Since I don't actually read Media Matters myself (a reader had notified me of that post) I confess to having no idea one way or the other. Until Tim Graham who, sadly, has to follow such things for a living tells me otherwise, I'll remain agnostic. Anyway, from a reader:

Your reader (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_10_24_corner-archive.asp#044018) is completely distorted on whether Media Matters covers just "conservative" outlets.

There are items on The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc posted
regularly. As I write this there are items about CNN, NBC, WaPo right
on the MMFA home page. Perhaps next time your reader will take the
time to read, instead of just firing off letters misinformed.

Dear Mr. May, Eight Marines dead in a day, and the Bush camp is happy - happy - to see Osama in a video? "A little gift" is what the Bush campaign folks are saying. What the heck is going on with the GOP, when the taunts of a terrorist butcher - one that Bush has so far failed to kill - are seen as good for Bush's chances? Hope all's well in GOP-land, because it sure looks odd from the outside. Take care, [Name withheld]

Grassroots Statistic of the Day- Number of phone calls made to Ohio voters by Bush-Cheney ’04 Ohio Volunteers on October 29, 2004: 266,876

OHIO BUSH-CHENEY ’04 GRASSROOTS UPDATE: As of October 30, 2004, the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign reports the following grassroots statistics in Ohio:

· 85,612 Recruited Bush Volunteers
· 2,406,788 Volunteer Phone Calls to Ohioans in support of President Bush
· 349,032 Doors have been knocked on to support President Bush
· 3,254 Total Parties for the President have been hosted
· 2,755,820 TOTAL Volunteer contacts to date

OHIO BUSH-CHENEY ’04 CAMPAIGN GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP
· 9 Bush-Cheney ’04 Ohio Regional Chairs
· 114 Bush-Cheney ’04 Ohio County Chairs
· 12,132 Bush-Cheney ’04 Ohio Precincts Chaired

In the years since the establishment of a Scottish parliament, developments in that country have filled me with more than customary gloom (I’m half Scottish), but if you want a break from election fever over here read – and relish - the comments of “Cartesian rationalist”, chemist and farmer, Jock Stewart:

"Organic farming had, he told a conference, resulted in "weed infested middens" of farms and fields saturated with copper sulphate - poisonous, but the only control allowed against potato blight under organic rules.”

Weed infested middens!

The great man concluded as follows: "I have been fighting this fight for the last ten years and there are times when I despair. The creeping miasma of green drivel is everywhere."

A wee dram (or three) of Laphroaig on me next time you are in New York, Mr. Stewart.

With an editorial stance has for a while been devoted to junk statistics and thuggery, the Lancet has long since ceased to be a publication that needs to be taken seriously. Numerous writers have successfully attacked the statistical bases of a Lancet article (obviously fast-tracked in an attempt to influence the US election) claiming that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died in Iraq as a result of the invasion and subsequent fighting, and shown them to be nonsense.

Time, I think, for the editor to do the honorable thing, follow Dan Rather’s example, and resign.

Oh, Dan didn’t?

The body of a Japanese hostage is discovered in Iraq:

“Public broadcaster NHK, quoting government sources, said the body had two gunshot wounds to the back of the head. Kyodo News agency reported bruises and other signs of severe beating and torture.”

Josh Marshall posts the responses from both Bush and Kerry and asks "Which of these two statements sounds like it comes from the stronger leader?"

This strikes me as almost deliberately lame. To the extent Kerry sounds "stronger" Marshall knows full well that he needs to sound stronger because the widespread perception is that Kerry is weaker. Kerry has had to talk tough precisely because he needs to compensate for the fact he's perceived as the weaker leader.

I cannot imagine Marshall would ever credit this sort of argument if made in Bush's favor. For example, if I put a Kerry and Bush quote side-by-side and asked "Which of these sounds like it comes from the more compassionate leader?" he would unload nothing but ridicule.

