I've received my first missive as a Friend of Hillary (we're really not all that close friends) - what I find interesting is that the "Clinton Presidency" is mentioned in paragraph 2, while Hillary's upcoming Senate run has to wait until paragraph 3. Fruedian slip? Forgetting what we're supposed to be immediately concentrating on?

Be that as it may, I found this bit further down to be interesting:

in the last presidential campaign, the impact of negative television advertising – even when it’s not true.

Right wing activists are determined to run the same kind of attacks against Hillary. Their web sites and direct mail boast that they will have an even better funded anti-Hillary campaign than they had last time.

The Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy lives! I guess this plays well with the Rubes who will be writing out checks for Hillary - I don't think they understand that while we know Hillary is out there, we're much more interested in our own agenda than whatever it is a mediocre, leftwing New York Senator is up to.

Oh, come on! Stop it with pitchforks, tar and feathers - don't shoot the messanger! I'm just reporting:

Polling Report has actually gathered some polls for the 2008 contest and it is a bit interesting.

In the trial heats for the Republicans, no candidate really stands out - though McCain and Giuliani may be considered the front-runners, with the advantage apparently with Giuliani. On the other side, it looks like it's all Hillary.

Pardon us, Democrats, while we GOPbloggers suppress shrieks of delight...

Do you really suppose the Donk's will nominate another northeastern liberal who doesn't have a prayer in the South? I mean, what did we do to earn such great good fortune?

Ontario County is reporting their results from its 126 precincts.

the presidential vote on those provisional ballots reflected almost exactly the percentages of the general vote, with 610 favoring President Bush and 578 going for Sen. John Kerry.

"It almost always turns out that way. There's never a big margin for one (candidate) or the other (from provisional votes)," Hankins said.

In Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located ( which is Ohio's most Liberal city ) they have processed 40 percent, or 9,719 votes, of its 24,788 provisional ballots and rejected a third of them.

more information here and here

Believe it or not, it's still undecided - NRO's The Corner gives us the scoop:

Believe it or not, the race for governor in Washington state is still undecided. Democrat Christine Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi have traded the lead four times since Election Day as election officials keep adding in tens of thousands of absentee and provisional ballots at a pop. There are nearly 22,000 ballots yet to count, including some 10,000 more ballots in King County than local officials had estimated just a couple of days ago. This "find" was good news for Gregoire, who trails Rossi in most of the state but is strong in traditionally Democratic Seattle. The current count has Rossi in the lead by 236 votes out of 2.8 million cast. Washington hasn't elected a Republican governor in about a quarter of a century.

Right now, both parties are scouring the list of voters whose provisional or absentee ballots were rejected for technicalities, such as missing or apparently mismatched signatures. Then they are knocking on the voters' doors and asking them to swear out affidavits to try to get their rejected ballots counted. The Democrats just delivered a stack of such affidavits to election officials yesterday.

Remember that Congress enacted a federal law after the Florida debacle requiring states to make greater use of provisional ballots. That was supposed to "fix" things. Uh-huh.

Any Washington State readers who can give us the full rundown on this? As for me, I'm pleased with this - first off, we might get one more governorship; of course, our Democratic friends will do their best to "find" as many votes as they need - secondly, it shows that even "blue" Washington may be trending "red" in the long run - no GOP governors for a quarter century, now we're within an ace of getting one.

UPDATE: An alert reader (just gotta love alert readers...what this country needs is a lot more "lerts") brings us more detailed info on this race. Seems like the Donk's are up to their usual tricks:

On Monday morning, King County estimated it had about 11,000 votes remaining to count. But that estimate was revised upward to 21,000.

Bobbie Egan, spokeswoman for the King County elections office, said the county verified more provisional ballots than expected and absentee ballot turnout was higher than projected. Election workers counted 17,000 ballots Monday, so 4,000 remain to be counted.

Ain't that just sweet for the Democrats? Imagine how lucky they are to find 10,000 more ballots in their strongest county in the State? Who woulda thunk that could happen? Do you believe in miracles? Man, oh man, I'm glad the Donk's have a reputation for running perfectly clean elections, otherwise someone might get suspicious about those 10,000 extra ballots...

Now, get this:

No matter who wins, the margin of victory is likely to be within 500 votes, leading strategists to spend time debating who has the best Excel spread sheet, according to Democratic consultant Cathy Allen.

In fact, Allen said the Democrats post-election election strategy may help Gregoire win, if she does.

In Grays Harbor County, she said, "heads up ballplayers over there have determined that you needed to do a recount." The result is that Gregoire appears to have won a majority in that county.

A "post election strategy"? Who in heck has one of those? Well, our Democrats do - and they being all "heads up" on things, they managed to get more votes after the election than they apparantly got during the election. I know this is a long post about a State race - but, good Lord!, doesn't this just stink to high heaven? Have our Democrats no shame at all? Hey, Democrats - here's an idea; you campaign, the people vote, the votes get counted and one guy wins...no going back over the vote afterwards to see if you can find or create just enough ballots to get you over a small shortfall. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for you, but give it a try - who knows, you might end up even liking democracy.

In spite of some lunatic leftwing attempts to look backwards to November 2, 2004, it is time to move on - however, proving that they are a bunch of sick, cruel masochists over at Real Clear Politics, they give us a rundown on the Senate and Gubernatorial races coming for 2006 - also noting that we'll have major Governor's races in VA and NJ in 2005.

If you are ready to jump back into the fray, you can check it out here.

I take special pride in this week's election results because I was a foot soldier in enemy territory for the battle. Along with several hundred very anxious and very capable attorneys, I went into Northeast Philadelphia as a "Lawyer For Bush". For those of you who don't know what that means, imagine yourself strapping on 50 pounds of red meat and jumping into shark-infested waters... or worse, imagine covering yourself in twinkies and cookie dough and entering Michael Moore's house.

I spent the final 72 hours of the 2004 campaign season in Philadelphia. Pushing my way through Kerry supporters in front of our Headquarters in downtown Philly, I was amazed at the animosity in their voices. Walking anywhere downtown, one would see gatherings of 10 - 20 Kerry supporters at many intersections holding up signs and cars honking their praise. I certainly felt like I was behind enemy lines. Being bombarded with this every waking minute was enough to make me really question whether I was on the winning team. Not that I would've changed sides for anything, I did feel a sense of envy with those Democrats who seemed to have all the momentum in the world. My optimism only grew weaker on election day as I took on the task I had traveled across the country to perform.

Our task was to monitor a certain set of precincts around Philadelphia to insure a fair election process. From what I had been told going in, Philadelphia was a bastion of voting fraud. The Democrat infrastructure I personally witnessed left me feeling less than confident in our electoral process.

Each side is allowed to have "Poll Watchers" inside the polling place to monitor the situation. Unfortunately, it seems Philadelphia was about 99.9% Democrat, so the RNC folks apparently dragged dollar bills through the streets to hire poll watchers. Needless to say, this didn't seem to help our cause much.

Some of our poll watchers showed up late or generally just "didn't get it". They were there for the money and that was it. A few poll watchers were on the ball, and happened to catch the opening of the voting machines that magically already had votes for Kerry on them. Given that our poll watchers were probably only able to see about 10% of all machines before the polls opened, I can only imagine how many "Kerry votes" were present across the city and states before the polls even opened on Tuesday.

Apart from generally monitoring the process and preventing major issues, the Poll Watchers had a primary job. Here's where the fun began.

There were roughly 100,000 new voter registrations in Philadelphia alone. When the RNC received the list of new registrants, they promptly sent out brochures, welcoming them to the process and promoting Republican candidates. Soon, some of those brochures began coming back with notations like "deceased" or "vacant lot" or "abandoned warehouse" on them. In all, returned mailings totaled around 10,000. That's 10,000 registrations that appeared to be fraudulent.

We compiled a list of those questionable registrations and gave them to our Poll Watchers. Their duty was to watch for folks trying to vote using those registrations and challenge the voter to provide ID and otherwise verify they were legitimate.

It wasn't long before I had my first encounter with a "Kerry lawyer" (as he called himself). I noticed him walking in and out of the polling place all morning (a criminal offense to do so without proper certification). He approached one of my Poll Watchers and took the list out of his hand and then returned outside. He then declared, as if he was making a proclamation before the United Nations, that me and my "Republican thugs" were using this list to "intimidate black voters" and "suppress the minority vote".

He obviously did not want us using the list, because it would expose the fraudulent registrations they were banking on for votes.

Now keep in mind, other than the "Kerry lawyer", I was the only other white guy standing around this polling place on election day. Throughout the day there was, on average, 50 - 100 people just hanging around this location (it was a youth gym that seemed to be a popular hangout). As he would proclaim my attempts at disenfranchisement, it would stir up the crowd and I would hear the anger boiling inside them.

Then his assistant whipped out a video camera and shoved it in my face. (I'm guessing Democrat lawyers are in some cave somewhere analyzing the video today trying to figure out how they can allege something against me to somehow make up for a resounding defeat of their candidate - good luck, guys) This guy stood in front of the polling place videotaping for 10 minutes. This is a tactic the Democrats allege Republicans do to intimidate voters. Of course, it came as no surprise to me that a Democrat would do the very act he accused Republicans of.

The Federal Elections Commission "dark suits" swooped in to settle some issues, the District Attorney's office sent staff, the Philadelphia police department got involved on a half dozen occasions and at the end of the night I took down the final vote tallies: Kerry - 1,131 Bush - 3

This was only one of my precincts. In another precinct, I personally witnessed the Democrat Election Judge allowing voters to cast provisional ballots and then walking over to the voting machine to cast real ballots. This would allow that voter's vote to be counted twice if the outcome required the counting of the provisional ballots.

When I returned to this polling place, I noticed my Poll Watcher standing outside handing out DEMOCRAT brochures. I asked her why she was doing that and she said the Election Judge (Democrat) had ordered her to do it. Unbelievable.

I did feel a sense of defeat at the end of the night, having spent the day in "democrat country" fighting to keep the election process fair and honest. Seeing the results posted on the door, I wondered quietly, "how can Bush pull this thing off?"

We headed over to Arlen Specter's party and awaited the results. By the time we arrived, many east coast states had already been called and there seemed to be no big surprises. But there was a glimmer of hope... the popular vote was showing Bush with a decent lead. Then Florida starting showing signs of red. Suddenly the fatigue began wearing off and was being replaced with total and complete joy. Could this work have paid off? Could we really be on the winning side? It was interesting to see older women in formal dresses screaming at the top of their lungs "come on Wolf, would you f--king call Florida already!!!??!!?" The tide was shifting.

Now we all know the results. And while we weren't able to deliver Pennsylvania, one thing I keep hearing from folks I served with is this: We kept Pennsylvania close requiring the Democrats to expend resources therein... resources that may have otherwise gone to Ohio and changed the overall results.

I'm glad I was there to see it from the inside. I'm happy our side was vindicated against all the vitriol, false accusations, fraud and hate. The sun sure seems to be shining brighter today.

Just as a large Majority of Washington Democrats, journalists are misinterpreting the reasons for the Presidents winning with a mandate. Local (San Francisco) Talk hosts and callers from the Left are blaming it on John Kerry not being Liberal enough. This is very good news indeed.

I only hope that this wing of the Democratic Party makes it voices heard during the next primary election.

Unless you’re CNNMSNBCCBSNBC.

The President Wins the most popular votes in History.

And look at the current house and senate races. (Thune Winning is sooooo sweet, Nick Clooney loosing is a close second.)

Looks like a + 2-3 Pickup in the Senate and net +7 in the House.

Had a fun time with Scott from Slant Point -- sprayed champagne on the crowd to end the evening :).

Have only one thing to say . . . These Dems are the WORST losers in political history. May John Kerry walk the earth with the humiliation of a man with no shame and complete self-interest.

A pox on both your houses (Kerry and Edwards).

We won. Didn't win as big as I'd have liked, but we've won - won the popular vote, won the electoral vote.

What do the Democrats do? Keep up the fight - making sly allusions to their bogus theories about votes not being counted. I cannot begin to say how angry I am with the Democrats - the leadership of the Democratic Party is unpatriotic in the extreme; all good Americans should change their registration to any other Party or to Independent rather than be identified with a Party that places it's personal fate above the needs of the nation.

