Nets Jump on Charge Oil Lobbyist Edited Global Warming "Science" --6/9/2005

1. Nets Jump on Charge Oil Lobbyist Edited Global Warming "Science"
NBC, MSNBC and CNN jumped Wednesday night on a front page New York Times story, "Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports: Ex-Oil Lobbyist Softened Greenhouse Gas Links," a story based on a disgruntled staffer who went to the left-wing Government Accountability Project, which the Times nicely described as "a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers." NBC's David Gregory dubbed it simply a "watchdog group." NBC anchor Brian Williams asserted: "Tonight the question, 'Is the administration putting politics above science?'" Like NBC and the New York Times, CNN anchor Aaron Brown presumed there is scientific consensus about the cause and threat of global warming when, in fact, much of the science is in dispute. Brown asked: "Now, are scientific facts subject to change? Apparently, yes." Brown saw "the fox guarding the hen house" before CNN's Suzanne Malveaux stressed how "critics say the Bush administration, in particular, is out of step with much of the rest the world in its refusal to sign the Kyoto climate treaty and also in its focus over questions about global warming."

2. Confronted by Hannity, Rosie O'Donnell Rages Against Bush & Rice
Filling in Tuesday for Star Jones on ABC's daytime show The View, Rosie O'Donnell angrily yelled and screamed at guest Sean Hannity, as he's shown in playing back brief excerpts the last two nights on his FNC program. Amongst O'Donnell's outlandish allegations, she claimed that "Christopher Reeve died without hope because of the religious -- separation -- lack of separation of church and state by this administration. The man died without hope of a cure because of the lack of stem cell research." She repeatedly yelled that Hannity was "delusional" in denying widespread "torture" by the U.S. of prisoners and re-affirmed her charge that George Bush is "a war criminal," arguing that "he should be tried at the Hague." When Hannity pointed out how "50 million people are free because George W. Bush is President today," O'Donnell fired back: "And how many American poor children are dead, fighting a war that was never needed?" And when Hannity suggested Condoleezza Rice as a presidential candidate, O'Donnell clenched her teeth with her eyes bulging as she explained: "That's my head almost exploding. I think she's going to unzip herself and it's going to be Dick Cheney's twin brother."
Listen to MP3 audio clip

3. Raines' Premise Kerry Earned Better Grades than Bush Discredited
John Kerry's long-delayed release of his military records this week included, the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish revealed Tuesday, his Yale grades which "show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago." As OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto pointed out Wednesday, that undermines the premise of former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines, who in an August 27, 2004 Washington Post op-ed asked: "Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."

4. "Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity"
Letterman's "Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity."

Nets Jump on Charge Oil Lobbyist Edited
Global Warming "Science"

NBC, MSNBC and CNN jumped Wednesday night on a front page New York Times story, "Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports: Ex-Oil Lobbyist Softened Greenhouse Gas Links," a story based on a disgruntled staffer who went to the left-wing Government Accountability Project, which the Times nicely described as "a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers." NBC's David Gregory dubbed it simply a "watchdog group." NBC anchor Brian Williams asserted: "Tonight the question, 'Is the administration putting politics above science?'" Like NBC and the New York Times, CNN anchor Aaron Brown presumed there is scientific consensus about the cause and threat of global warming when, in fact, much of the science is in dispute. Brown asked: "Now, are scientific facts subject to change? Apparently, yes." Brown saw "the fox guarding the hen house" before CNN's Suzanne Malveaux stressed how "critics say the Bush administration, in particular, is out of step with much of the rest the world in its refusal to sign the Kyoto climate treaty and also in its focus over questions about global warming."

On MSNBC's Countdown, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth noticed, Keith Olbermann introduced the same Gregory piece which had aired on the NBC Nightly News:
"It is the seeming climax to one of the principal complaints against the Bush administration. The 'I told you so' from its critics. Need a UN ambassador? Choose somebody who doubts the validity of the UN. Need an attorney general to uphold the laws of the country? Nominate somebody who once wrote that parts of the Geneva Convention were 'quaint.' And in our fourth story on the Countdown tonight, need somebody to confront greenhouse gases and global warming? Hire the oil industry lobbyist who used to fight the Environmental Protection Agency against stricter emissions standards. Problem is, as our correspondent David Gregory reports from the White House, though the man had no scientific training, he was reportedly editing the scientific stuff the government's been putting out."

