie, it's the same message coming at about the same time), and because I've listened to enough NPR to know that they try hard to help Bush, I'm going to guess Republicans did this.

I don't believe that they would stoop to that. Sounds republican to me.

Thank God for "A Prairie Home Companion", though.

There are some marvelous shows on NPR. I also have heard some hard-hitting shows against the Republican administration lately.

is blatently anti-Bush...
though they are PRI too

Bush.

I heard Joe Conason interviewed, and he commented on how NPR has dozens of show that present the interests of capital, and none that represent the interests of labor. He said that fact, alone, is a very subtle but powerful statement about where their interests are.

So, in that light, Marketplace may make a few jokes about Bush, but when you step back and realize that you're listening to a show that is treating the capital markets the way Access Holywood treats movies (ie, it's trying to incorporate you into the buying of its products, and into caring about the interests of people whose stories they tell, who are rarely anyone other than the people who want you to buy what they're silling)....well, it starts to look like something else.

again it is PRI but anyway...
it's not a few jokes. It's a very different show.... and while it's not strictly about Labor... it represents alot of peoples views. Hardly Access Hollywood.

http://www.marketplace.org/


Here's the website. Try to find anything about Labor. Also, for a second I wondered why Marketwatch would report on Cooter closing down the Dukes of Hazard Museum. Oh, yeah, he's a former Democratic Congressman. It's fun to report on the misery of Democrats.

Marketwatch used to be produced independently, solely by USC. MPR picked it up, and it hasn't been the same since. Look at the logos of the sponsors at the bottom of the page: Fannie Mae, Bank One and Deloitte and Touche. What do you think they're paying for?

Not Pro-Labor....
they never claimed to be "Pro-Labor" either.

pro-Bush

You know, come to think of it, I DID see him with her and I can't remember where. Just recently on TV. You better let Aaron MacGruder know-his whole set of strips this week were about finding Condi a man. Looks like she found one herself.

So much so that I don't even take you seriously anymore. It's like you have some kind of personal vendetta against them.

of criticism, no doubt.

Just because 85% of my passive news listening is coming from NPR, which mens 99% of my criticisms of the media are about NPR (have I complained about Pacifica yet?) doesn't mean that my criticisms are less accurate.

Can I guess that it isn't so much the way I read the connection, but that you just don't want to believe the implication of the story that makes you feel that it's neccessary for you to write that you don't take it seriously?

If you don't like my reading, provide another reading. Don't turn it into a personal issue. Anyway, if there's one thing that I'm not worried about at DU, it's my credibility.

Incidentally, which of my readings of NPR coverage do you think I got wrong? Or is it the volume of me getting it right that has turned you off?

When Eric Westerfield managed to repeat the same spew that came out of CNN seven times, nearly word for word, it was a hit job.

Thanks AP for connecting the dots. If your candidate needs letters written, just say the word.

Okay, here's something crazy. Although we know that the cadre of bulletnecks who trashed Clark yesterday, have clear ties to the junta, while Clark has exposed PNAC by name, we still find "Clark is a neo-con" crap but a few threads away on DU. Now how much sense does that make?

It's an example of the way the media has a grip on the way people think.

I'm not a Clark supporter, but I definitely see the machination of the media as a clear manifestation of the fact that he MUST be doing extremely well in the head-to-heads and in focus group sessions vs Bush. He's the one they're trying to destroy right now, and the media whores are really letting their cover slip here (same way they did with Arnold, but they got what they wanted there) if you're keeping your eyes open.

he loses my support. Period.

with the NPR story, and, like I said, I don't think Dean controls NPR.

However, if Dean were doing this, the implication about his campaign would be negative.

If Rove is doing this, the implications about Dean's electability are negative.

on the pushpolls about what happens if the pollee responds the opposite way (favoring Dean?) I ask this - because I suspect that it isn't pro-Dean but perhaps anti leading democratic candidates. It is not implausable in the day of Rove to think about a dual negative pushpoll - where the negative questions are asked - regardless of which of two candidates are selected as 'favored'.

Why?

Depress turnout. Get democrats so depressed regardless of who they are leaning for that they just don't go to the polls.

Imagine the fun of the press yelling: Only 23% of registered democrats even bothered voting in the BIG New Hampshire primaries....

Not saying this is the case... but we have to begin anticipating multiple angles of GOP dirty tricks - in order for campaigns to be able to quickly respond.