I'm a bit tired now, so I'll have a look forward at President Bush's second term either later today or tomorrow - but I'm never forgetting two things:

1. How the American people showed the world that we are a strong, free people unafraid to take our proper place in the world.

2. How the Democrats dishonored themselves from start to finish in this election.

This is the Bonus I have wanted all day.

I am hoping for the Big Call within the hour.

***UPDATE*** This is Twice they have Stolen our Victory night.

Great video exposing exactly who Kerry was as a Navy officer and Senator. Truly pathetic.

They've been an American territory since 1898 and it's high time they become America's 51st State - especially given this:

PRESIDENTIAL RACE
• George W. Bush 17,264
• John Kerry 9,540
• Ralph Nader 153
• Campagna Badnarik 53

Daschle has be a thorn in the Presidents side for about 4 years now. I think that little "D" going down will be a nice bonus tonight.

Daschle v Thune has a wrap up of Tommy’s long ball from the court last night. They had a live Blog going and to read it is very instructive of Tommy desperation.

**UPDATE** Mark, you know what they say of great minds.

**UPDATE 2** Joseph Bottum over at the Daily Standard has a piece up.

Suing Your Way to Defeat
Tom Daschle goes mad and tries to lose the election all in one night.

LAST NIGHT, Tom Daschle threw his campaign into the shredder. What is it that makes South Dakota politicians do this kind of thing? There must be something in that Missouri River water that makes even the best of political pros tuck their thumbs into their armpits and squawk like demented chickens.

Kerry seems to have a problem with the little people, but not with little crowds. I guess gatherings would be a better description of Kerry events in some states these days. Take a look at this little Item from the Washington Prowler.

Kerry campaign aides threw a hissy fit at headquarters over the turnout that greeted their boy in Milwaukee on Monday. "We failed in advancing the event, we let our candidate down. That's all there is to it, nothing more. We still win Wisconsin," says a traveling staffer on the Kerry campaign.

At a time when President Bush was drawing 11,000 screaming fans to an indoor facility in Milwaukee, just blocks away John Kerry drew an estimated 1,100 for an outdoor rally in cold and rainy weather. The Kerry camp had failed to factor in an indoor venue in case of bad weather. Jon Bon Jovi, no Springsteen he, opened for Kerry to a modicum of enthusiasm.

President Bush made his Final day of Campaigning a fun and relaxing one. When he wasn't giving a barn burner of a speech he talking or playing cards with old and new friends on his Bus, Plane or Helicopter.

I will take my lead from him. Get up early tomorrow. Get out the Vote but have fun doing it. By this time tomorrow night we will be celebrating a great Victory and terrorists around the world will have been sent the Message, "we don't give up."

A few quotes from the AP story.

"There is nothing like an early morning rally in the great state of Ohio!" Bush said, aware that no Republican ever has won the presidency without it. After the speech, first lady Laura Bush passed out postcards of the president's dog, Barney, to people in the crowd.........

To break some of the tension, Bush drank a vanilla milkshake on Air Force One that a staffer picked up at Culver's Custard in Milwaukee. He chatted with Curt Schilling, the World Championship Red Sox pitcher who, despite an injured ankle, showed up to introduce Bush at two events and ride on the president's plan. Bush also played gin rummy with some advisers on each leg of the trip."

Scenes from the Campaign Trail (from our friends at "Noted Now":

THE OTHER GUY IS STILL PREZ: Kerry is held on Milwaukee tarmac until Bush's motorcade, excluding press and extraneous vehicles, arrives at Air Force One. Kerry's motorcade was then allowed to depart as Bush's press corps was held at the entrance to the airport, ABC News' Ed O'Keefe reports.

1) Everyone wants a piece of the President

2) Republicans are sexy! (damn stright!)

3) Herbert Walker Bush telling "fish" stories...

I started writing a long, long, essay on why I thought President Bush deserves re-election. But it all boiled down to this: Bush will keep America safe. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the President is on the offensive against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden’s desperate video is evidence that the strategy is working. If Bin Laden had the power to attack America on the eve of our election (a la Madrid), he would have done so. But he doesn’t: Al-Qaeda has been seriously weakened.

And what are the long-term consequences of President Bush’s policies? Afghanistan just held their first elections ever. Iraq has been freed from a brutal dictator who is arguably responsible for over a million deaths (Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War, genocide of the Kurds and other Iraqis). In January, it’ll be the third country in the Middle East (after Israel and Turkey) to hold national elections. Next door, Saudi Arabia is experimenting with municipal elections. Syria is pulling back from southern Lebanon and moderating relations with the West. Libya has voluntarily given up their weapons programs. Meanwhile, every other country in the world is refining their government to confront the threat of terrorism – appeasement and tolerance are no longer operative.

President Bush held firm and told the world: with or without you, we’re going to fight. For his leadership, he deserves our respect, our honor, and our vote.

As we here as Blogs for Bush have warned all year, be wary of polls - be especially wary of polls in the last week or so of the campaign...but for those of you who have a real hankering to fuss over the latest poll results, go to The Horserace Blog for updates on all the major polls and some excellent analysis of same.

I love the behind the scenes stories. This one is from the NY Times, it shows W as he is, comfy in his skin and working hard to get out the vote and Win come Tuesday. (8pm EST +/- 1hr)

On Saturday, he was spied near the staff cabin swinging his arms like a samurai warrior with a sword. If the pose left some aides a bit mystified, it also reassured them that Mr. Bush was not only confident of the outcome but was also having a great time in the presidential race's frantic, exhausting final stages.

"He turned to me several days ago and he said, 'Do you think John Kerry's enjoying himself?' " Karen Hughes, Mr. Bush's longtime confidante and communications adviser, said. "And I was sort of taken aback and I said, 'What do you mean?' And he said, 'Well, I'm really having a good time.'

So now it’s up to us. Get out the Vote and make some calls.

So, here we are at last - on the day before the election. Does it seem like it's taken forever to get here? Sure does to me.

It's been a long campaign because it's been played out so far down in the dirt - and I know that some will take exception to this, but I place the blame entirely upon the Democratic leadership for this sorry state of affairs. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks the nation stood united - but it appears that the Democratic leadership determined that this unity was bad for the Democrats immediate political prospects. Thus we have learned in this year of 2004 that the United States is all well and good, but when an election is at stake, the Democrats have other things to concern themselves with.

I have been disgusted and saddened with this election - our coming victory tomorrow will be a great thing, but I doubt that I'll feel the elation which normally comes with victory - I'll feel relieved that it is over, but I'll remain saddened at the dishonor to our political process that the Democratic tactics have caused. I'm a strong Republican...it's always been hard for a Democrat to pry my vote away from the Republican candidate; but until a few weeks ago, I was going to vote for Nevada's Democratic Senator Harry Reid - wont do it now; I'll be casting my vote for our Republican candidate even though his victory would put a much less experienced man with far less influence into the Senate than Harry Reid has; I just can't bring myself to sully my hands with a Democratic vote - can't bring myself to vote for a man who will, in spite of his own excellent personal qualities, lend power and influence to the likes of Ted Kennedy - and John Kerry, who will return to his part-time Senate job where he votes to tear down the United States on a regular basis.

The real plus of election 2004 is that it has really revealed the greatness of President Bush - smeared relentlessly by a host of political enemies who think of partisan politcs first and last and the United States never, he has emerged as the personification of a gentleman; always kind and polite, even and especially to those who are most abusive towards him. Some people have stated since 9/11 "thank God Gore didn't win"...I agree whole-heartedly with that statement. In 2000 we could not perceive greatness in President Bush - and, indeed, his greatness was in part thrust upon him by events. But he has earned the support of the American people and I think the results tomorrow will confirm that he has received what he has earned.

While the Democrats have "outsourced" their grassroots efforts to "527" groups mostly interested in making sure the donations keep coming in, the Republican Party and Bush/Cheney '04 have really put the effort into doing something the Republican Party hasn't done in nigh on a century - making certain that we have a strong "ground game" for the end of the campaign. I've been tipped off about these numbers for three of the battleground States:

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

As of October 30, 2004, the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign reports the following grassroots statistics in Michigan:

66,481 Recruited Bush Volunteers
1,850,887 Volunteer Phone Calls and Door Knocks to Michiganders in support of President Bush
1,293 Total Parties for the President have been hosted

MICHIGAN BUSH-CHENEY ’04 CAMPAIGN GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP

15 Bush-Cheney ’04 Michigan Regional Chairs
94 Bush-Cheney ’04 Michigan County Chairs
5,270 Bush-Cheney ’04 Michigan Precincts Chaired

As of October 30, 2004, the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign reports the following grassroots statistics in Iowa:

26,095 Recruited Bush Volunteers
635,969 Volunteer Phone Calls to Iowans in support of President Bush
101,898 Doors have been knocked on to support President Bush
542 Total Parties for the President have been hosted

IOWA BUSH-CHENEY ’04 CAMPAIGN GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP

5 Bush-Cheney ’04 Iowa Regional Chairs
99 Bush-Cheney ’04 Iowa County Chairs
1,938 Bush-Cheney ’04 Iowa Precincts Chaired

So, we're working really hard at it - I've done some of the calls out here in the sorta-battleground State of Nevada. If you haven't done anything yet then (a) Shame on you! and (b) get yourself here and do something.

You have no excuses! You have the time - get out there and help the President win this election!

The Saturday Mason-Dixon polling on the battleground States? You can click here to see it all, but what struck me is how in State after State President Bush is better in all catagories (job approval, handling issues, etc) than John Kerry...there are a few smudges in the polling for President Bush, but the overall effect is that people seem to be choosing Four More Years!

Kevin Holtsberry over at NRO's "Battlegrounders" gives us the take on the President Bush/Governor Schwarzenegger rally in Ohio:

Just got back from the Bush Rally at Nationwide Arena here in Columbus Ohio. It is hard to know what to make of these type of things, but the crowd was pumped. If filing a 20,000 plus arena full of screaming supporters who give you a full 10 minute standing ovation means something then I would say Bush is doing well in Central Ohio. When Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger took the stage the crowd simply refused to stop clapping and shouting for some time. Eventually they quieted down and Ah-nold gave a rousing introduction to President Bush. He really drove home the point that the election rested in the hands of the people who filled the arena. It is up to the dedicated volunteers and average people to get out the vote for President Bush; to beat the liberal activists at their own game. Funny how good a stump speaker Schwarzenegger is compared to some of the politicians that proceeded him. He really got the crowd fired up. I guess Hollywood does have its benefits.

President Bush seemed in good spirits but spoke quietly at times, like he was trying to save his voice. He was funny as usual, but he really hammered home the serious nature of the election. ALthough I am sure it was the standard stump speech of the last few days, it also seemed an effective contrasting of Bush's commitment and determination with Kerry's vacillation and monday morning quarterbacking. Bush came across as a man comfortable in his own skin, who sticks to his guns, and keeps his promises. As Jay Nordlinger said after the third debate, if America doesn't re-elect Bush it is their loss.

I don't know what will happen in Ohio in the next few days, but I do know this: 20,000 people left the arena her in Columbus excited and determined to win Ohio for Bush. In a few days we will know whether they accomplished their goal.

Always keep in mind that Ohio is not actually a swing State - it's pretty reliably Republican; my view is that the polling we're seeing in Ohio reflects a media bias towards the massive effort Kerry has put into the State...but once the voters troop to the polls, I believe that Ohio's strong Republicanism will come to the fore.

The MSM calls it a "horse race". The pundits say it's close. The polls bounce around more than a ping pong ball in a bingo hopper. So why do I still have the gut feeling that Bush is going to win decisively? Is it just hope? Is it just a burning desire to see President Bush re-elected?

Maybe it's just reality. A reality that's been buried under a mountain of spin, deceitful journalism and radical talking points.

Thankfully, reality always has a way of rising to the surface. It seems some mid-level staff at the Labor Department considered various models and have indicated Bush "is likely to do "much better" in Tuesday's election than the polls are predicting." Surprise, surprise. I guess that's what happens when MSM combines profit-driven motives with hatred of our leader. Maybe, just maybe, they've bought into their own fabricated hype.

Of course, the Kerry camp is attacking the staff that created the report and ignoring the findings of the report. That's usually what the losing side does.

The report says Bush's win of the popular vote could be 57.5 percent, 55.7 percent or 51.2 percent.