Good point from a reader:

Jonah,

Big fan. Never miss anything you write. I'm sure this is all obvious, so you can delete it if you can't stand the rant...

Speaking of Media Matters for America (MMFA) (to which you referred in your
Corner post tonight), they seem to offer themselves as the left-wing version of the Media Research Center (MRC) in some pathetic attempt at balance. But the simple fact that they ripped you (unfairly) for your syndicated column undermines their facade. MRC focuses its critical eye on the MSM, and generally leaves alone those who make their left/right leanings known to the world. They leave alone people like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Alan Colmes, etc., because they don't hide their biases.

But who does MMFA attack? You, Rush, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson...oh and
Fox, for good measure. But the pundits they malign announce their
conservatism. Where is the MMFA on NBC, ABC, CBS, the NYT, WaPO, etc.?
Nowhere, of course, because they don't have any complaints there. Only the
right is biased.

Cronkite: "I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

W. will be at rallies in: Grand Rapids, MI, Ashwaubenon, WI, Minneapolis, MN, and Orlando, FL, on Saturday, and Miami, FL, Tampa, FL, Gainesville, FL, and Cincinnati, OH, on Sunday.

Cheney will be in Nazareth, PA, Zanesville, OH, and Davenport, IA. On Sunday he will attend rallies in Toledo, OH, Romulus, MI, and Los Lunas, NM, as well as attending the 72-Hour Kickoff for Webster County GOP Headquarters in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

John Kerry on Saturday will be in Appleton, WI, will be joined for a rally in Des Moines by Ashton Kutcher and Jon Bon Jovi, and will attend a rally in Warren, OH. On Sunday he will be at a church in Dayton, OH, a firefighters' chili feed in Manchester, NH, and a rally in Tampa, FL, before taping ESPN's "Sunday Conversation" (W. will be on the show too, separately).

On Saturday Edwards will attend rallies in Bangor, ME, and Daytona Beach, FL. On Sunday he will be at a church in Jacksonville, FL, and rallies in Greensburg, PA, and Columbus, OH.

They whine that I took Kerry's quote about not being changed by 9/11 out of context. This is Brockian b.s. -- if that's not redundant. Read their write-up yourself. They seem to think the full quote exonerates Kerry. I don't think it does. Honestly I don't see it. In fact, I think it makes Kerry look like an enormous arrogant liar with bad judgement because he did next to nothing before 9/11 to make it remotely less likely, he said nothing of import about terrorism, warned against al Qaeda almost not at all, and defended Clinton's policies toward Bin Laden. Indeed, as a testament to my honesty about this I offer my Goldberg File from Monday in which I in fact quoted Kerry in the full context they demand of my syndicated column.

For the record, the only reason I didn't quote Kerry in full was that I didn't have room in my syndicated column, which has a very strict word count. Indeed, before I used the full quote in the Goldberg File, it was posted in the Corner and discussed at length by several of us. No one here at NRO, as far as I know, thinks the full context is remote exculpatory and the partisans at Media Matters don't make any expert to argue how it would or could be.

A reader makes an excellent point:

Quite right. And now, perhaps, Reuters will stop referring to Al Qaeda as the group the Bush administration "claims" is responsible for 9/11. But I won't hold my breath.

The story broke as WISN 12 News anchor Kathy Mykleby was waiting for a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kerry, who was in Florida.

"I find myself in the unexpected position of giving you breaking news at this moment because I don't know if you're aware of the Al-Jazeera tape that has just aired with Osama bin Laden admitting to the 9-11 attacks for the first time. What is your reaction?" Mykleby asked.

"My reaction is that all of us in this country are completely united. Democrat, Republican, there's no such thing. There's just Americans, and we are united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted behind that raid. We always knew it was Osama bin Laden," Kerry said.

"What do you think impact this videotape might have on our election?" Mykleby asked.

"I don't think any -- I think Americans understand we are living in a dangerous age. I am in a position to wage a better war on terror than George Bush," Kerry answered.