Remember after SC - the McCain campaign was better poised to anticipate very ugly pushpolling - and gain some leverage in the Michigan primaries.

here.

I think, even on the little information here, it seems that they're trying to help Dean and hurt Clark.

help Dean?

Do we know how the pushpoll goes if the pollee answers in favor of Dean?

I suspect that it is followed by the same negative pushpolling either way (that is - answer clark... get smear clark questions; answer dean... get smear dean questions). The point in that case would be to depress overall democrat turnout (not just for one candidate).

If that were the case... and the smear was bilateral (going against Dean and Clark)... and the result was most democrats (regardless of who they support) just giving up and not voting...

How would that support Dean?

Either I am missing part of your logic (why low vote turnout helps dean);

or you are missing part of my scenario (if the pushpoll were designed to smear both candidates - so if the person in the story had favored Dean.. they would have gotten leading/smearing Dean questions).

becaue the fewer the number of people who participate, the more influence the true-helievers have. That's how Jospin lost in france, and it's the way the Democrats lost to the fundies in 94.

With Jospin, it wasn't Chirac's true believers who pushed him out, it was the neo-Nazis. That election was sold as business as usual boring with ten monts to go. I remember reading stories wondering why the hell they were telling me this one was going to be a sleaper at a point when nobody was paying attention anyways. (I.e., it was like if a ran a poll asking people who they want for president in 2008, and the response was 99% undecided and then I ran a story in the news saying nobody cares about politics. 99% don't care. And kept ramming it home).

So, even though way more Frech like socialists than like Nazis, the party with the most organized base won.

Who has the most organized base today?

Anyway, obviously, we don't know which way the push poll was going for Dean supporters. But, the fact that the people (person?) who perceived it as a push poll was a Clark supporters tells me which way I'd bet my money. (We know that more people answered that question by saying Dean -- he came in first in the poll -- but none of those people reported the push poll.)

anticipate some of the multilevel (and hard to anticipate) crap that the rw has increasingly started to play. Hence my question about what the responses were likely to be for Dean. You could be right.

But back to your reasoning - which makes sense, lower turnout gives more sway to the die hards who are more likely to turn out.

Generally - due to proximity - I would grant that advantage to Dean. However Kerry is also from the region and also highly regarded. Why does the advantage go to Dean?

Btw, I am not trying to be picky, just seldom that there are analysis of strategies (from either sides) and how they play out - that are not tinged with what I would consider tinfoil silliness. It is interesting to do so - even if we do not always see things from the same perspective.

he cultivates that he's a populist, and the student and internet support.

Mostly the interent stuff. That's like having your own television station. They've channeled so much of the discourse about him to the website, they have people doint rapid response. It puts them in total control of their message, the way black churches and radio stations do in the south. So, no matter what people say on Clear Channel or on cable news, they'll be able to GOTV on the internet (and at the meetups).

As the media becomes more whorish, this other stuff gets more important.

Just look how Clark is having to fend off the media representation of him.

of the Dean Campaign. Am not sure that initially it was intentional - or a wise capturing of the whole Meetup thing - and then tapping into it (not to mention getting an initial boost from the peace folks -but at least locally that block is a bit more disparate in terms of favorite candidates).

Initially it appeared that the Clark campaign recognized the potential of internet organizing - and might attempt to harness it as well. I think their move away from that direction will harm them.

Frankly I have been surprised that several of the other candidates that started with decent name recognition and some $ didn't quickly see that the Dean folks were - due to necessity (who ever heard of him, afterall...) - changing the face of campaign strategy to a leaner, more decentralized campaign - that was cheaper, a little less controllable, but offered more ability to touch more places at once. I had hoped that more would begin to change strategies and tap into this type of campaigning. Perhaps - it can stil happen. I do think that for someone else to win the primary - they will have to begin to compete on this front. And I believe that in doing so - they will build that campaigns capacity to compete with Bush. We will be so out spent - regardless of who the candidate - that if we don't employ alternative strategies (and ones that the GOP can not always anticipate) - I don't know that any candidate given the money and media advantage can compete.

I am also growing more and more concerned about the brutal rifts forming between campaigns - and am hoping they are more apparent here than in the general public. If we can not mobilize active people for months before the campaign.... we aren't going to be able to compete. With little media access - it will take door to door, person to person conversations - in short - a 'direct campaign'. All this bitterness and "I will just vote and hold my nose" talk makes me think that folks feeding into the feuding are feeding into depressed dem activism in the general election.