Other than winning the powerball jackpot Tuesday night, can you imagine any better way to wake up Wednesday morning?

This is primarily addressed to any of my fellow Americans who happen to be black.

For four decades now you have routinely given 80-90% of your votes to whomever is the Democratic candidate. As a Republican, I realise full well that we have not done nearly a good enough job getting our message out to you - have not done the things necessary to understand your hopes and desires. We are, however, working on it and we hope that in future years we will earn more and more of your votes - after all, there's not a dimes worth of difference between the views of a white and a black conservative Christian. But I'd like to bring to your attention this little incident:

The New York Post's Robert George tells a story from the Kerry campaign trail that helps show why the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, is having trouble with black voters. Two weeks ago tomorrow, Kerry gave a speech in Xenia, Ohio, a largely black town outside Dayton. On his way was historically black Wilberforce University, where "organizers were led to believe that if there were at least 100 people, Kerry's motorcade would make a quick stop":

Eventually 150 students and supporters . . . gathered for four hours on a cold (rainy and snowy) Ohio day. And the Kerry caravan drove right on by. All the long-suffering got from the candidate was a clenched "victory" fist out the window.

According to Shavon Ray, president of Wilberforce's NAACP, the students were devastated--with comments such as "This is why I don't vote." . . .

After the incident--and Ray's criticism--made the local paper, the Democratic Party sent one Ken Miller to Wilberforce to meet with Ray. He offered 50 tickets--and 8 VIP tickets--to a Kerry event in Dayton. Ray declined what she saw as "hush tickets." . . .

Next, Miller offered to have Rev. Al Sharpton stop by as a speaker. That annoyed Ray even more: "We don't want a black face to speak to black students."

The final straw was when Miller said Sharpton would be sent to speak to Central State University--along with X-rated rapper Foxy Brown.

When Ray reminded Miller that they didn't want anything to do with Sharpton, Miller allegedly responded, "What do you want--Kerry to lose the f---ing race? We got you Al Sharpton. What more do you want?"

"Meanwhile, this past Wednesday, George W. Bush had a huge rally in the Pontiac Silverdome in the battleground state of Michigan," George adds. "On stage with him were two of the most popular black gospel singers--Marvin Winans and Freeport, Long Island's own Donnie McClurkin."

What more do you want? Hopefully its a political Party which respects you as Americans; not a political Party which just considers your vote an unalienable right of whatever jerk the Democrats nominate for an office.

Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today

This is a stunner:

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 10/29/2004 -- Four-term Mayor Carl Officer of East St. Louis announced before local supporters today that he has accepted the position as head of the Illinois Steering Committee of "Democrats for Bush," founded earlier this year by Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. A life long Democrat, Officer is a third generation African-American entrepreneur and mayor of America's poorest city.

The mayor was welcomed into the organization by a personal congratulatory phone call from Brian Lunde, National Executive Director of "Democrats for Bush." After the call, Mayor Officer noted, "Director Lunde told me that polls are showing that the President's support among black voters is DOUBLE what it was in his first election. He went on to kindly say that with me joining the President's team, he will now expect the support to TRIPLE."

Questioners clamored to know why he had decided to support President Bush's re-election. The mayor responded:

"I watched the debates intently, especially to try to measure the strength of each man and compare how each would face the awesome responsibility of America's safety -- a President's #1 priority. As a relatively new father, I indulged my three year old daughter and let her stay up with me as I watched. When it was over, and I looked into her eyes, I knew I had to go with the proven product, and I believe on the issue of protecting Americans first, nearly everyone agrees George Bush is the leader by far."

In further discussion with his somewhat stunned local political supporters, the mayor noted that he has long had some serious differences with the Democratic Party on gay marriage and abortion. Officer, an ordained minister, admitted that he and other African American Christians were much closer to President Bush's views on these issues.

Kudos to the Mayor of East Saint Louis - there is too much at stake in this election to let mere partisanship determine a vote; the re-election of President Bush has become a statement of American principle - it's a determination that core American values are to be respected and that America will be defended from foreign enemies regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about it.

Hat Tip: NRO's The Corner

Never thought it'd get here - Friday, October 29th, 2004; the weekend before the vote!

How is everyone feeling? Hopefully you are nervous, geared-up, signed-up (you have signed up for the final 72 hours, haven't you?) and ready for a hard fight on Tuesday.

What can we say about the state of the race? Well, the aggregate of polling shows the President in the lead - as he's been in the lead, 2 to 5 percentage points, since Labor Day. As for the Battleground States, you can take your pick on which polls you like, but the aggregate of those State polls shows the President ahead in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico; tied in Minnesota and behind in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Hampshire. If the polls are correct, then the President is winning the race - I know that Ohio is worrisome, but all word out of Bush/Cheney is that they are swearing up and down that they've got Ohio in their corner...and the Govinator heads out there this weekend before the vote.

What can we expect to see over the next three days? Beats all heck out of me - we might see polls where the President is pulling away, Kerry is surging or everything's just staying the same. My advice is to take any poll with a large grain of salt over the next three days - if it shows a Bush lead, don't get elated and if it shows a Kerry lead, don't get worried - at this point, with at least 10-15 percent of the people in any given State already having voted, no poll is really going to tell us for sure. It will all come down to us, on Tuesday, getting out to vote and getting others out there with us.

I'm confident about President Bush winning re-election on Tuesday - everything I know about my own fellow Americans tells me they will stick with the proven good leader rather than go with the unproven, nuanced, creepy uber-liberal from Massachusetts. We are a nation engaged in war - and a war we are winning rather handily, I might add - and President Bush has proven himself again and again to be the man we can rely upon to do what is right, regardless of how fearful or painful it is.

What I'd like all my fellow GOPers to do is take a deep breath, as it were, over the weekend - get out there and volunteer, of course, but also remember to go out and have a little fun far away from things political. There's plenty of work for us to do on Tuesday and we'll have plenty of time to nervously bite our nails as we wait for the returns Tueday evening - no sense in stretching the worrying out over a whole weekend, however. Keep the faith, keep on working - and then we'll hear that wonderful phrase on the evening of November 2nd "President Bush has been re-elected"....

The latest Rasmussen and Zogby polls both have John Thune up by three percentage points over Tom Daschle in South Dakota's red-hot Senate race. This is still within the margin of error in both polls, but it's got to have Daschle in a funk...and my Democratic Senator Harry Reid walking on air as he contemplates a move up from Minority Whip to Minority Leader.

It's been my view that John Thune was robbed of his victory in 2002 by outright ballot-box stuffing on the part of South Dakota Democrats - let's hope that this time around Thune wins big enough that Daschle wont be able to steal it from him.

Birds of a feather flock together - and winners know other winners when they see them:

ABC'S CHARLIE GIBSON: "Well, well said, Curt and Shonda. You both have certainly lifelong membership now in the Red Sox nation. It was a great thing to watch, and I think everybody – whether they were great Red Sox fans or not – had to admire what this team did. It was extraordinary, and one of the great stories of sport. And sport always produces such great stories. Curt, Shonda, great to have you with us. Congratulations."

CURT AND SHONDA SCHILLING: "Thank You."

CURT SCHILLING: "And make sure you tell everybody to vote, and vote Bush next week." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 10/28/04)

As winners like winners so, too, do losers like losers...and, Sox fans, let us not forget what Kerry had to say on the subject:

We’ve been waiting since 1918 for the Boston Red Sox to win the World Series, and . . . if I had a choice between the White House and the World Series this year, I’m going to take the White House. How's that?" (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Taylor, MI., 8/1/04)

This has got to have sent a thrill of fear through the ranks of Kerry/Edwards staffers...

The Boston Globe reports that Dick Holbrooke, a likely secretary of state in a Kerry administration, drew cheers in Florida--for praising President Bush:

"I'm not here to criticize President Bush," Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador, told hundreds of members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a major pro-Israel lobbying group, gathered for their annual summit. "His support for Israel is, in my mind, unquestionable."

The crowd--to Holbrooke's chagrin--offered rousing applause. "That was not," he said wryly, "supposed to be an applause line."

Jews traditionally vote heavily Democratic, but there's reason to think Bush may do better among them this year than he did in 2000:

A poll by the American Jewish Committee conducted at the end of August indicated 69 percent of respondents favoring Kerry, 24 percent supporting Bush, and 3 percent supporting Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Another 5 percent said they were undecided. Bush won 19 percent of the Jewish vote nationwide in 2000.

Not a big shift, to be sure, but in a close race, every little bit counts. As blogger Jay Cost notes, "South Florida alone has 500,000 Jewish voters. If Bush does 5% better with Jewish voters, that could be a net 17,500 votes in South Florida." Four years ago Bush carried Florida by 537 votes.

Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today

IF you tune into almost any MSM network you will come away thinking “Right to Life” voters could fit in a phone booth.

During the late 70’s and 80’s this seems to have been the case, but many people have been changing their views. The biggest change is among younger voters. The tired old leftists who started the “Choice” movement are graying and are thinning.

Many on the Left think they just need to yell that a Candidate is “Pro Life” and expect the “Women’s Vote” to come screaming back to them. This is just not the case. LifeNews.com has posted some interesting results from a Gallup Poll survey based on interviews with 1,013 adults from October 14-16, 2004.

Lydia Saad, Senior Gallup Poll Editor has the following to say.

"The net result is that 13% of all likely voters say they are pro-life and will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion," Saad explained. By contrast, only 6 percent of all likely voters say they back abortion and will only vote for candidates who will keep abortion legal.

…….

According to the Gallup poll, 23 percent of Bush's voters are single issue pro-life voters whereas only 13 percent of Kerry's backers are single issue voters in favor of abortion. Take those pro-life votes away and Saad said Bush's current lead overall among likely voters would not only be erased, he would be losing to Kerry in the polls.
Despite detractors who say Bush's pro-life stance is a drag on his re-election chances, the poll confirms he would lose by a large margin had he abandoned the pro-life perspective.

I think this explains why this Issue has not been brought up by John Kerry.

The plain fact of the matter is that in this year of 2004, a vote for President Bush is the only rational choice. John Kerry is a man who believes in nothing other than John Kerry, a man whose positions are subject to change depending on the political winds of the day - and some Democrats/liberals/leftists see this:

Brian Golden is a Democratic state representative. Golden is also a supporter of George W. Bush. For Golden, the choice in this election is clear. In an interview with NRO editor Kathryn Lopez, Golden says, "I've watched [John Kerry] in elected office for 22 years and still don't know what he stands for. That's not the kind of person I have faith in as commander-in-chief." For Golden, who recently joined other Catholic leaders in signing a letter protesting John Kerry's peculiar interpretation of Catholicism, Kerry's religious contortions are something for all voters to consider before voting on November 2 — it's a matter of character. Golden says, "Senator Kerry's willingness to place political expedience before conscience is disturbing no matter what your faith."

Mr. Golden represents Boston in the Massachusetts legislature.

Hat Tip: National Review Online

You want to win this thing? You want President Bush in office for four more years?

Then this is your assignment - you all have a large number of people in your e mail address book; send them all an e mail asking them to sign up for the Final 72 Hours.

Call your friends, pester your family - if someone owes you a favor, here's your chance to guilt-trip them into helping out the larger cause.

THERE ARE NO EXCUSES!

Do it.

Now!

Just got an e mail from the Bush/Cheney campaign (signed by Laura Bush) advising me not only of where my polling place is, when its open, who's in charge and how long it would take me to get there...but also providing driving directions from my house and including a handy map....

1. Depart Start on (REDACTED) Rd (West) .1 miles

2. Road name changes to Broxburn St .2 miles

3. Turn LEFT (West) onto Joe Michael Way, then immediately turn LEFT (South) onto N Shermcrest Way .2 miles

4. Turn LEFT (East) onto W Gowan Rd .2 miles

5. Turn RIGHT (South) onto N Torrey Pines Dr .3 miles

6. Turn RIGHT (West) onto Buckskin Ave .1 miles

Total Est. Time: 5 minutes Total Est. Distance: 1.1 miles

I think we can say with certainty that Bush/Cheney '04 has done everything it can - the rest is up to us; go here and volunteer, if you haven't already.

Volunteered, I mean. You know, it is only by volunteering our time and effort that we'll secure the re-election of President Bush.

Volunteers are good people - because they join in a cause larger than themselves in the service of their fellow man.