As for where the science really stands, on the Web site for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), I caught an interesting review of Michael Chrichton's novel, State of Fear, by CEI adjunct fellow Ronald Baily who compactly summarized the exaggerated hype discredited by Chrichton. An excerpt from "A Chilling Tale," a review in the December 10, 2004 Wall Street Journal:

...."State of Fear" is, in a sense, the novelization of a speech that Mr. Crichton delivered in September 2003 at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. He argued there that environmentalism is essentially a religion, a belief-system based on faith, not fact. To make this point, the novel weaves real scientific data and all too real political machinations into the twists and turns of its gripping story.

For example, the climate computer models relied upon by global-warming proponents like Drake [character in the novel] -- or, in real life, by John Adams (NRDC), Carl Pope (Sierra Club), Kevin Knobloch (Union of Concerned Scientists), and John Passacantando (Greenpeace USA) -- predict that such warming will be strongest at the earth's poles, turning glaciers into floods and raising sea levels. In "State of Fear," Drake warns that Greenland's ice cap is melting and will push the sea level up by 20 feet. (As it happens, on Wednesday of this week Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, testified with similar alarm before a British legislative committee, saying: "If the ice-sheets in Greenland melt, sea levels would rise 6.5 metres and London would be underwater.")

Yet as Mr. Crichton has his scientist Kenner correctly note, Greenland's ice cap is in no imminent danger of melting away. It is well established scientifically that average temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at the rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius per decade since 1987. As for temperatures in most of Antarctica, they have been falling for nearly 50 years, and ice there has been accumulating rather than melting. And those sea levels? Nils-Axel Morner, a professor of geodynamics at Stockholm University, has been studying the low-lying atolls of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. He has found "a total absence of any recent sea level rise" and has instead found evidence of a fall in sea level in the past 20 years -- a fact that Mr. Crichton has the good instinct to report in the course of pushing his plot forward.

And what about the trend in actual global average temperatures, a question central to the debate in "State of Fear"? According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate, per decade, of 0.08 degrees Celsius. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if the rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there. Indeed, Mr. Crichton has one of his characters note the costly uselessness of the supposedly heat-reducing Kyoto Protocols....

END of Excerpt

For the review in full: www.cei.org

As for the agenda of the Government Accountability Project, a page of praise for it features comments from Ralph Nader and Robert Redford. See: 209.200.93.225

Its page of "Resources/Links" highlights Nader's Public Citizen and a very far-left group, for which it provides this glowing tribute: "Institute for Policy Studies: The Institute for Policy Studies strengthens social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the U.S., and the world."

For the page of links: 209.200.93.225

And the Spring/Summer 2004 edition of the group's newsletter, Bridging the Gap, the latest online, noted the liberal political career of Executive Director Michael Watchman:
"Watchman headed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, served as counsel to the labor committees of the Senate and the House, and worked as labor counsel to former Senator Howard Metzenbaum. At OSHA, he directed the agency's whistleblower protection programs and a special Whistleblower Task Force in 1997." See (a PDF): 209.200.93.225

GAP's home page: www.whistleblower.org

Now to the NBC and CNN stories, which advanced the liberal agenda to discredit as illegitimate any variation from the liberal stand on global warming.

Brian Williams teased the June 8 NBC Nightly News: "Politics and science: Why did a White House official change administration reports on global warming?"

Williams et up the subsequent story: "Now to the White House and a report that a White House official who was a former lobbyist for the energy industry edited government climate reports in ways that played down links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Tonight the question, 'Is the administration putting politics above science?' Here is NBC's David Gregory."