Btw, never thought of the aspect you raised - in terms of rapid response through the internet. The reach may be limited (to those hooked into the same internet networks) - but it can be fast and provide some countervelance to the media storm.

I sent mine two months ago. I will contribute directly to Democracy Now, Diane Rehm Show and other Pacifica outlets...but NPR is off the list. I guess the investment made by the RWing will pay off for them.

Push-polling is another great example of something that needs to be whacked...something that needs to sleep with the fishes.

The only problem is that when you ask or demand reform of this magnitude, you are asking the foxes to quit eating the chickens. What ends up occuring, for example in the campaign finance reform legislation, is that the foxes merely eat fewer chickens than they once did instead of stopping.

Part of the reason why reform is so tough is that it's not the campaigns that conduct push polling; it's the goddamned third party groups, the same people who pull 80% of the nefarious shit that has poisoned our political system.

I seriously do not believe that the First Amendment should extend to these groups' collective right to air whatever kinds of advertisements they want on TV or radio or the internet when it regards other political candidates.

Though I still believe it will be tough
for Clark to win the nomination, I think the
Republicans are particularly afraid of him for
two reasons: 1.) He elevates the stature of the
whole Democratic field (because now we have a true
military "best and brightest" hero on our side
2.) electoral magic if Clark wins the nomination.

I think that Clark has
the best chance of beating Bush. I think they
feel they have to take Clark out now when he has
no money, no organization, no "war room" or
rapid response team, and when his popularity is tenuous.

The push polling was probably done by Bush supporters.
I highly doubt it was done by Dean or his backers.
All the candidates take pot shots at each other but I
think they have too much class to do the push poll thing.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect Rove and co. are
trying to divide and conquer us.

I appreciate AP's coverage on this. Kudos. The Clark
supporters at our official Blog have been pretty upset
for the exact issues AP raises. It feels like there is
someone out to get Clark with elements of NPR, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC
colluding in it. It's weird though, because I have
always thought NPR was kinda liberal or whatever but
who knows, maybe they are just trying to be "balanced".
But I think the Shelton and Cohen remarks are so off
the mark and unsubstantiated it seems irresponsible to
repeat them over and over and over and over and over.

It's kind of like finding some of Dean's patients or
doctor colleagues who did not like him and keep repeating
their ad hominem attacks. It's character assassination
and the politics of personal destruction. I wouldn't
want that for Dean or any of the candidates.

But politics of personal destruction is the Right Wing
staple, it is their specialty. UGH! I don't know what
to do, but as a Clark supporter I feel constantly besieged
by people reporting the same half dozen ad hominem attacks
over and over and over and over. It's frustrating.

Anyway, I am glad we can all be as supportive as possible
of our Democrats. We need to elect the best person for
the job as well as someone who is most assured to beat
Bush.

him and then repeating their un-challenged criticisms over and over, it's like finding patients who have a direct financial interest in Dean losing, and then not even explaining to the public why these people would have a bias.

I would guess that most DU'ers know that, within the Pentagon, there are PNACers and therer may be a few liberal internationalists, and there are also conservative isolationsists too. So, when we hear Shelton's name, we take his comments with a grain of salt.

However, most Americans must think of the Pentagon as a monolith and that if ANYONE doesn't like Clark, it's a brave person willing to speak the truth to power, and they must be very credible.

I think that's the most insidious part of this report.

that the culprit is rarely found. Can't folks track the call numbers and figure it out that way? At least get back to the polling company? There has GOT to be something to do about this tactic.

company was contracting (if it was a subcontractor). Some companies do all their work for one party, but it would still be hard to get them to divulge the identity of the people for whom they work.

through disclosure. And if not - pushpolling as a campaign strategy needs to be addressed IF we ever get more campaign reform. At the least there needs to be disclosure. Folks have free speech - but not necessarily free slanderous/protected from disclosure of who is making it - speech.

I'm not proud of it, but I've written push questions (not nearly as smarmy as the ones described by AP, though) and the first thing you do is enter into a confidentiality agreement w/ the firm you hire to conduct the poll.

Someone would have to leak from the inside like they did w/ chimpy's push poll in the SC primary.

or someone like that.