So, get out there and volunteer. That is, unless you've already volunteered.

If you have, then find someone else who can also volunteer.

So John Kerry has come full circle again. Either that, or he's forgotten that the centerpiece of his foreign policy plan is that "Bush lied about WMDs". Of course, with John Kerry, one never knows if he's coming or going on an issue.

Combine that wishy-washy campaign strategy with the new desperate campaign o' the headlines and the American voting public is sure to feel like they've just finished ravaging an all-you-can-eat buffet and decided to relax on a non-stop tilt-a-whirl.

Hearing the news today of a possible security failure in Iraq, the Kerry camp didn't waste any time jumping on the story and including it in the stump speech:

"George W. Bush, who talks tough, talks tough, and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver ... After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq this president failed to guard those stockpiles ... Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings"

Of course, when you're desperately moving to react to daily headlines in order to make voters forget you don't have any real plans of your own, you run the risk of accidentally admitting issues you've previously centered your campaign around not acknowledging.

The admission today is slightly different than the charges the Kerry camp has leveled this past year.

March 17, 2004 - Kerry Campaign Press Release:

"We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

"Bush and Cheney ... didn’t tell us the truth about weapons of mass destruction"

"[T]he president didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he's really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass deception ... The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction ... [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President ... Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

November 9, 1997 - Speech Before Congress:

"Saddam Hussein - without doubt - had weapons of mass destruction which were exceptionally threatening to surrounding countries, in fact to the entire planet. ... Saddam Hussein had to be wrestled to the mat no matter what, even if the United Nations were lagging. If the UN didn't get the clear, urgent message, then the United States was morally obligated to go it alone to see that Saddam Hussein was finished."

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

So for those of you keeping score at home, here's the foundation of John Kerry's latest campaign accusations:

"The Bush administration failed to secure the WMDs in Iraq ... WMDs that don't exist because the Bush administration lied to us ... WMDs that without a doubt do exist and it's not news that they exist and if they UN failed to act, we were morally obligated to go it alone ... but Bush rushed to war unilaterally and lied about WMDs that don't exist ... WMDs which he then failed to secure."

UPDATE: NRO's Kerry Spot reports NBC news has "blown a hole in the Kerry attack about the explosives"

Polls. Man, oh man are there are lot of polls out there. If you like, you can cherry-pick some of them and make yourself feel better or worse, depending on your mood. Polls, of course, don't vote - and they are and always will be just a snapshot in time. But they can tell us some things - mostly about larger trends, in my view.

All polls can be fudged or just badly done - but longer term trends are harder to fudge and even the badly done polls, by replicating their error time after time, eventually pick up on trends.

I bring this up because it startled me this weekend to see two polls out of Hawaii showing President Bush neck and neck with John Kerry. To put it into historical perspective, the Republican Party has won Hawaii's electoral votes twice - in 1972, and in 1984; both years of gigantic Republican victories. Far be it from me to proclaim Hawaii the new bellweather of American politics, but let's face up to the fact that the GOP isn't very strong there and for a Republican to win there must be either something massively right about him, or massively wrong about the Democrat. After getting over my shock about the polls, it occured to me that we've all been focused like lasers on the few "battleground" States, mostly in the American midwest - I decided to take a look at the most recent polling available for all 50 States.

What I found is that among the States President Bush won in 2000, he's matching his strength in 14 States, has gained strength in 9 States, and lost ground in 7 States. Among the States that Gore won in 2000, John Kerry is matching Gore's strength in 3, has gained strength in 4, and lost ground in 13.

Among the States where President Bush has lost some ground since 2000 are Colorado (with a scorching hot open Senate seat battle), New Hampshire (where the President is challenged by "neighboring son" John Kerry), North Carolina (the President still strongly in the lead, but "favorite son" John Edwards was bound to pull in at least some support) and Ohio (where the Democrats have gone flat-out in a bid to win the State). On the whole, a reading of the polls shows remarkable strength in the President's core States and only marginal weakening in some States where the Democrats have fought hard.

For John Kerry, among the States he has lost ground in are the aforementioned Hawaii (going from a 18.3 point Gore win to a .1 point Bush lead), Iowa (.3 point Gore win to 3.3 point Bush lead), Minnesota (2.4 point Gore win/1 point Bush lead), New Mexico (razor sharp .06 Gore win/2.7 point Bush lead) and Wisconsin (.2 point Gore win/2 point Bush lead). All of this is remarkable enough - especially when you consider that the States Gore won which now show a Bush lead total up 36 electoral votes - even winning New Hampshire (where Kerry leads) and Ohio (where they are neck and neck) wouldn't be enough for Kerry if he loses those Gore States.

But that is not all - remember that of Gore's twenty States from 2000, Kerry is behind in 13. Among the other States wherein Kerry is doing worse than Gore are California (12.4 point Gore win/9 point Kerry lead), Connecticut (17.6 point Gore win/6 point Kerry lead), Illinois (12 point Gore win/8 point Kerry lead), New Jersey(15.9 point Gore win/8.2 point Kerry lead), and most stunning of all, Massachusetts(27.3 point Gore win/14 point Kerry lead). With the exception of a little effort in New Jersey of late, President Bush has expended just about zero effort any of these States - and Kerry is doing remarkably worse in all of them.

What this shows for me is the overwhelming appeal of President Bush to the American people - his positive, forthright personality and clear vision for the future pulls people towards him and only the most relentless and negative campaigns of the Democrats can make a slight dent in the respect and affection Americans hold for their President. It also tells me that there is a very large, untold story going on out there - and the final tale is to be told on November 2nd.

I'm happy, confident and ready for the last week - and I've also signed up for the final "72 Hours"; and if you haven't, then go here and sign up. We've got the better man and the better plan, but let's not leave anything to chance, ok?

We are entering the final full week of campaigning. I will leave Polls and predictions to others, but I did find an interesting article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle.

With all the talk of close elections and unprecedented Bush hatred, a history reminder is in order.

Jennifer Nelson is an Oakland writer and worked in the Deukmejian and Wilson administrations.

Here is a taste of what she wrote today, hit this link for the rest.

To listen to the Democrats, you would think that George W. Bush is the first Republican candidate they've ever disliked and that this is the first time this nation has faced a close election. Does anyone remember 1984? Do you recall how much the Democrats hated Ronald Reagan? If you buy their version of the Reagan presidency, he invented homelessness, eliminated birth control for the poor and personally killed thousands in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras. He created AIDS and apartheid and single-handedly broke the back of organized labor. You think the liberals dislike Don Rumsfeld? Just ask them about James Watt! Don't forget about Reagan's "assault on the poor." No, the left wing of American politics couldn't just disagree with Reagan's economic policies -- he was assaulting the poor.

So, a little earlier today we here at Blogs for Bush noted that the latest Hawaii poll shows the President and Kerry tied at approximately 43% of the vote each. This stunned me quite a bit - Hawaii is a wonderful State full of great people but they do have this one great defect - they vote for Donk's as if its required by law, or something. Until 2002 when we captured the governors office in Hawaii, it had been something like 50 years since there had been a Republican governor in Hawaii. So, when I saw a poll with the President competitive in Hawaii, it made me think that just perhaps there's something going on out there not being picked up by the MSM.

The last time a Republican won Hawaii was also the last time a Republican won Massachusetts: 1984 in Ronald Reagan's magnificent 49-State sweep of the nation. We're getting ready to forgive Minnesota for voting for Mondale back then - looks like they'll vote for President Bush this year to sqaure things up with the American people for their 1984 error. The basic rule of thumb is that if a race is close, States like Hawaii should be all sewn up for a Democrat - but Hawaii is at least potentially in play for 2004. All is not well in Donk-land.

Taking a look at the most recent poll in Massachusetts, you might at first blush think it looks pretty bleak for President Bush. The poll is a bit old because Massachusetts just isn't getting polled this year - its considered a complete slam-dunk for Kerry. Kerry will, of course, win in Massachusetts. But the fact of the matter remains that Al Gore won the State by 27.3 percentage points in 2000, and Kerry only has a 14 point lead in the most recent poll. Taking a look further afield in Kerry country, we see that he's up by 6 in Connecticut (Gore by 17.6) and by 20 in Rhode Island (Gore by 29.1) - he's doing better in Rhode Island than he's doing in Massachusetts! Maybe the Bay Stater's know something Rhode Islander's don't?

I think that the Bush/Cheney spending in New England less New Hampshire for 2004 has been 50 cents so that Republicans can call someone in a Red State for moral support - there has been, as it were, zero effort in places like Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut...and the President is running far ahead of his 2000 support in all three States.

Something is going on out there in America, good people; we'll have to wait until November 2nd to find out exactly what it is, but there has to be a cloud over the heart's of Kerry/Edwards staffers...

Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review Online runs down six reasons why the Kerry campaign, and Democrats in general, are having such a hard time gaining traction in this race. All of them are excellent observations, but this one really hits the nail on the head:

Sixth, at first it seemed neat to welcome in the billions of George Soros and the hype of a Michael Moore. But not now. MoveOn.org is also beginning to grate. Even its slickest commercials come across as crass, and lacking in the populist themes of the graying and grimacing Swift-boat veterans' testimonies. Soros is an unhappy and often cruel character, and he reminds the voting public that all Kerry's cries about Halliburton and Enron fall flat when he is being subsidized with the millions made from international money speculation, which has caused such mayhem in financial markets. After all, nearly ruining the banks and pensions funds in England to make a billion dollars is not a very populist or even kind thing to do. At least Halliburton, unlike Soros and his gang of speculators, creates something real, and its employees risk their lives to build infrastructure for those desperately in need of it.

Nor was it wise to piggyback on Michael Moore's transient infamy, whose buffoonery is even more tiresome than Soros's machinations. He cannot finish a simple sentence without a barely audible grunt, obscenity, or "ya know" — even while he caricatures George Bush's diction as inelegant. His movies are increasingly discredited as crude propaganda, his books simple big-print screaming, full of factual errors and teenager logic. Moore also talks of populism, but gouges college students for $30,000 a rant — recently offering nothing more than foul language and aimless rambling, before kicking out C-Span cameras in worry that they might have captured his embarrassing nonperformance for millions of viewers. That he has figured prominently in the campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, was highlighted at the Democratic convention, and jets around for Kerry are all embarrassments — not support that any sane operative would wish. Everyone Michael Moore has ever endorsed has lost, and he should have been avoided like the kiss of political death he is.

Boiled down - you lie down with dogs, you come up with fleas. You are known by the company you keep - and the Donk's have been keeping very, very bad company of late.

Trent Wisecup over at National Review Online spells out the reasons why President Bush can win Michigan's electoral votes. Boiled down, it goes along with the way Kerry has been anti-auto, insulted the Polish contribution in Iraq (Michigan has a large Polish-American community), and, of course, that he's losing Catholic support in heavily Catholic Michigan due to his stance on things like abortion and gay marriage.

Go read the whole article - and then keep in mind that the rumor mill is stating that the President will go to Michigan this Wednesday.

Let's keep in mind that latest polling in Michigan has it either tied or the President up a little - and then let us also keep in mind that without Michigan, Kerry simply cannot win.

John Kerry, former altar boy who, by the way, also served in Vietnam and is a part-time United States Senator, seems to have struck an unresponsive chord among American Catholics.

Robert Novak points out why this might be:

John Kerry's promise in the last presidential debate that he would impose an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court selections deepened anxiety of pro-life Catholics. For Charles J. Chaput, Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, and Brian P. Golden, a Democrat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, election of a pro-choice Catholic spells disaster...

...While Kennedy 44 years ago did not want to call attention to his religion, Kerry stresses his Catholicism -- an emphasis not apparent in his Massachusetts campaigns the last three decades. He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that ''life begins at conception'' but will not impose it on others.

''Catholics with a little catechism and logic know better,'' Golden writes. He asserts that Kerry ''for 20 years, on matters most fundamental to Catholics, has been consistently wrong'' and ''is among the fervent supporters of abortion in the Senate.'' The confirmation came in the Tempe, Ariz., debate when he answered a question about Roe v. Wade: ''I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right.''

Chaput, in the Oct. 12 New York Times, is quoted after an interview with two of the newspaper's reporters: ''If you vote this way 'for a candidate like Kerry,' are you cooperating in evil? And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes.'' That is interpreted in the story as asking Catholics to vote for George W. Bush.