Sullivan also writes, "Kerry on Abortion: A closet centrist? Steve Waldman thinks so." Hold on to that question mark, Andrew.

Waldman's article is about Kerry's support for Tom Daschle's alternative to the partial-birth abortion ban: a ban on post-viability abortions except when they would threaten the mother's health. (Now would be a good time to mention that the last time I wrote about this bill, I got it slightly wrong: Here's a critique of what I wrote then; the third paragraph of that critique is right, although I don't accept the rest of it.)

Here are a few problems with the bill and the idea that it makes Kerry an abortion centrist:

1) It only applies before "viability," thus leaving most partial-birth abortions untouched.

2) Under the bill, post-viability abortions would be allowed if "the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health." The words "grievous" and "physical health" make this sound like a tight restriction. It's not, because there are no adverbs attached to "threaten" and "risk": Any degree of risk nullifies the law, and an abortionist will always be able to say that there's some risk. Dr. Warren Hern, a major practitioner of partial-birth abortion, said at the time, "I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health." Waldman doesn't address this point: He thinks the pro-life objection to the bill is that abortionists will stretch the definition of "grievous injury." They wouldn't have to do that, because, again, any risk opens the loophole.

3) Kerry has also voted for other substitutes to the partial-birth ban--including ones that created an exception for mental health, which almost everyone understands would make a ban unenforceable.

4) But let's say the law had teeth, and would ban some abortions. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence, which Kerry supports so strongly that he pledges to appoint no justices who will go back on it, pretty clearly means that the law would have to go. Declaring your support for laws and then declaring that you'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will invalidate them doesn't strike me as centrist. It's more like trying to have it both ways.

I have to confess, out of intellectual honesty or pessimism or whatever, I was quietly still pondering the possibility that Osama intended this tape to help Bush. I didn't think it was true, but I was still giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Then I read the rough and dirty transcript on Drudge. You people are high. This is not a man who understands America. Sorry.

I thought people were joking a bit about the Michael Moore similarities. But:

OBL: We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

Let me put my belated two cents in on Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry (I found the Galt link at his site). I am not persuaded by the argument that the responsibility of governing would force Kerry and his party to be aggressive and smart in fighting terrorism, for the reasons that other commentators have mentioned; and I think the "hawkish case for Kerry" in general depends on ignoring not only his record and his base but some of his comments from this year. (I think Kerry's occasional remarks during this campaign about not having changed on 9/11 and our needing to go back to the status quo ante were revealing, and alarming.) At the same time, the underlying impulse to get the Democrats to "buy in" to the war is right. But I think that the better way to do that may be to defeat them in 2004, in the hope that they nominate someone more hawkish in 2008.

Second: A number of critics have raised the question whether Sullivan is being a "one-issue voter," who is letting his strong opposition to the FMA determine his positions on other issues. He denies it. Perhaps the same-sex marriage debate has colored his view of Bush and Kerry: Can any of us really say with 100 percent confidence why we believe all the things we do? To be Breyer-like for a moment: I can't say with 100 percent confidence that I wouldn't cut Kerry more slack in other areas if he were pro-life. I'd like to think it wouldn't affect my judgment about his foreign policy, but who knows? All we can do is try to make sure that our arguments are sound.

One more thing: People are a little too dismissive of "single issue voters." I'm not such a voter myself. But if you believe that same-sex marriage is a matter of fundamental human rights and that the denial thereof is discrimination, you pretty much have to believe that the FMA would write discrimination into the Constitution and perhaps even that it's an assault on the human dignity of gay people. And if you believe those things, is it so terrible to give the issue a lot of weight in making a decision about the election? If a candidate were running on a platform of banning interracial marriage--which Sullivan considers an analogous issue--we wouldn't scoff at someone who said, "I'm voting against this guy, and I don't care what he has to say about taxes or missile defense." Not to say that Sullivan is right in all these things, just that the single-issue accusation doesn't strike me as all that damning. If anything, Sullivan may be too defensive about it.

