Sinclair Networks to Air More Anti-Kerry Films

any independent probes have begun to look into the practices of national network affiliates owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group after the company pledged to air the anti-John Kerry film Stolen Honor on all its networks. Some research has uncovered a history of support for the GOP, a concentrated agenda against the Democratic party, and also revealed proposed plans to air more films and programs designed to denigrate presidential candidate John Kerry and give George W. Bush the advantage in their political match-up.

Sinclair, who also earned Democrats' ire for refusing to air Nightline's reading a list of dead U.S. soldiers in April, is treating the Kerry-bashing film as news content. It compares the nationwide free airtime for Republican views to the limited-release theatrical film Fahrenheit 9/11, basically meaning fuck balanced political programming. On the heels of the film's airing, in the remaining time before Americans go to the polls Nov. 2, the company is planning other right-wing spin programs on Kerry.

John Kerry: Warlock?, an independently-produced film by the religious group Swift Christians for Truth, postulates that the Massachusetts senator may have been fathered by a goat and possesses mystical powers that allow him to alter the presence of nuclear materials, even erase them from existence. Though mostly assembled from stock footage of the candidate and interviews with unaccredited "experts," the film does contain a segment purported to show a young Kerry in a pointy hat turning a horse into a unicorn. Others, however, say the blurry footage was recently staged, and that's clearly Scott Baio playing the lead role.

Another film, Sandbagger: John Kerry's Real War Record, alleges the senator actually started the first Gulf War when, at a cocktail party in 1990, Kerry suggested to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein he should take back Kuwait as part of Iraq. Democratic opposition to the film claims it's incredibly false, that Kerry was only joking with the guy, and the man reputed to be Saddam Hussein had actually attended the costume party as Super Mario.

Less likely to air, but still listed among recent Sinclair acquisitions, John Kerry: What a Pussy, seems little more than a suckerpunch film made to ridicule the man on a personal level. In addition to showing still pictures of Kerry next to flesh-torn zombies and cartoon dog Droopy, the film accuses Kerry of catching crabs in Vietnam and makes quite rude insinuations about his mother.

Other viewers of Sinclair networks say it isn't the first time the company has taken a side in political races. Certain anonymous Sinclair viewers, like Martha Philips of North Ridge, Virginia, say the sound cut out frequently during two of the three debates, all while Kerry was speaking, while another viewer insists a picture of Jesus was superimposed behind the president during the first debate.

"I also swear," says Margolis, Washington viewer Richard Higgs, "that the movie I watched last week originally starred John Wayne. But that guy who I saw in the movie then looked a hell of a lot like George Bush."

Sinclair has already made good on some of its other proposed anti-Kerry imagery, showing an embarrassing television appearance by the senator last Saturday culled from a 1980 episode of Dance Fever.

ast Wednesday’s final presidential debate left many questions unanswered in the minds of American voters, but not among them was the cockwad status of U.S. citizen Mark Buckles. Despite their numerous policy differences, both President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry saw squarely eye to eye on the Buckles issue, presenting a unified vision for a future America where Buckles is clearly a total cockwad.

According to political pundits analyzing the debates for the major networks, Kerry looks kind of like an alien and Bush makes a lot of stupid faces.

Seeking to differentiate his Buckles position from that of his challenger, Bush accused Kerry of changing his mind about whether or not Mark Buckles was a cockwad, citing Kerry’s infamous “I called Buckles a cockwad before I didn’t� quote from last year.

“Unlike that Belgian motherfucker over there,� Bush said with his trademark uninformed bravado. “I knew Mark Buckles was a cockwad from the start. And America needs strong leaders who know a Buckles when they see one.�

Meanwhile, Kerry accused Bush of refusing to admit his mistake in branding Buckles a cockwad before all available evidence had been collected, and merely going on the word of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has personal reasons for his feelings about Buckles.

“Mark Buckles is not the cockwad that George Bush promised America,� explained Kerry. “We were sold a bill of goods. Yes, Mark is definitely a cockwad. But not the king-sized cockwad that this administration painted him to be, when they needed your support to go public about this young man.�

“And as for my cockwad stance,� Kerry elaborated. “At first I gave Buckles the benefit of the doubt, as I’d like to think any strong leader would. But once all the available evidence had been collected, it became clear that Mark is indeed a cockwad.�

Kerry seemed to struggle with his usual problem of talking out of both sides of his mouth during the debate Wednesday, attempting to appease liberals who think Buckles got a raw deal as well as centrist Democrats and undecideds who believe that Buckles is a cockwad, but still think Bush rushed to judgment too quickly in the matter.