Keep in mind there are two types of Catholics in the United States - them that do, and them that don't; ie, those who are Church-going genuine Catholics and those who are not-Church going and are only nominally Catholic, at best. Over the years reading up on this split within Catholicism, I've come to the conclusion that about 55-60% of Catholics can be considered believing Catholics - Catholics who actually subscribe in large measure to actual Catholic teaching. I've no doubt that Kerry will do fine among Catholics who are not real believers - just as he will among the entire American demographic which are not regular worshippers. Among believing Catholics, however, I do think that 2004 will be the watershed year - the first time that such people give a very large majority of their votes to a Republican candidate.

Its just too much, you see; its a bit of "we've had it up to here and we're not taking it anymore." We Catholics are relentlessly instructed on being forgiving - always and ever give the other guy the benefit of the doubt. We've tried for ages to make nice with those who oppose us - but its just too much to swallow; to have a hypocrit who claims the mantle of our Church while going out and opposing everything Catholics stand for. If I'm right then I will write a letter of congratulations to our Democrats - it took a mighty long time, but they have actually managed to forge an alliance between Catholics (many of whom are politically liberal on matters such as healthcare, welfare, etc) and evangelical Protestants.

UPDATE: An open letter to John Kerry from Catholics:

In the most recent debate Senator Kerry, you said, "everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith” and that “everything is a gift from the Almighty.” But apparently, when it comes to the issue of the right to life, you follow neither your own faith nor your own reason.

Senator Kerry, your stand contradicts both your faith and reason.

Couldn't have said it any better.

Michael Barone has long been one of my favorite MSM commentators - in a swamp of incompetants and ideologues, he's the voice of reason. Over at US News he's got a long but exceptionally interesting article on where we stand with the election less than two weeks away. I recommend reading the whole thing, but this is the part that really struck me:

It seems curious that the percentages of the incumbent should rise while the percentages of the challenger have not risen much if at all. As a general proposition, you expect an incumbent's standing to change less, because voters already know much more about him than about his opponent. But that hasn't happened this time.

My tentative explanation is this. Bush's most effective opposition this year has come not from Kerry and the Democrats but from Old Media, the New York Times and the news pages of the Washington Post, along with the broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC. Old Media gave very heavy coverage to stories that tended to hurt Bush—violence in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, the false charges of Richard Clarke and Joseph Wilson, etc. And during the first eight months of the year Bush did a poor job of making his case.

Then, suddenly, that case was made with maximum effectiveness at the Republican National Convention in New York—by John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani, by Zell Miller and Arnold Schwarzenegger, by Laura Bush and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush himself. Bush was able to get his message out unmediated by Old Media. (Fox News Channel had more viewers during the Republican National Convention than any of the old-line broadcast networks.) The message was simple: We need this president to protect the nation. Bush muffed the chance to deliver that message effectively in the first debate. But he made up for it in the second and third debates.

Emphasis added by me. Mr. Barone does an excellent job here, but he doesn't draw the final conclusion as he should - and you can tell when you read the whole thing that he was just a step away from doing it, but probably drew back out of an overdeveloped sense of caution:

Seeing as the MSM have pretty much carried Kerry's water this whole election cycle - meaning that without the actions of the MSM, it would have been an easy blow-out for President Bush - we must presume that the polls we're seeing also have a large amount of MSM boosterism for Kerry. Mr. Barone says he doesn't think this is true, but to his credit he links to another blogger who does.

My father, among many other talents, is a statistician - meaning a major number cruncher; one thing he has always advised me is that any half-clever pollster can game the results pretty much any way he wants to. My addendum to this view is that while polls can lie, the aggregate of all polls tend to reflect at least the main truth - this is why Real Clear Politics polling aggregate is so invaluable - and as Mr. Barone points out, the trendline in the RCP aggregate has been for a steady lead by President Bush ever since Labor Day.

What does it all mean? Prepare for some pleasant surprises, Republicans.

For the real, dyed-in-the-wool political junkies out there, NRO's new feature "Battlegrounders" is a daily must-read - heck, to be more accurate, its a "several times a day daily-must read" as its updated fairly often. One thing they are doing well with is tracking the Democratic attempts at voter fraud. As of this writing, the most recent entry on this score is this:

In Minnesota the state Republican party has brought suit to enforce the state law requiring partisan balance among the election judges at polling places. (Click here for the Minneapolis Star Tribune story on the case.)

Sounds fair, but for some reason — I can't imagine what it might be — the thought appears to strike fear into the heart of Democratic operatives. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is fighting the lawsuit as though victory hinges on noncompliance with the law. The Minnesota supreme court has scheduled an expedited hearing on the matter for Thursday afternoon.

Perhaps most ominously, I have been told that in papers it has filed with the court, the DFL attorneys have asked the court to take the unprecedented step of adopting special procedures for hearing issues the DFL may choose to bring before the court on Election Day. Call them crazy, but to state Republican party officials, the DFL response is a dead giveaway that the DFL has formulated a strategic plan to mess with the election.

Isn't it a sad commentary on modern American politics that we have to file suit to have the laws enforced? I'm sorry, rank-and-file Democrats - but if you have a shred of honor and decency, you'll be voting for President Bush on November 2nd - the Democratic leadership, from John Kerry on down, is just not fit for decent company of any kind.

The really cool bit of polling lately has been the Mason-Dixon poll of my great State of Nevada - 'cause it shows the President ahead of Kerry 52% to 42%; the President squeeked to a win here in 2000 and thus it was largely due to my personal efforts that President Bush got Nevada's then-4 electoral votes and the Presidency. He'll get 5 from us this time, though I'll likely play a smaller personal part as so many of my fellow Nevadan's are chomping at the bit to vote for him.

But the polls, as I'm sure everyone is aware, have been all over the place - with the one exception being that no series of polls have shown Kerry in the lead since late August. The Real Clear Politics chart shows the average of the aggregate - and the President has been consistently ahead since Labor Day. Traditionally, there has been a word for a candidate who has been behind consistently since Labor Day: Toast. Still, there's just too much at stake in this election - so, its better to be dreadfully afraid that Kerry, via massive ballot-box stuffing and legal shennanigans, might just pull it off. Better to be on edge and working hard, right?

On the other hand, don't let 'em grind you down. We're going to be pelted over the next 10 days with all sorts of entirely bogus information - most of it generated out of the DNC and/or Kerry/Edwards. The purpose of this is to pump up flagging Donk's, depress eager Republicans and generally cloud the issue in the hopes that by hook or crook Kerry will come in close enough for the Donk lawyers to take over. An example of this sort of chicanery is the recent Harris Poll - I'm sure you heard of it. By their traditional (and highly accurate) measurement, President Bush is comfortably ahead 51% to 43%, but by a new methodology, the President's lead shrink to 48% to 46%. Daly Thoughts takes on this poll and gives us an excellent bit of insight into its underlying rationale:

Harris, however, states there are indications that many of those who fit the description of having been of voting age in 2000 but did not vote then may actually vote this time. As such, they provided a different likely voter screen, which removed the restriction that those who were of voting age in 2000 had actually voted. History has shown that people fitting this description are much less likely to vote, even if they say they are certain to vote; this is why the likely voter screen that omits them has proven to be accurate in the past. The revised Harris likely voter screen treats them just as likely to vote. From the writeup, I note that there were 820 respondants in the likely voter sample using the revised method, as compared to 755 in the traditional method. If the traditional method works for normal turnout, then the implication is that these other voters, the delta between the samples, represent voters who may turn out above and beyond the normal turnout. Under this turnout scenerio, the turnout will be 108.6% of the normal turnout. That 8.6% works out to 9.8 million voters above normal turnout. (Please note that Kerry would, according to the Harris data, get most, but not all, of these voters.)

How feasible is this?

The highest turnout in recent memory was in 1992, thanks in part to Ross Perot’s appeal. If we assume the normal growth rate in turnout from one election to the next, then given the votes cast in 1988, in 1992 there should have been about 98.6 million votes cast. The actual count was 104.4 million. That difference, 5.8 million, was above what would normally be expected. It represented 5.56% of the total vote that year. By comparison, if there really is going to be 9.8 million voters above normal this year, the additional voters would be 7.93% of the total vote.

Maybe there are nearly 10 million people, aged 22 and over, who did not vote in 2000 but are going to this year. Maybe there is such antipathy towards George W. Bush that will bring voters out even more than the candidacy of Ross Perot did. We’ll know in less than two weeks. If there are, then the Harris poll suggests that Kerry is in the ballpark. If these votes do not materialize, the Harris poll suggests that it will be a short night a week from Tuesday.

Take what you want out of the polls - if you're the nervous type, only look at those polls which make you feel better; it doesn't matter because, in the end, its who shows up to vote that counts - just remember, Remember, REMEMBER - its turnout, Turnout, TURNOUT that drives things in 2004. For God's sake, whatever you do, don't get lazy.

The Kerry Campaign is so desperate to chip away at President Bush's growing lead, they've resorted to jumping on the daily headlines to make their case. Not only does this show a complete lack of record to run on, it's also making them look completely stupid in the process.

Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign slammed Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, over reports he had a flu shot, despite a shortage of the vaccine. ... "Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the campaign said in a statement issued in Pittsburgh where Kerry was campaigning.

But the CDC guidelines and recommendations on who should get a flu shot include "persons aged 2–64 years with underlying chronic medical conditions." That would include a heart patient like Cheney.

And despite the claim that the "Bush administration is being hypocritical" the fact is that President Bush didn't get one. Neither did most of his Cabinet.

Kerry wanted to make this such an issue, his campaign even rattled off a few Republicans for added measure:

The [Kerry] campaign complained that Treasury Secretary John Snow (he's 65) and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (who got his before the CDC notice)also had jabs, despite Bush's advice that the young and healthy did not need to get an injection.

But apparently, the Kerry camp isn't worried about Democrats like Martin Frost, Tim Johnson, and Ted Kennedy - all of whom also got the shots.

Maybe the Kerry camp will move to the Weather section of tomorrow's newspaper and start blaming the Bush administration for all the dang sunshine.

Don't bother voting, fellow Republicans, no less a personage than former Clinton Justice Department official (and current member of the DNC's "Election Task Force") Eric Holder has stated clearly that no matter what happens on November 2nd, Kerry is to be elected President. Jim Geraghty of the KerrySpot gives us the scoop:

Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice Department official who is now on the Democratic party's "Election Task Force," made a remarkable statement in a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Discussing a Democratic National Committee memo calling for local party members to complain "preemptively" about voter intimidation, Holder said, "If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."

After his comment spurred some laughter, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said, "Well, I don't know how you can guarantee that." But Holder just responded, "You heard it right here. If every vote is allowed to be cast and every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president."

Let that sink in for a moment - two weeks out from the vote, a senior Democrat is stating boldly that if every vote is counted, Kerry wins. How can he possibly know that? Has he gone 'round to every person who is sure to vote on November 2nd and asked? Of course not - so, what is he up to? He's setting up what the Democrats consider the real election of 2004 - their lawsuits post-November 2nd in which they hope to litigate their way into the White House.

This is part of a long trend this year that we've witnessed among Democrats - the short story about it is that they've never felt good about Kerry's chances but they have felt that they can keep it close in enough States to provide them with a platform for lawsuits. The Democrats have lost all faith in the democratic process; at the same time, they are convinced that the only just outcome of an election is a Democratic victory - ergo, they never put the effort into crafting a message and providing a good candidate, but they have long laid their plans to hijack America's legal system in an attempt to usurp the power of the American people to determine their own leadership.

If nothing else convinces you to get out and vote on November 2nd, then this should - remember, if it ain't close, they can't cheat. Its unfair, but we of the GOP cannot win narrowly - we have to win big or not win at all. And as for you sensible Democrats out there, its time to vote Republican not because you like Republicans, but because you like our democratic Republic. The Democratic Party, perhaps blindly but at any case in reality, is set to completely undermine American democracy - if the Democrats succeed in an effort to lawsuit their way to victory, then democracy in America is dead; the only thing which will matter is who can game the system...ie, which corrupt set of politicians are willing to bare-nuckle their way into power.