Gregory began: "Critics of the administration's global warming policies seized on this morning's report in the New York Times. The disclosure that a former oil industry lobbyist, now chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, repeatedly edited the administration's scientific reports on global warming. Cooney, who is not a scientist, made revisions that reflected White House doubts about the existence of climate change and whether human activity is responsible for it. In this example from a 2002 draft report on climate change, provided by the watchdog group Government Accountability Project [video of text with edits marked on it], he added that there were, quote, 'significant remaining uncertainties associated with human-induced climate change.' Rick Piltz recently resigned from the government office that coordinates climate change research."
Rick Piltz: "It seemed to me that this was a politically driven, a policy driven intervention into the science program."
Gregory: "Critics note this has happened before. Two years ago, in an EPA report on the environment, a section devoted to the potential harmful effects of global warming was deleted."
Eileen Claussen, Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "The problem is that the White House says they listen to science and then respond accordingly, but, in fact, they don't listen to the science."
Gregory: "Untrue, the White House countered today, saying Cooney's was just one voice in the review process."
Scott McClellan: "One of the reports that you highlighted was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science."
Gregory concluded from the White House lawn: "White House officials tout the administration's program that calls on voluntary measures to slow the growth of emissions that cause global warming. And the administration is spending billions to research the issue. But the question remains, has the administration aggressively tackled global warming, or attempted to muddy the science, insuring that any attempt to reduce it will fail? David Gregory, NBC News, the White House."

-- CNN's NewsNight. With "Just the facts?" on screen, Aaron Brown proposed: "Now, are scientific facts subject to change? Apparently, yes. That question and its answer is at the core of a dispute raging in the scientific community that, for awhile now, has accused the administration of distorting or ignoring facts because those facts didn't fit with the politics. It surfaced again today with a report that a former oil industry lobbyist is editing scientific work on global warming -- which some, including a former administration official, see as the fox guarding the hen house. From the White House tonight, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux."

Malveaux, who never credited the Government Accountability Project or even the New York Times, began: "Rick Piltz left the government three month ago, fed up with the Bush administration's approach to science."
Rick Piltz, former Climate Change Science Program official: "I have been seeing what was clearly a process of politicization of the science program in a way that was undermining its credibility and its integrity."
Malveaux: "For the last four years, Piltz worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Now, he is making public these internal documents he says show a top White House official editing government reports to downplay the scientific link between industrial emissions and global warming. For example, this section [over video of writing on a page of text] on possible effects of global warming was edited out. In the margin, he said these were speculative findings. That official, Philip Cooney, is currently the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a position that helps devise and promote the Bush administration's environmental policy. Before that, Cooney was a lobbyist for the oil industry. Some environmentalists say that industry's fingerprints are all over White House policy."
David Hamilton, Sierra Club: "I never saw the kind of attempt to change the facts and change the conclusions that we see now in the Bush administration."
Malveaux: "Some scientists say their role in shaping public policy has been greatly diminished. CNN asked to speak with Cooney, but a White House spokeswoman said he would not be made available to comment on this story. The White House says they have scientists and policymakers involved in editing the report."
Scott McClellan: "This is not based on any one individual. This is an interagency review process where everybody who is involved in these issues should have input into these reports. And that's all this is."
Malveaux: "The administration also denies downplaying the effects of climate change. President Bush on Tuesday."
George W. Bush: "There's a lot of things we're doing in America, and I believe that not only can we solve a greenhouse gas, I believe we will."
Malveaux: "Political observers point out that government reports often tend to reflect the positions of the party occupying the White House."
Stuart Rothenberg, political analyst: "Who are the Republican experts? They're going to come from the business community and often from the energy industry. They're saying that they're analytical, that they're dispassionate, that they're bringing balance to studies that the Democrats have done that were not balanced. It's politics."
Malveaux, who never appeared on camera during her story, delivered a loaded conclusion: "But critics say the Bush administration, in particular, is out of step with much of the rest the world in its refusal to sign the Kyoto climate treaty and also in its focus over questions about global warming. Suzanne Malveaux, CNN, the White House."

For the June 8 front page New York Times story by reporter Andrew Revkin: www.nytimes.com

Confronted by Hannity, Rosie O'Donnell
Rages Against Bush & Rice

Filling in Tuesday for Star Jones on ABC's daytime show The View, Rosie O'Donnell angrily yelled and screamed at guest Sean Hannity, as he's shown in playing back brief excerpts the last two nights on his FNC program. Amongst O'Donnell's outlandish allegations, she claimed that "Christopher Reeve died without hope because of the religious -- separation -- lack of separation of church and state by this administration.