I think it's also time to give up resistance to the obvious fact that the media and Rove want Dean to win the primary and it's time to start dealing with it.

I wouldn't normally post an entire letter; however, if anyone feels like writing, most of it's here:

To NPR ombudsman:

Last night, 10/16/03, Eric Westerveld of NPR reported on the career of General Wesley Clark, and the release of his military records. This report was disturbing for several reasons.

First, Mr. Westerveld discounted the entire record, which included glowing recommendations from Colin Powell and others, and instead focused on negative statements from a variety of former military brass who clearly have a bias toward the Bush Administration. If Mr. Westerveld had researched this story, he would have been aware of the dubious nature of the accounts of these individuals who would seem to have a conflict of interests.

Links:

Dennis Reimer:
Director Mutual of America Life Insurance Company
Director Plato Learning
Director Microvision
Director DRS Technologies DRS on NYSE - defense electronics

PARSIPPANY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 10, 2003--DRS Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: DRS - News) announced today that it has been awarded an
initial order on a potential multi-year contract, expected to exceed $20 million in value over the next four years.

DRS Press Release: DRS secured a first quarter record amount of new orders for products and services at $193.4 million, reflecting an increase of 39% over the $139.2 million in bookings for the comparable prior-year period. Funded backlog reached the highest level in the Company's history, at approximately $893.9 million at June 30, 2003, reflecting a 46% gain above backlog at the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2003.

Hugh Shelton:
Director, Red Hat - software, the Linux OS

NEW YORK - Three weeks ago, John P. Stenbit, chief information officer of the U.S. Department of Defense, issued an agencywide memo that has Linux lovers rejoicing. The brief outlined the DOD's policy on acquiring, using and developing open-source software,including the Linux operating system.

Director, Anteon Corporation International - IT to defense department

Anteon Awarded $10M BPA to Support Naval Air Systems Command

FAIRFAX, Va., Oct 8, 2003 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Anteon International Corporation (NYSE:ANT), a leading information technology and systems engineering and integration company, announced today that it has been awarded a five-year Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to provide cost estimating and analysis services to the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). The estimated value of the BPA, if all options are exercised, is $10 million.

From GOP.gov
http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/bills/107/1/bill.asp?bill=hconres_shelton

And when he received the Eisenhower Award from Business Executives for National Security, who came to dinner?

DepSecDef to Speak at BENS Award Dinner
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz will make remarks during the 2001 Business Executives for National Security Eisenhower Award Dinner
Thursday, May 3, 2001, 8:30 p.m. EDT, the Corcoran Ballroom, Four Seasons Hotel, Washington, D.C.

The award dinner will honor Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Interested media should contact Michael Doubleday, vice president of communications, BENS, (202) 296-2125.

Marc Cisneros:

President, Texas A&M Kingswood
Member Defense Policy Board
(with Wolfowitz, Perle, Gingrich)

In 1997, then Gov. George Bush appointed him to the state Jail Standards Commission. In 1998, he was elected president of Texas A&M University, where he also serves on the advisory council for the Bush School of Government and Public Policy. He has given speeches at the Bush Library. In the runup to the 2000 election, Cisneros facilitated a speech from former President Bush to Texas A&M students, in which Bush said "It hurts far more to hear my boy criticized than it does when I'm criticized."


Second, in any balanced and well research piece of journalism, the reporter would have also easily learned of prior statements that clearly conflict with what they are saying now that General Clark is opposing Mr. Bush. I have provided the citings for a variety of statements that would seem to raise doubts about the sincerity of the Mr. Westerveld’s sources:

Links:

http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2000/s20000502-secdef.html

To help preserve that freedom at the end of the century, America turned to the leader that we honor today. In General Wes Clark, America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman: a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time; a soldier of unquestioned courage – a Bronze and Silver Star hero – who, despite grievous wounds, inspired his unit to survival in the jungles of Vietnam, and as soldier of insight who returned home to train those who prevailed in Desert Storm. He is a statesman, whose influence has been felt from the Americas, where he helped to guide the fight against drug barons, to Dayton, where his counsel helped end the bloodletting of Bosnia.