Its not supposed to be this way - but in a large sense, a big GOP victory on November 2nd now becomes an act of patriotism in the highest sense; we must forever convince the Democratic leadership that they must work within the American system...that there is no shortcut to power. Craft a message, come up with a candidate and have at it - and if you lose, gracefully accept the loss and try again next time. This is the way it used to be - and it will be again, provided the Democrats suffer a crushing defeat on November 2nd.

What is the measure of the man who sits in the White House?

Ask Ashley Faulkner.

Is that the best political ad of the entire campaign season?

In yet another indication that the Democrats have become the Party of the rich, Newsmax brings us this interesting story:

In the days following the Democratic National Convention in Boston this past August, several billionaire Democratic activists secretly met at the famed Aspen Institute in Colorado.

The purpose of their clandestine meeting was "to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush," The New Yorker magazine reports in its most recent edition.

Details of the meeting remain sketchy, but the magazine described the Aspen conference this way: "Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America."

For sure, there were differences of opinion in the group, but they all shared one goal: to get George Bush this November.

Shades of the smoke-filled back rooms of yore! 'Cept seeing as these are "progressive" rapacious ultra-capitalists, we must assume that they were eating tofu rather than smoking cigars. As a conservative I'm adamantly opposed to confiscatory taxation - but in the case of these people, I think we should impose a "stupidity" tax...this is just what will get Americans all fired up for Kerry...a backroom cabal of billionaires seeking to covertly influence the election!

Of course, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats have long been beholden to a very few very rich individuals and groups - meanwhile, the GOP has been ever-reliant upon small donations from millions of concerned and patriotic citizens. We'll see on November 2nd who has the most pull.

I admit to first thinking this was some sort of Scrappleface satire, but it appears to be true:

A multitude of unlikely volunteers is working the phones for Sen. John Kerry in the swing state of Florida. His campaign is unaware of the support, as the volunteers do not live in the United States, but in Communist-run Cuba.

I think we've found the foreign supporters Kerry was on about earlier this year...

Ever get the feeling that its the GOP vs The Entire World? Sort of a replay of Athanasius contra mundi; and I feel sorry for mundi, 'cause Athanasius is going to win.

As I've pointed out earlier here at Blogs for Bush, the polls are up, the polls are down and the polls are sideways - but regardless of polls, I've held all through the 2004 election season that President Bush will win. My conviction of a win by President Bush was never predicated upon whom the Democrats would nominate (though I hold a Lieberman or Gephardt would have been a better choice for the Democrats), nor was it based centrally on such things as the economy, personality of what have you - my view has always been based upon one issue: The War.

The war, the war and the war are the three main issues of Election '04. When push comes to shove on November 2nd, I expect that the majority of the American people will enter the voting booth determined to return to office the man who has proven his mettle in actual war leadership - President Bush. John Kerry and the Democrats, by the way, actually agree with me entirely on this - thus their attempts to paint Iraq as a failure. Only a failed wartime President is at any risk of defeat - so, for the past year our Democrats have tried again and again and again to paint our magnificent victories in Iraq and Afghanistan as defeats. Hasn't worked; polling is mostly a weak reed to rely upon, but you can spot trends in polling over time - and in poll after poll after poll the American people are discovered to be determined to carry on in Iraq in spite of difficulties. Although there has been a relentless diet of mendacious negative reporting about Iraq and the larger War on Terrrorism, enough truth has come out to advise the American people of the actual situation.

Brendan Miniter provides us with some additional evidence of this:

John Kerry has been fighting the flip-flop moniker for months. So it will be with some irony if on Nov. 2 he ends up a victim of voters who've told pollsters they support him on domestic issues, but then turn around and elect George W. Bush...

...We've all met lifelong Democrats who quietly admit they support Mr. Bush this year, and the polls now appear to be opening up in the president's favor. The first sign that many would-be Democratic voters are hoping for a Bush victory probably came in New Jersey. Al Gore won the Garden State by nearly 16 points in 2000, and this year Mr. Kerry leads it by 20 points on when voters are asked who'd do a better job on education, job creation and other domestic issues. But because the issue of national security is on the table, the Democrat's lead in many polls has been in single digits, and several polls have shown a tie race. Republicans are so confident that the state is now in play, Mr. Bush spent yesterday campaigning there.

The president is looking for voters like Carol Del Tufo, a middle-aged teacher and lifelong Democrat. "Look, I'm voting for Bush," she told Washington Post reporter Michael Powell in Holmdel, N.J., last week. "He's very strong, and there's no 'maybe' in his voice." Her neighbor's husband was one of the 700 New Jersey residents murdered in the Sept. 11 attacks. "It was so scary," she said. "I've got kids. I don't want another attack."...

...A recent AP poll shows that 55% of Americans rank national security as paramount in this election, up from 43% in April.

As in all things political, predictions can be wrong - it could be that the coming election has been misread by me, but I don't think so. There's a war on - our best and bravest are fighting in it every day, and I don't believe the American people are about to turn them over to a morally bankrupt, political zero like John Kerry.

The Bush campaign announced today the release of the campaign's latest TV ad, "Risk."

The ad highlights Kerry and the liberals in Congress' pre-9/11 world view and asks if their policies are a risk we can afford to take today. The ad will begin running today on national cable and in select local markets.

Script For "Risk"

Voice Over:
After September 11th, our world changed.
Either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here.
John Kerry and liberals in Congress have a different view.
They opposed Reagan as he won the Cold War.
Voted against the first Gulf War.
Voted to slash intelligence after the first Trade Center attack.
Repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror.
John Kerry and his liberal allies... Are they a risk we can afford to take today?

In the October 17th Las Vegas Review-Journal, I noted two interesting opinion pieces which originally appeared in the Washington Post. Written respectively by a Democrat living in Mississippi and a Republican living in New York City, they offer a compelling look at what its like to be a political "fish out of water" in the United States these days. While its fun to see the oddities of being out of political step, what struck me most was the contrasting tone of the articles.

Julia Gorin, a staunch Republican living in New York City, offers us the views of a person who is surrounded by people of different political views and is ok with it - just determined in her small way to slowly grind away at the opposition in the hopes that eventually the people of New York will wake up:

...the far more common shadow that fell across our table was definitely cast in blue. Like the man who kept saying, "I can't understand why you support Bush." When my friend Kevin replied, "If you can't understand why half the country supports Bush, you need to get out more," the man deadpanned: "I get out plenty. I'm a college professor." As our group laughed in stereo, he yelled, "Anti-intellectuals!" and stormed off.

Against the backdrop of encounters like these, its gratifying enough for a New Yorker who's the new kind of red to meet a Democrat who actually treats us like people. Someone like Bill, the elderly Manhattanite who strode up to shake our hands and say, "I've lived here my whole life, and you're the first Republicans I've met."

All the more reason to stay and help paint the town red.

Contrast that with this from Robert S. McElvaine, the Democrat in Mississippi:

...I don't try to hide my views. I write an occasional column for the Clarion-Ledger. But most of Mississippi's reds don't seem to appreciate what I have to say. Some direct their complaints to the top administrators of my college, who dutifully explain to these champions of freedom what academic freedom means.

To me, this says it all - a couple GOPers in Manhattan just putting out their views, putting up with the slings and arrows of the opposition and laughing it off; meanwhile, down South, a Democrat insults the intelligence of his fellow citizens - implying that because they dare criticise a liberal, they don't know what freedom is.

Red/Blue; such is the dichotomy of the United States in 2004. It is a shame that there is a lack of understanding - but there's not much we "reds" can do about it...the lack of understanding is all on the "blue" side.

This is brought to us by Kate O'Beirne at National Review Online. Read the whole thing here, but this is what I found most interesting:

And what about those discouraging polls?

"In a close election, with polls that have you up by 6 then down by 2, if you're smart, you'll average them and see where you really are. We're ahead in Ohio." He adds, "We have fantastic grassroots in Ohio and the Democrats have none. They've relied on 527s and it's a command and control issue. Our grassroots are more reliable."

How does Colorado look? There are some troubling polls.

"We have a fantastic organization in Colorado and are doing fantastic in absentee and early voting." He adds, "Ask Senator Ted Strickland about the reliability of those polls." In 2002, Democratic and most public polls had Ted Strickland even or ahead and while Republican polls had Wayne Allard winning reelection. Allard won 51 to 46.

I think that Mehlman's pointing out the fact that the Democrats are relying upon 527's rather than genuine grass-roots effort will end up being the central story of Campaign '04. In my view, the Democratic Party at the grass-roots is atrophying - there's no other way to explain the fact that the GOP has gone from a minority of State and local political power 20 years ago to a majority today; there simply has to be more GOPers out there who are actually in the battle than Democrats.

In spite of the moth-eaten Democratic rhetoric about the GOP being the "Party of the rich", the rather stunning fact of modern times is that the Democrats have become the actual Party of the rich - and just like the GOP of yore, they tend to consider their political work done after they've attended the $1,000 a plate dinner and cut a check to the DNC. My belief is that the massive spending by 527's supported by very rich Democrats is masking the empty shell of Democratic power on the ground.

We'll have to wait until November 2nd to see if I'm right, of course but I think that the returns that evening will surprise just about everyone.

A Message from Tom Josefiak:

You have probably never heard my name. I'm one of many people who work tirelessly behind the scenes on behalf of the President's campaign. I make sure we carefully follow the law in everything we do.

In 2000, I was in Florida for the recount and remember the attacks we had to fend off in order to protect the result of a fair election from the efforts to steal it. If we had not had the support of many, many generous individuals who made contributions to our recount effort, we would not have been successful. We must start now to make sure we have the resources to defend the outcome of this election. Will you help me by making a donation to our General Election Legal and Compliance Account?

www.GeorgeWBush.com/GELAC

The election of 2000 was difficult not just for the campaigns but for our country. Florida became the center of a battle for our Democracy. This year, I am concerned about similar efforts by those who would try to adjust the outcome of the election after the polls have closed. This year we may face similar fights not just in Florida, but in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and other critical states.

By raising money for our GELAC fund, we will prepare early for any unforeseen events that may affect the outcome of the election. We will ensure that we are able to prevent any attempt to alter the outcome of the vote and any effort to suppress the voice of the voters.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/GELAC

I have spent many years in politics and have seen efforts to subvert the vote take many forms - from the manipulation of polling locations to the efforts we saw in Florida to make an end run around the state Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. Frankly, I am very tired, and hope we will not have to fight off more attacks on the people's will. The outcome of the election should be decided by voters not lawyers! But I suspect we will see more efforts by those who lost the election to change the rules so they can win.

With your help, we will ensure this does not happen.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/GELAC

I know you have been asked for donations a lot, and I, too, have given again and again. But I'll be making one more contribution - and I ask you to join me. Give all that you can, so if we have to fight for Florida, or any other state, we will have what we need to win.

Thanks,

Tom Josefiak
General Counsel
Bush-Cheney 04, Inc.

Of course, did anyone really think that anyone other than a few bought and paid-for police union bureaucrats were supporting John Kerry? Its a cinch that the cop on the beat backs the President - because the President understands what the police have to do on a daily basis; John Kerry is just another one of those Ivory Tower leftists who propose to hold the police to an impossible standard - to make everyone safe and never make a mistak in 20/20 hindsight. Here's what Chuck Canterbury would like everyone to know:

"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support [Kerry's] candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders­-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."

Hat Tip: Citizen Smash

In what will be a shock to the pundits who thought that Kerry won Wednesday's debate, the new Reuters/Zogby (ha!) poll shows that Bush picked up three points since then, extending his lead to four points over Kerry:

Bush led Kerry 48-44 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, which included one night of polling done after Wednesday's debate in Tempe, Arizona. Bush led Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, by only one point, 46-45 percent, the previous day.

An improvement in Bush's showing among undecideds and a strong response from his base Republican supporters helped fuel the president's rise.

The difference between the two daily tracking polls is that now we start to see the effects of the debate, as one-third of the survey was taken the day afterward. Far from hurting Bush, the debate seems to have swung more independents and younger voters to the Republicans, while Kerry now only holds onto half of the Catholic vote:

The new tracking poll found Bush pulling into a tie with Kerry among Catholics and women voters, and moving slightly ahead with young voters. Kerry still holds a solid lead among seniors.

Put simply, Kerry cannot win with only half of women and Catholics supporting him. Both consituencies went solidly for Gore last time around in a losing effort. If Bush captures both of these blocs, Kerry's toast, and he knows it.