Partisans on both sides shared their hysterical reactions with anyone who would listen, even before the debates had ended.

“Kerry is a God among men and his penis is lovely,� explained breathless Democratic partisan Dane Philsley when asked about his candidate’s debate performance.

“George Bush proved once and for all that he farts wisdom into a can for the world to huff,� disagreed Republican partisan Carla Dennis, apparently believing this to be a compliment.

Regardless of who came out ahead in the debates, both candidates have likely lost the vote of Buckles, who could not be reached for comment. Some pundits have argued that Buckles was the real loser of Wednesday’s debate, since whoever wins the November election, Mark Buckles will spend the next four years known as an unmistakable cockwad. What is unknown as of yet is how much of a boost Buckles’ supporters will give third-party candidate Ralph Nader, who has gone on record as saying he’s sure Buckles has his redeeming qualities.

According to a CNN.com instant poll taken immediately following the debates, Mark Buckles sucks balls.

Never before in the course of history has one nation so collectively possessed a mental deficiency.

How many polls must come out, one after the other, simply to infuriate me with the conflicting information that the president's approval rating lies around 42% or lower, while up to 49% claim they will vote for him again? Can this be accurate? You're telling me, at any time, up to 7% of voting Americans believe George W. Moron is doing a shitty job as president, and yet they plan on sending him back? At least reality TV is explained for me. Seven or more percent of our population can watch horrific behavior and keep watching just to see how bad things will get.

Well, you've done it—I’m forced to my knees, hands together in the theistic praying fashion, begging you: Don't re-elect the dumbest man in America.

I suppose you ask me to make a case for voting against Bush. Oh, where to start, where to start? Let's begin with personal insults. He is clearly not done evolving. Since he is among the latest in the Bush line, we have to suppose the devolution is perhaps beginning. And let's not forget his grasp of the English language compares unfavorably to that of Taxi's Latka Gravas. He demonstrates a laughable knowledge of American politics, which is disappointing enough for your average high school graduate, but in a president, it's scrotum-shrink terrifying.

A devastating list of personal indictments of the man, and I haven't even brought up the cocaine or his inability to do simple tasks, like eat food or ride bicycles. But let's assume you're not swayed by personal attacks, that you're an intelligent, balanced Bush-voter who—wait a minute, do you hear how that sounds? Okay, even if we can't assume that, let's make a political case against the president. Ugh.

He comes from a world of corporate cronyism and rich boy back-scratching. In his first year as president he was attached to the corporate president of Enron, discovered to be heading one of the most corrupt companies as corrupt companies run. Before the end of his term he was tied to other ridiculous under-the-table deals, like the no-bid contract to Halliburton that ended up bilking Americans out of (at least) thousands of dollars. Does that convince you? Money talks, right? He's taking the money right out of your pockets, and if nothing else rattles your narrow perspective, that well should.

Military analysts everywhere will tell you he went into Afghanistan under-prepared, and when he failed to nail Osama bin Laden, tried to convince us the footsoldiers in bin Laden's army were enough, or even more brazen, that replacing the Taliban government and disrupting the Al-Qaeda network with a few rude bombs was enough. In case you haven't guessed, a few aimlessly-thrown bombs could have done that, as Clinton previously proved. Come to think of it, the bombing of Al-Qaeda camps was apparently behind the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it? That bodes well for a second Bush term.

And then Iraq… well, if I need go on, you're clearly not informed enough to use your vote right. American soldiers are dead, we have failed to set up a proper government or restore order, and at home, gas prices are at all-time highs while we're occupying one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Oh, and the economy is entirely a bloody turd.

The truth is, the case for electing Bush is so short, I can make it in the remaining space of this column: The small-minded, paranoid, racist, dogmatic inbreds of the nation are finally interested in politics again.

º Last Column: Just a Minor Setback in the Raoul Dunkin Story
º more columns