Listen to MP3 audio clip Text of clip + audio archive

The man died without hope of a cure because of the lack of stem cell research." She repeatedly yelled that Hannity was "delusional" in denying widespread "torture" by the U.S. of prisoners and re-affirmed her charge that George Bush is "a war criminal," arguing that "he should be tried at the Hague." When Hannity pointed out how "50 million people are free because George W. Bush is President today," O'Donnell fired back: "And how many American poor children are dead, fighting a war that was never needed?" And when Hannity suggested Condoleezza Rice as a presidential candidate, O'Donnell clenched her teeth with her eyes bulging as she explained: "That's my head almost exploding. I think she's going to unzip herself and it's going to be Dick Cheney's twin brother."

The Monday, May 2 CyberAlert recounted how Rosie O'Donnell called President George W. Bush a "war criminal." In a taped interview with FNC's Geraldo Rivera aired on Saturday night to promote O'Donnell's role in the CBS Sunday night Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, Riding the Bus with My Sister, O'Donnell charged that since Bush "invaded a sovereign nation in defiance of the UN, he is basically a war criminal. Honestly. He should be tried at The Hague." In her rant, O'Donnell also insisted it's "scary" how "Dan Rather gets taken off CBS News for writing, for saying a report that essentially was true, that George Bush did not show up."

For her rant in full, as well as an MP3 audio clip of it: www.mediaresearch.org

On Wednesday, MRC analyst Megan McCormack painstakingly corrected the closed-captioning against what really aired on the Tuesday, June 7 The View during the segment when Hannity came aboard as a guest. Instead of using the couch set, Hannity joined Meredith Vieira, O'Donnell (whom Hannity sat beside), Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck at the table set.

There was a lot of crosstalk and panelists talking over one another. For clarity, our transcript leaves out comments from those other than Hannity or O'Donnell when those others tried to interject themselves into the back and forth between Hannity and O'Donnell.

Picking up a little bit into the session:

Rosie O'Donnell: "I hear you're like a rabid Republican."
Sean Hannity: "Would you ever say just Republican, or is every Republican rabid in your view?....I'm a Reagan Republican. Cut taxes, defend this country against evil, stand up against evil."
O'Donnell: "But how do you define evil really, Sean, when you think about it? Because anyone different than us is considered evil. What's going to happen? Humans are going to be hurting each other all over the world. There are different cultures. God's not an American."
Hannity: "You know what's evil? When I saw mass graves in Iraq and 400,000 bodies pulled out of them, that's evil in our time. When I saw-"
Joy Behar: "Let him talk because they'll say we didn't let him talk."
Hannity: "Thank you, Joy. But if we didn't stand up to evil -- when the United States fought the forces of Nazism, fascism, imperial Japan, lives were put at risk. Are you going to say we're not better off as a world with Saddam out of that position?"
Meredith Vieira: "I don't think we want to go down this path right now, cause'€""
O'Donnell: "But let me say one thing. We invaded a sovereign nation in defiance of the UN!"
Hannity: "Wait a minute, no-"
O'Donnell: "Yes, we did."
Hannity: "Did you read the UN resolutions?"
O'Donnell: "Yes, I did."
Hannity: "You read 1441? 1441 said'€""
O'Donnell: "Sean, is this true or not true? We invaded a sovereign nation in defiance of the UN."
Hannity: "That is not true."
O'Donnell: "You're wrong. You're not telling the truth!"
Vieira: "They kept saying there were weapons of mass destruction, which there weren't. So, let's not even go, let's go to 2008, okay, because that's why you're here, and who's going to run. And the number one name you hear on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton, although she's being coy. Most people think she is going to run. Do you think she will run? And if so, will she be the frontrunner?"
Hannity: "She's in. She'll get the nomination."
Behar: "And then she'll lose, right?"
Vieira: "Is she beatable?"
Hannity: "If Republicans take her for granted, they're being foolish. She has one of the smartest politicians, and I don't like Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton is a smart, savvy politician, and for the Republicans to ignore her as a viable political threat'€""
Vieira: "Yeah, but she's no puppet, Sean. It's not like just cause she has Bill Clinton behind her-"
Hannity: "Yeah, but what has she ever accomplished, Meredith? Can you name one thing she's done four years in the Senate? One, can you say, name one piece of legislation?"
Behar: "Well, what has Bill Frist accomplished? But listen, let me ask you a question. I want you to ask me do I think you're a rabid Republican?"
Hannity: "I don't want the answer."
Behar: "This is the litmus test. Are you against or for stem cell research, and federal funding for?"
Hannity: "I am against federal funding."
Behar: "Why?"
O'Donnell: "Why?"
Hannity: "Because I don't think the government ought to be involved in life issues."
Behar: "Why does the government pay for a war then? It's the same thing."
Hannity: "It's not the same thing. We wouldn't be here on The View-"
Vieira: "Why does the federal government deny funding then in terms of classes for kids if they don't preach anything other than abstinence?"
Hannity: "Look. There's enumerated roles for the federal government. At what point do we say we also have to respect the right of people that think that life begins at conception and you don't destroy life to save life. But in the private sector versus the public sector you have two very different things going on."
O'Donnell: "Christopher Reeve died without hope because of the religious -- separation -- lack of separation of church and state by this administration. The man died without hope of a cure because of the lack of stem cell research."
Hannity: "Rosie, wait a minute. That's intellectually dishonest because the public sector has every right to study stem cells. What conservatives are saying we shouldn't spend federal tax dollars-"
Behar: "They're going to lose their election based on that. Yes, sir-" ....
Elizabeth Hasselbeck: "I'm going to move on to the Republican side of 2008, okay? Senator John McCain could be an option-"
O'Donnell: "I like him."
Hasselbeck: "What about Giuliani as his partner? McCain said he wouldn't run as a VP, maybe. So, do you think that he would, that Giuliani would actually take a backseat to him?"
Hannity: "I don't think Jeb Bush is out of it. I don't think Dick Cheney is out of it."
Vieira: "He said he is. You don't believe he is though?"
Hannity: "You know what, everybody says they're out of it because they don't want to answer the question anymore. I think Condoleezza Rice is a strong, viable possibility for the Re-"
O'Donnell, yelling: "Get a close-up of me, please! Get a close-up of my face!!"
Hannity: "Are you okay?"
[O'Donnell makes face at the camera, with clenched teeth and eyes bulging.]
O'Donnell: "That's what I would think of a Condoleezza Rice nominee. That's my head almost exploding. I think she's going to unzip herself and it's going to be Dick Cheney's twin brother, who's going to come out, just like on Scooby Doo. You remember Scooby Doo?"
Hannity: "But Rosie, you guys, all you guys on the left, you demonize this President. You once called George Bush a war criminal."
O'Donnell: "He is. He should be tried at the Hague!"
Hannity: "What do you want? Do you want to give him the death penalty?"
O'Donnell: "No, I said he should be tried, Sean-"
Hannity: "Life in prison? You want to convict him?"
O'Donnell: "-tried. Listen, the leader of any nation that defies the UN and invades a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 should be tried."
Hannity: "I want to ask one question. Are we better off with Saddam captured and the mass graves and rape rooms closed? Yes or no?"
O'Donnell: "Do you think that we're not raping and torturing the prisoners that we take in."
Hannity: "No. Do you have any evidence that we are?"
O'Donnell: "Oh, my God, Sean! Don't you see the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Hello?"
Hannity: "Where's the evidence? Who? Who? There was underwear on the head of one of the, we're not raping and killing anybody."
O'Donnell: "I think you're delusional. If you think that we didn't hurt the Koran in-"
Hannity: "Where is your evidence?"
O'Donnell: "My evidence is that people like Fox media are the only ones-"
Hannity: "Forget Fox media. Where's your proof? Where is your evidence?"
O'Donnell, screaming: "Look at the photos! Read somebody besides Fox News. Look at the BBC. They have been torturing prisoners-"
Hannity: "Who did?"
O'Donnell, "-the United States of America. Yes we have."
Hannity: "No, America's been liberating oppressed and-"
Hasselbeck: "Yes, yes."
O'Donnell, singing the word "delusional!": "Oh, my gosh, you guys. It's delusional!"
Hannity: "50 million'€""
O'Donnell, in singing voice: "Delusional!"
Hannity: "50 million people are free because George W. Bush is President today."
O'Donnell: "And how many American poor children are dead, fighting a war that was never needed?"
Hasselbeck: "Can I say one thing? Our very right to sit here and debate this issue was won on a battlefield. War is necessary."
O'Donnell: "And democracy is only thrives with dissent. You need to send someone to stand up and say 'look at the man who has no clothes.'"
Hannity: "You can dissent, but you're wrong. The world is better off and safer because this President had the moral courage to stand up-"
O'Donnell: "Well, why don't we go to Africa? Why don't we go to Africa? There's evil there, Sean. Wait, wait, wait. Why are we not in Somalia? You want to police the whole world, Elisabeth? You want to go to every nation-"
Hannity: "That doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up when we can-"
O'Donnell: "This is why I don't have my own show anymore because I would do this every day and people would get mad."