As I predicted, the polls would show within 96 hours that Bush won the third debate handily. Kerry's stumbles cannot be covered up by the mainstream media, and the Mary Cheney debacle -- especially the "shame" comment by Edwards' wife -- has his campaign reeling. When even Zogby acknowledges a GOP gain in momentum, you have to assume the other polls will be more dramatic.

As Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot advises, watch carefully which states each candidate visits over the next three days. I predict that outside of Ohio, Kerry spends all of his time in Gore states, while Bush spends most of his in Gore states as well. Defense vs. offense -- it tells you what the professional polls really show.

A new Annenberg survey reveals that active-duty military members and their families prefer George Bush over John Kerry despite the Kerry/Edwards accusations of back-door drafts and poor administration of military resources, by a 3-1 margin:

When asked who they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday. ...

A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.

The Annenberg poll, which does not report head-to-head preferences, did not ask the military respondents who they support for president. The report cited a 1948 law that prohibits polling members of the military about their voting intent.

Annenberg points to the fact that military families are more likely to be Republicans as one explanation for Bush's performance among this demographic. However, one gets into chicken/egg arguments when pursuing this explanation. Military families likely align themselves with the GOP because they support Bush's efforts in fighting terrorism, and not the other way around, especially since they bear most of the burden of the war.

For those who claim that Kerry's plan to bug out of Iraq shows true support of the troops and their families, this poll should instruct them otherwise. Military families understand more than others what's at stake, and they still overwhelmingly support the forward-engagement strategy of the Bush administration over the reactive, law-enforcement tactics espoused by the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Stephen Green, AKA the Vodkapundit, appears to have had enough of the Democrats this year:

If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic. {Ed. - Drudge does have it right; click here to see)

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

Got that, everyone, the Vodkapundit is not a GOPer; not by any stretch of the imagination. He goes on...

I don't mean to imply that all Democrats are evil and all Republicans are sweetness and light. Far from it. But for the first time in 16 years, I'm going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I'm fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country.

I don't say that because of their policies, which I probably agree with more than I do the Republicans. But because their tactics would cause more harm to this country than the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican budget deficit, and Congress's corporate tax giveaways, combined.

I'm just one guy; I don't expect my vote to mean much. But the Democrats are willing to treat – in advance - my vote, and all it represents, with feigned contempt. So I can't, in return, treat the Democrats with anything less than genuine contempt.

One has to wonder just how many Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters out there are also getting turned off by the relentless hate-mongering and political dirty tricks the Democrats are up to these days. My bet is that its a substantial number - after all, here we are in the homestretch and from polling I've seen, Kerry has yet to crack 90% in support from Democrats. In addition to those like Mr. Stephens who will actually go vote Republican to punish the Democrats, how many will just stay home out of disgust?

Kerry does have a base - its that tiny, ignorant, hate-filled segment of the American population which has whipped itself into an insane frenzy about President Bush...this is maybe 25% of all voters (small, but still way too large); aside from these fanatics, who else will actually turn out for Kerry? I begin to wonder.

Hat Tip: KerrySpot

Just got back from the big rally for President Bush here in Las Vegas and I'm all on fire; pumped up, rarin' to go and feeling mighty fine. This was the first rally I've ever attended - well, strictly speaking, its my second; a few weeks before I was born in 1964 my mother took me to a Goldwater rally...I became a conservative Republican by osmosis - but, this is the first one I have a clear recollection of.

The crowd was HUGE - held at the Thomas and Mack Arena on the campus of University of Nevada Las Vegas, the place was full to "sell out" levels - even back away from the stage where you can't see anything it was full to the brim.

The crowd was LOUD - at the drop of a hat breaking into chants of "four more years!".

The crowd was also about 60% female - I guess "W" really does stand for women. It was also a very mixed crowd - from infants to elderly and people of all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds well represented. And it was gathered together on very short notice - I only got the alert about it at 10:45 am on Wednesday - less than 24 hours before the start of the event.

Not bad, not bad at all. The important thing, for me, was the amazing energy of the crowd and the President...both feeding off the enthusiasm of each other. Gotta keep in mind that Clark County, Nevada (ie, metropolitan Las Vegas) is the Donk section of my otherwise perfect State...we tried running them out on a rail but all these dry, dusty nitpickers started talking about how that might look bad on the TV news and yadda, yadda, yadda so we dropped it - so, we've got Democrats here in Clark County - but here in Donk Central, Nevada, President Bush got up a huge, enthusiastic crowd on short notice. I'm taking this as an indication of how things will play out here on November 2nd.

One of the things said at the rally really struck home with me - our Congressman John Porter, warming up the crowd before the President spoke, noted that we have to "fight the terrorists in the deserts of Iraq so that we don't have to fight them in the deserts of Nevada"; this is important, and is the ultimate reason I'm supporting President Bush. There are a score of things the President has done or proposes to do which have my support, but the only actual issue of 2004 is the War on Terrorism and President Bush gets it right - when the President says we're going to keep waging aggressive warfare on the terrorists and spread liberty around the world, what he's doing is preventing the terrorists from having the time and resources to bring the war home to me, right here in Las Vegas. I don't want us to have to fight - and I sure in heck don't want to have our best and bravest in harms way, but such is the nature of things - kill them there, or they'll kill us here.

As I've said before, also, note what people do, not what they say - you'll hear on the MSM all sorts of people saying all sorts of things - but thousands of people showing up early in the morning on short notice to support the President means more than what 10,000 MSM talking heads can say. They're talking about it, we're doing it.

How ya feelin' out there, fellow Republicans? Time to take a look at the objective realities of the situation.

The polls are up, the polls are down, the polls are sideways - and polls are important; they can give us an interesting snapshot of what is going on with a particular representative sample at a particular time. But as the old saying that I'm just making up goes, "he who lives by the poll, dies of frustration when they don't do what is expected." The only thing you should really be interested in vis a vis polls as a determination of what is going to happen on election day is to wait for the first man to say "the only poll that matters is the poll on election day." What that means is the guy in question knows he's sunk. So far, neither candidate has said this, so each side thinks it can win.

As for me, in politics I've always advised everyone to look at what people do, rather than what they say or what is said about them. Tomorrow the President is coming to Las Vegas to do a bit of political rallying - I'll be there; and this is a remarkable thing. For my adult life I've been an observer of politics - but never an active participant other than casting my vote on election day. Consult what I do, not what I say - what I'm doing is taking time out of my busy and interesting life to help a man I don't know, have never met and will gain no direct, personal advantage from. As for the visit itself - the President is coming in the one county in Nevada that he didn't carry in 2000...a county which would have handed Nevada's electoral votes, and the Presidency, to Al Gore had just a few thousand more people turned up for Gore. What is so important, then, about this? I'll tell ya...

What is happening is that the President is going into Blue Territory in order to poach votes - in other words, to make certain that when the votes are cast, he carries the Blue area better than he did in 2000 to make his keeping Nevada's electoral votes all that much more certain. By moving into Blue areas, the President is doing something - telling us that regardless of what polling might show, he's confident that his Red areas are safe and secure - he knows he doesn't have to fire up the base, and he's trying to pad his victory margin just to make sure.

Over the next couple weeks, news reports indicate that Kerry will be concentrating on Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, Iowa and Florida while President Bush will spend his time and energy in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan (in addition to Friday's Nevada visit). Take note of that - of the States Kerry plans to target, three of them are States Gore won in 2000 and each of those three States simply cannot be lost by Kerry if he wants to win the election - meanwhile, of the five States President Bush plans to concentrate on, only one of them was a State he won in 2000, and he can lose any four of them (yes, even Ohio) and still win the Presidency.

Consult what people do, not what they say - at this state of the game, the President would be known to be in trouble if, say, he was heading to Virginia and Kerry would be on top of the world if he was, say, headed to Georgia.

Now, lets all get out there - have fun (remember, this is politics - politics is fun stuff; not serious stuff like our families and friends), get involved, get out there and get to work. No excuses! You've got the time, so get out there and do the right thing.

Some of our Democrats and the MSM allies have tried to create some sort of rift in the GOP. The way they tell it, President Bush has strayed from the Reaganite straight and narrow and "real conservatives" are angry and ready to bolt the Party.

Har! If only they knew what Reagan was all about, and what conservatives actually stand for. Some day, after the direct intervention of God on high, our Democrats and the MSM will actually ask conservatives what they believe in and then do the research to find out if this is correct - until then, we'll just have to put up with their stunning ignorance.

Grover Norquist over at OpinionJournal.com explains to all and sundry that the Reagan vision not only lives, but is in absolute control of the Republican Party:

...one question asked in 2000 can now be answered: Will the Reagan coalition continue to define the nature and structure of the modern Republican Party?

In 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush ran as the heir to Ronald Reagan's coalition, dedicated to cutting taxes, limiting government, maintaining a strong national defense and keeping the secular state from trampling the rights of believers and parents. This "leave us alone" coalition doesn't demand validation. Gun owners oppose gun control; they don't demand "gun stamps" or that public school children read "Heather Has Two Barrels."...

...The 2004 Republican primaries were the testing ground for these different visions, and the Reagan-Bush vision was the clear victor. First off, no protectionist or anti-immigrant candidate presented himself in the GOP primary, even for a symbolic run. (In 1972, 1976 and 1992, sitting Republican Presidents faced primary opponents.) And in the primary campaigns for the House and Senate in 2004, Republicans recommitted themselves to the small-government, low-tax consensus.

There's a reason that some are putting out the slogan "Viva La Reagan Revolucion!" - because for everyone who actually knows and has been paying attention, the Reagan Revolution is alive and well and living in the White House under President George W. Bush. Earlier this year when the great man passed away, many of us took it as a sign to re-dedicate ourselves to Reagan's vision - it has been done and on November 2nd I'll join with millions of my fellow conservatives in saying "this one's for you, Ronnie."

We have seen below about how the Democrats continue to try and intimidate the Republicans through violence. However, the brazeness of the actions in Colorado is beyond belief.

Not only are there 6,000 felons on Colorado election lists (part of individuals' punishment for committing a felony is loss of the right to vote), but the Secretary of State, Donetta Davidson, is publically saying to let the felons vote anyway!

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson is asking Colorado counties not to turn felons away from the polls, but to let them cast emergency ballots that likely won't count on Election Day. "The goal is not to disenfranchise anyone needlessly or accidentally," she said at an emergency meeting held Monday, a legal holiday.

Davidson convened the state's 64 county clerks after The Denver Post reported Sunday that Colorado's registration rolls include as many as 6,000 state prisoners and parolees who should be ineligible to vote.

Records show state prisoners and parolees have voted as recently as the August primary, despite a law forbidding it. Since she took office overseeing state elections in 1999, Davidson has failed to prevent felons from registering or casting ballots. She blames Department of Corrections officials for not sending her the information.

Meanwhile Monday, the man who runs the Denver County Jail acknowledged that he allowed activists to register inmates to vote without requiring that anyone check their eligibility.

Update: More election fraud uncovered in Colorado.

I know, you're all thinking, "hey, wait a sec, the MSM 'reliably' reports that while President Bush is past-master on the terrorism/war thing, Kerry and the Donk's win going away on domestic issues". Of course, we know better - when we say President Bush is the better man with the better plan, we mean it in total. Even if there wasn't a war, we'd still want President Bush in there because Kerry is not just a foreign policy lightweight, he's also a liberal economic disaster just waiting to happen.

Brendan Miniter over at OpinionJournal brings us this pricesless example of domestic Kerryism from the last debate:

A questioner asked Mr. Kerry to look directly into the camera and pledge not to raise taxes on those who make less than $200,000. He made that pledge, but then switched to Senate-speak to outline the details of his tax cut for the middle class. Here's what he said: "Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut. I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids. I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents . . ."

But here's what middle America likely heard: I'm not going to raise your taxes and I'm not going to cut them either. But I will raise someone's taxes and while I'm at it I'll offer you some "credits" that you'll need to hire a tax lawyer to figure out. Not exactly "read my lips."

Actually, during the debate I almost expected Kerry to start talking about "omnibus" bills and other Senatespeak so common among Congresscritters like Kerry...he apparantly stopped himself from doing that, but the domestic policy wonkism was all over Kerry's presentation...and you know as well as I do that any translation of a Kerry domestic policy is "give me more of your money and, trust me, I'm putting it to good use."