Folks - I don't mean this to be a "Is it good for the Jews" moment. But, the Osama tape is good for the Jews.

I know that 99.98% of the people who read the Corner -- liberals, leftists and conservatives alike -- understand that "the Jews" or Israel had nothing to do with 9/11. But that doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of millions of people around the world who think otherwise including, alas, more than a few Americans. I hear from them quite often.

Osama Bin Laden confessed (again) today on that tape. It's not talking point number one. But it's worth noting.

I wasn't sure what to make of Rick Weiss's report in the Washington Post about a new study calling Bush's stem-cell policy into question. "All of the human embryonic stem cells available to federally funded scientists under President Bush's three-year-old research policy share a previously unrecognized trait that fosters rejection by the immune systems, diminishing their potential as medical treatments, new research indicates," writes Weiss.

I asked a close observer of the debate, who supports the president's policy, what he made of it.

His response: "It's very hard to say, since the study has not been published, and the results have quickly been rushed out before the election. The article didn't give us enough to go on, and no one has seen the study itself.

"A few points, though, about what the article did say. It said: 'The first study, led by Fred Gage of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and Ajit Varki of the University of California at San Diego, focused on a peculiar aspect of the federally approved cell lines: Unlike colonies being derived using newer techniques, all the Bush-approved colonies were initially cultivated in laboratory dishes that also contained mouse cells.'

"This is not correct. Sixteen lines approved for funding under the president's policy were not developed with mouse feeder cells. They have not been developed past the earliest stages at all, but have been frozen, awaiting the development of a reliable technique that does not rely on mouse cells. Moreover, the vast majority of ESC lines developed after the August 9th cutoff have also been developed with mouse feeder cells (including the recently publicized Harvard cells, and most others) and so are subject to the same findings, if the study in question is correct. As the article does note, the FDA has in the past approved cell products (not stem cell products, but others) that have been developed with mouse feeder cells, and these have been used successfully, so it's not clear to me what the study is suggesting, but again, I haven't seen the study.

"The second study, as the article itself put it, is still ongoing. This is clearly just a rush to publicize before the election--not exactly standard scientific practice. Hard to judge, therefore, but what little details are offered here don't, in themselves, quite add up."

She hadn't heard about the Osama video until just now. I told her about it fairly neutrally because I wanted her honest reaction (the Fair Jessica's political resume is long and superb). So after I told her about it, her first informational follow-up question was: "Are you sure it wasn't Ed Gillespie in a beard?"

Needless to say, she doesn't buy the pro-Kerry Osama's reverse psychology spin.

If Bin Laden's aim is to get Bush elected, that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong to vote for Bush.

I truly don't mean this in the partisan way it sounds. It's just that, going back to 9/11, one of my biggest peeves has been the argument that doing This or That is "exactly what Bin Laden wants us to do." Opponents of the war in Afghanistan said it. Opponents of bombing during Ramadan said it. Etc.

It is possible, you know, for Osama Bin Laden to be wrong about what would be good for his cause. If he wanted a war in Afghanistan he was stupid because he got one and he lost it and now women are voting there and the one-eyed cleric is is twirling his propellor beanie in a dank cave. It is a strange glitch in human logic to always assume that the laws of unintended consequences only apply to your side and not to your enemies. History is full of losers who got exactly what they wanted.

K-Lo

I don't know that Bin Laden sees this helping one candidate or the other. He may see it as something of a win-win.

If Kerry wins, he sees the American people submitting to his desires. If Bush wins, it's another opportunity to recruit people and drum up support among the jihadists.

One of my more enduring lefty email critics, but an altogether decent guy, writes me to say that NRO is "taking the bait." And that in reality Osama is taunting the American people because he knows that will get a rise out of us and, thus, Osama really wants Bush to win (as John Hillen mentions below).

I think this is an interesting interpretation and since this guy is something of a canary in the coalmine for lefty arguments, it's worth considering or at least anticipating.