Now, it has been said that, "without passion, man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark." Future historians will recount how the passionate leadership of Wes Clark and the dedicated men and women of this command combined to spark new possibilities across this continent, forging new bonds in a great Partnership for Peace and serving alongside soldiers from some 38 nations to bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo. (William Cohen)
______________________________________________

http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html

"Your ability to carry out the multitude of day-to-day activities, along with major operations, proves once again that you are equal to any task," the chairman said. "You are responsible for a very vital and dynamic area of the world. … You have never let us down, and I know that you never will." (General Shelton)

Finally, what is most disturbing about NPR’s sanctioning this story and Westerveld’s repeating it, nearly verbatim a clearly negative piece regarding General Clark’s service to this country that ran seven separate times on CNN, is how curiously it dovetails a push poll recently conducted in New Hampshire:

About a week ago a fake polling firm was calling people in NH and trying to pushpoll in favor of Dean, and against Wesley Clark.
One of the people called said the following:

In the next series of questions she said she was asked whether she thought candidate "A", which had the background similar to Gov. Howard Dean's, was best prepared for the presidency or candidate "B", who had a military and non-political background like Clark.
When she said she preferred candidate "B" she was then asked a series, she says, that asked her if she would still support General Clark (saying Clark by name and no longer using terms like candidate "B") more if she had known he had voted for Republicans or had his integrity questions by former General Hugh Shelton, Clark former commanding officer.
"The questions appeared to go from a regular poll that I usually take to getting slimy in tone," Mayer said in an interview. "At one point I said 'what are you doing', but she didn't say anything.
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml

It would seem the Mr. Westerveld has some explaining to do.

By producing a report that left out the evidence of General Clark’s documented record, while pushing “talking points” being advanced by people contradicting themselves, while advancing their personal agendas, Mr. Westerveld has exhibited an agenda of his own. Why else would someone relying on his credentials as a reporter, fail so miserably at the task of investigating a sensitive issue. One that would be heard by people who might be considering voting for General Clark. Fortunately for our country, Clark took his duty far more seriously, and performed it far more honorably.

Therefore, since it is “pledge break” around my area, I will be voting on Mr. Westerveld, and NPR’s credibility with my pocketbook by keeping it closed. I am truly sorry to see a news service I once held in high esteem fall to the likes of J. Berry.

Sincerely,

to tell them that they will NOT be donating money, thanks to reporting like Westerveld's.

Call when it's busy, when they need the lines.

The regime intends to run a who campaign based on CIC, and are you scared yet. Second, if the Dems break into the South and military vote, the GOP party is over. And not just for 2004.

My interest in Clark as a candidate always rested on his policies and stance on the issue first. One of the issues boards has him as far left as Sharpton.

But the opportunity to bust the GOP wide open and send them scurrying back to their holes, is a close second. Clark Republicans is a sweet sound.

Finally, we need to break the dangerous lock the GOP has on the military. It will end all hope of a progressive and democratic America for the future.

Karl Rove knows this, repub pollsters know this, and believe it or not, Clark and many Dems know this.

Having to put up with shit on this board, and from the right, is a bitch. And no, I won't get used to it, just like I won't get over it.

Precismo.

-

What threatens us today is fear. Not the atom bomb, nor even fear of it because if the bomb fell on Oxford tonight, all it could do would be to kill us which is nothing, since in doing that it will have robbed itself of its only power over us. Our danger is the forces in the world today which are trying to use man's fear to rob him of his individuality, his soul, trying to reduce him to an unthinking mass of fear and bribery.

--William Faulkner, commencement speech at his daughter's high-school graduation, 1951

eom

I feel like I've lost all respect for you after reading the title of your thread. NPR does not shill for Republlicans. National PUBLIC Radio. NPR and CBS are most fair in their coverage, imo.

If you don't think NPR has a bias, just stick around.

By the way, did you listen to this segment before you posted?

I'm willing to talk about it. Maybe we can compare it to Greta and Shepard Smith's reporting, eh?

was VERY fair, AP. If you want to see BIAS, you can turn on Tweety, where your boy Edwards got smacked around.

Your candidate is on tv and you don't watch. If it's because you don't get cable, that's fine. But if you do get it, and don't watch it, that is just lame.

I canceled the cable.

I just don't think that NPR is skewed right. They're pretty fair... and balanced... ;-)

"The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. We are the embodiment of the Enlightenment. If we're true to those principles, then it's a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and force where needed." - Wesley Clark

At anytime? If true...no wonder he is popular with Repukes and fellow travellers

Not flaming or causing one...but just curious?