As well they should.

Home page for ABC's The View: abc.go.com

Check the MRC's new "Hear the Bias!" page later today for an MP3 audio clip or two of O'Donnell's ludicrousness: www.mediaresearch.org

Raines' Premise Kerry Earned Better Grades
than Bush Discredited

John Kerry's long-delayed release of his military records this week included, the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish revealed Tuesday, his Yale grades which "show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago." As OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto pointed out Wednesday, that undermines the premise of former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines, who in an August 27, 2004 Washington Post op-ed asked: "Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."

The August 27 op-ed by Raines ran in both the Washington Post and Britain's far-left Guardian. For the Post version, "The 'Dumb' Factor," go to: www.washingtonpost.com

For Taranto's June 8 "Best of the Web" posting: www.opinionjournal.com

CyberAlert did not run an item on the August 27 Raines rant, but the June 3, 2004 CyberAlert recounted an earlier diatribe from Raines: Howell Raines, the Executive Editor of the New York Times until he quit last year, penned an article this week for Britain's far-left newspaper, The Guardian, and it certainly erased any doubt that he's a left-wing Bush-hater who sees conservatives and Republicans at the root of evil in politics. He quipped: "If John Kerry was ever a populist, George W Bush is a Rhodes scholar." He complained: "Americans aren't antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It's a mass delusion, of course, but one that has worked ever since Ronald Reagan got Republicans to start flaunting their wealth instead of apologising for it." Kerry, he argued, "must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans -- ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour." See: www.mediaresearch.org

An excerpt from the June 7 Boston Globe story, "Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student: His 4-year average on par with Bush's," by Michael Kranish:

WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.

The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record. During the campaign the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file. Late last month, Kerry gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Globe....

Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In addition to Kerry's four D's in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year. He did not fail any courses.

"I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said yesterday in a written response to questions, noting that he has previously acknowledged that he spent a lot of time learning to fly instead of focusing on his studies.

Kerry's weak grades came despite years of education at some of the world's most elite prep schools, ranging from Fessenden School in Massachusetts to St. Paul's School in New Hampshire....

END of Excerpt

For the Globe article in full: www.boston.com

"Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain
His Popularity"

From the June 8 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity." Late Show home page: www.cbs.com

10. Dip into Social Security fund to give every American free HBO

9. Use diplomacy to bring peace to Brad, Jen and Angelina

8. Try fixing Iraq, creating some jobs, reducing the deficit and maybe capturing Osama

7. Figure out a way for the Yankees to win a game

6. Replace his "country simpleton" persona with more lovable "hillbilly idiot" image

5. Use weekly radio address to give Americans a Van Halen twofer

4. Get Saddam to switch to boxers

3. Ditch the librarian and make Eva Longoria First Lady

2. Resign

1. Jump on Oprah's couch while professing his love for Katie Holmes

-- Brent Baker