First, I don't buy it. The one thing we've known about Osama for a very long time is that he doesn't understand American politics. He honestly thought -- as far as we can tell -- that America would fold from the 9/11 attacks. He constantly talked about our glass chin and how we were the weaker superpower viz a viz the Soviet Union. The constant refusal of American to treat terrorism as anything other than the "nuisance" John Kerry preferred is what emboldened those guys further (that, alas, includes Reagan's decision to bug out of Beirut).

The tragically regular successes terrorists have enjoyed in recent years when it comes to changing Western policy are probably what he has in mind. The tragic decision of Spain to elect an antiwar party and withdraw from Iraq being the biggest and best example. But the kidnappings which chased the Phillipines out of the coalition, the bribes paid by countless coalition partners, etc all have probably reinforced Osama's views. I find it hard to believe that Osama's goal here is throw the election to the guy he considers a deranged Christian crusader. What Osama needs now is not a reinvigorated, ratified war on terror from Bush and Cheney, what he needs is a time out to reinforce, regroup etc. It might be unfair to Kerry (though I doubt it), but he almost surely thinks he gets a time out from Kerry not from Bush.

Moreover, if what we hear is true, Osama's been in a cave somewhere which would incline him toward, literally, a bunker mentality.

He may be a great military guy, but with all due respect, he has a tin political ear.Fox's new poll has a category"who will protect my family"--Bush crushes Kerry on that. Now Osama reappears and reminds everyone to thank God that W is at the helm.No way does this help Kerry.

Plus, Americans don't like stinkin' terrorists trying to influence our elections.

Finally, heck with the impact on the election--this reminds us that we've still got work to do.And it just so happens Bush is the best guy to do it.

I just got back from CNN and I haven't seen the interview and only a few items from the transcript. Still this kind of reminds me of the old joke from SNL News which went something like this "And today 'Siskel and Ebert" officially changed its name to 'The fat guy and the other one.'"

No matter how you slice this, George W. Bush is the man Osama's worried about and Kerry's "the other one."

I know it's not like Osama endorsed Kerry, but short of saying "You, the one who agrees with me about so much, you say you will 'destroy us'; well, we laugh at your summits!"

I don't think it's obvious the tape will play this way politically, but I see nothing wrong with the Bush campaign trying to make that happen.

Again: no matter how you slice it or how unfair it might be to Kerry, a vote against Bush will be seen as a repudiation of everything Bush stands for around the world. That's why the PLO has basically endorsed Kerry. That's why the Guardian is desperate that Kerry win. That's why El Baradai and his friends at the New York Times want Kerry to win. That's why Michael Moore is such a loyal Democrat all of a sudden.

And that's why al Qaeda wants Bush to lose.

This doesn't automatically mean by any stretch of the imagination that Kerry voters are pro-al Qaeda, anti-American, wimps or any of the rest. It does mean, in my humble opinion, that they're wrong.

... I dunno if it's Kerry's nightmare, K-Lo, or the Prez's. If authenticated, it lends (false to me, but I already voted anyway) credence to the line of attack that Iraq was a diversion, and the Tora Bora was the President's personal failure.

I think it's a net negative for the President.

For what It’s worth, I find this one of the President’s most compelling ads. To me it summarizes his Presidency in a very poignant and memorable way. It explains his rationale for the war in Iraq, his willingness to make the tough decisions to protect the country, his belief in the American people and his gratitude to the men and women in the armed forces for their sacrifices on behalf of us all. The ad shows how deeply he cares about those that have been killed and injured, as well as their families. You see his face as he holds back the tears the depths of his feelings and you feel his genuine emotions. He goes on to tell us, that as painful as some decisions are, he is willing, well, to do wherever it takes to win the war on terror. I cried during that part of the President’s speech while watching the convention and I cry every time I see the ad. This may sound corny but, it reminds me of why I love George W. Bush and why I’m proud to say he is my President. Finally it’s a stark contrast to Kerry.