Boiled down, the President's policies are all geared towards individuals - because only individuals can know what their needs and capabilities are. The wisest and most caring bureaucrat in DC cannot possibly know, for instance, what a single mother with two children in Kansas City needs, or is capable of. President Bush understands this - Kerry doesn't; and therein lies the clear and easy choice for us on November 2nd.

Tomorrow the last debate will be held - and the punditry is full of references to Kerry's supposed advantage in this. Don't believe it for a moment - President Bush is going to mop the floor with Kerry's moth-eaten domestic Ted Kennedyism.

Three weeks from today we shall either thumpingly re-elect our President George W. Bush or we shall by infirmness of purpose turn our Great Republic over to the palsied, uncertain hands of John Kerry. Which way would you have it come out?

Immediately, if you haven't already, get yourself here to volunteer directly for the campaign - there is still a lot of work left to do, and the final sprint will actually determine the outcome. So get moving. Now!

After you've done that (or if you already have) then I suggest a trip here to the website for Grassfire. The good people of Grassfire want to put 500,000 voter guides into the hands of voters in the "battleground" States by election day - and doing this doesn't come cheap. They've already got 100,000 guides set for delivery, and its up to each of us to ensure that the other 400,000 get into the hands of the voters.

Good people, George Soros and the rest of the super-rich, anti-American fat-cats have poured millions into their hireling efforts; an army of political mercenaries (including ex-convicts - the left ain't picky) is set to descend upon America's voters seeking by hook or crook to get John Kerry into the White House. We don't have a bunch of billionaire's to write checks for us - as always, the GOP is reliant upon average Americans in their millions giving a small amount each. Bush/Cheney '04 needs you - and organizations like Grassfire need you as well. Go and give as much as you can - in a close election, just a few thousand extra guides may make the diference out there.

No excuses - you've got the time and you've got the money, even if its only 5 minutes and 5 dollars. Every little bit helps!

It has it President Bush 51%, John Kerry 46% - right back where it was before the first debate.

I can sorta see it in swing-voter minds: "Hey, Kerry looks all right....but what is his plan....we know what the President will do....holy smokes, look at the President in the second debate, he's smokin' Kerry....yeah, Kerry looked good....but looks ain't everything"....

Script For "World View"

Voice Over:

First, Kerry said defeating terrorism was really MORE about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation...

More about law enforcement than a strong military?

Now Kerry says... We have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution... we're never going to end them.

Terrorism... a nuisance?

How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?

President Bush:
I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

UPDATE: Who does Kerry remind you of?

John Kerry likes to use the fact that he was raised Catholic as a prop for political purposes when the reality is he is about as Catholic as I am a Martian. But you don't have to be any specific faith to get a sense of the hostility of the Kerry/Edwards campaign towards religous people. Check out what happens when a group of seminarians try to attend a Kerry/Edwards debate watch event in St. Louis:

After a longer wait a young lady claiming to be a staff member of the Kerry/Edwards campaign approached. She asked to see the signs, so we showed them to her. As soon as she realized that the signs said things such as "You CANT be Catholic and pro-choice. She said that we would be unable to enter with the signs. I produced a document from the ACLU that said otherwise. At this point we began to be accosted by various Kerry supporters. They were right up in my face, screaming and yelling. With their arms flailing they informed me that I was not welcome there. Others screamed "Who are you to tell me that my daughter who was raped cannot have an abortion." We remained calm and prayerful.

They sent the same woman who I had discussed the sign issue with. She informed me that since the Kerry/Edwards campaign had rented the America's Center they had every right to deny anyone that they deemed likely to cause a disruption of to be a threat to the safety of the Senator. I told her that we would leave our signs outside. She said no. I told her that we would say nothing, and that we were not there to cause a disruption or harm to the Senator, and that if we did cause a disruption they could remove us. She said no. I asked her what evidence they had that we were going to cause a disruption, at which time she fell silent because there was no evidence. Up until this time the only disruptions were those cause by the Kerry supporters themselves, all we did was stand silently in prayer. I pressed her on this issue, but she could not give an adequate answer. They had no grounds for expelling us other than the fact that we were wearing roman collars. They knew our very presence would challenge Senator Kerry’s position on Life issues and the wanted to avoid that, even if it meant squelching our freedom of speech and freedom of expression. So much for the Democratic Party being a party of understanding and diversity.

At this point the Kerry people left and I was whisked away for a meeting with the police. They informed me that I had two options. To be escorted out peacefully or forcefully. I told them that we would leave peacefully since we did not come to cause problems only to provide a silent and prayerful witness to the sanctity of human life. I told the officers that I had only one request before we left; I wanted to know the reason we were being denied entrance. Clearly, as the police conceded, we were not a security threat, and there was no evidence that we were going to be disruptive. They asked the Kerry/Edwards people who said they would no longer speak to us about anything. Thus we were escorted out amid jeer and cheering from those still standing in line. But this is not the end of the story...

Be sure to check out what happened when the seminarians continued their silent and prayerful protest outside the area.

We now know of at least one undecided voter who decided to vote for Bush after the debate.

Robin Dahle, who asked President Bush the first question yesterday, was just on NPR's Weekend America. Dahle is on about 3:40 into the audio (courtesy of KUOW.)

Dahle said that, before the debate, there was a 40 percent chance he'd vote for President Bush. He's now 80-90 percent sure of his vote, although not 100 percent.

The reason he gave was that Bush was more "personable." He also said that Kerry blundered when he said that only 3 people in the room made $200,000/year. He said that Kerry had made that assumption based on the appearance of the audience and the location of the debate. Dahle found that condescending.

Just to really drive the stake in the heart of our Democratic friends...

Out there in the most hostile audience for President Bush, the foreign audience, just how are they rating his debate performance from last night? The good people over at NRO's The Corner provide us some helpful information:

Joshua Livestro in the Netherlands sends this sum-up of the EuroPress on the debate: The Netherlands: Centre-left Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad says “Bush looked relaxed and energized.” Headline: “President on a roll in heated debate.”

Centre-right newspaper De Telegraaf says Bush restored his credibility with last night’s performance, noting he looked “cheerful and confident.”

Belgium: “Bush fires live rounds at Kerry in second debate,” according to De Morgen. The article says Bush was defensive in the first debate, but very much on the offensive second time round.

France: “Bush plays an offence game,” says Le Figaro.

Even the left-wing Le Monde admitted Bush looked “less hesitant and more aggressive than in the first debate.”

Germany: The left-wing FAZ states that “Bush posted a much improved performance,” noting that Bush was much more aggressive than in the first debate.”

German newspaper Bild uses as a headline Bush’s remark that he just couldn’t see how Kerry could lead the US at a time of war and uncertainty. It also quotes vox pops of American voters saying they were impressed with the aggressive way in which Bush responded to the attacks of his challenger.

England “Bush bounces back,” says The Times. “Mr Bush gave a stronger performance than his tense and stumbling effort in the first encounter.”

I was going to write a bit about what I saw at the debate tonight - but I'm in too good a mood to spend time writing; so, I'll take the easy way out and just post what others are saying:

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I Think President Bush Was Most Effective, Is When He Brought People Into The Oval Office, Talked About Meeting With The Iraqi Finance Minister, Talking About Going To The Situation Room And Talking To General Tommy Franks, And Then, Finally, Also, Bringing Up Senator Kerry's Senate Record. But You Did See, I Think, A Lot Of Skill Out There Tonight." (ABC's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

Charles Franklin, University Of Wisconsin: “Kerry Was Way Too Wordy And Bush Was Folksy, Feisty.” (Ron Fournier, “Bush Fights Against Emotion, Scowls In Testy, Personal Debate With Kerry,” The Associated Press, 10/8/04)

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "The President Did Well" And Exuded An "Air Of Confidence." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/8/04)

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I Think This Keeps The Game Open. … I Do Think That Bush Certainly Came To Play Tonight, Certainly Put In A Strong Performance." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 10/8/04)

Time Magazine's Perry Bacon: "The President Actually Did Better, Did Stronger, And Put Kerry On The Defensive On The Domestic Section." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 10/8/04)

National Review's Stanley Kurtz: "I Think The President Won This Debate – Certainly As A Matter Of Momentum And Beating Expectations, But In An Absolute Sense As Well." (Stanley Kurtz, National Review's "Corner" Website, www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp, 10/8/04)

The Weekly Standard's Steven Hayes Said "I Would Say That President Bush Won The Debate, And For Me, It Was Actually A Rather Decisive Win." (CSPAN's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

CBS's Bob Schieffer: "I Thought The Best Part Of The President's Presentation Tonight Was His Closing Statement, When He Truly Seemed To Be Speaking From The Heart." (CBS's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

The Washington Post: "President Bush Sharpened His Performance Considerably." (John F. Harris, "Candidates' Differences On Vivid Display In Debate," The Washington Post, 10/9/04)

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: "There Were A Number Of Points I Thought Where The President Really Put Kerry On The Defensive." (MSNBC's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: President Bush Made "Kerry Feel Uncomfortable About His Own Record." (MSNBC's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

US News And World Report Magazine's Michael Barone: "I Give President Bush An A." (Fox News's "On The Record With Greta Van Susteren," 10/9/04)

The Washington Post's Tom Shales: "Bush Came Through As More Passionate In His Beliefs Than His Challenger And Covered A Lot More Territory As He Moved Around The Stage." (Tom Shales, "Bush And Kerry Come Out Of Their Corners," The Washington Post, 10/9/04)

The DNC and their MSM transcription service are trying mightily to spin this, but the President won. Hands down.

Last week Best of the Web today noted a poll showing President Bush gaining support among disabled Americans. James Taranto, who writes BotW opined that it might have been Kerry's ruthless exploitation of triple-amputee Max Cleland which was turning disabled voters off from Kerry's campaign, but blogger Ed Jordan has a different take on it:

Between the two Harris Interactive polls in which the shift of disabled American voters to Bush occurred, Terri Schiavo has come back into the news. The Florida Supreme Court overturned 'Terri's Law,' and there is once again real danger that Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed. . . . Disabled Americans may or may not be sensitive to Kerry's cynical use of disabled veterans as campaign props. But there is good reason to believe they are sensitve [sic] to the fact that liberals like Senator Kerry want to give them the right to die, while conservatives like President Bush want to give them the right to live.

This is important to me on a personal level. You see, one of my elder brothers is autistic - "retarded" as it was called back in more insensitive times.

He's a wonderful man - full of life; he managed by very hard work to graduate from a regular high school, he owns his own home, takes his own vacations and generally does all for himself. But he is, also, a public charge to a certain extent. He is, after all, disabled. My fear of the so-called "right to die" movement is that they will seek to end my brother's right to live - that in the inescapable logic of a more inhumane world that the "right to die" people de-facto advocate, it will be determined that the cost of assisting my brother to live will become a burden no longer desired.

Its been my experience that disabled Americans have this generalised fear - and the more disabled they are, the larger the fear. Ivory tower intellectuals might like to say that they'd never want to live like some of our disabled citizens live - that such a life is not worth living; but for those living the lives, life is worth living. It might be inconvenient and even at times painful, but they are not ready just yet to go into the hereafter.

Just as the cold, hard facts of life lead any Jew who wishes Israel to live to support President Bush so, too, does the desire of any American who wants to live regardless of what others think impell them to support the President. To me its no surprise that disabled Americans are coming 'round to supporting the President - President Bush, after all, is the candidate in the election who fully understands where our rights come from; indeed, he's the candidate who knows what rights are - Kerry, ultra-modern, ultra-liberal that he is, just doesn't understand.

For those of you who are worried about debates and their effects, it's a good thing that National Review Online brings up their 1984 report on the first Reagan/Mondale debate:

Forensically, Walter Mondale turned in one of the better performances of his career. He looked like Frankenstein's monster and his voice could have unblocked a sink. But, aside from the handicaps that God gave him, he was terse, pointed, and aggressive without being disrespectful. Even a joke or two filtered through. Reagan made none of the dreaded gaffes, which may have been his problem: He kept recurring defensively to points — minutes and minutes on Social Security, for instance — in a manner that suggested overcoaching. Something certainly threw him off his stride; he rambled, stalled, and huffed nervously throughout the first half of the debate...

...Walter Mondale's only hope is to run against the prospect of future catastrophe.

This is a good time to remind everyone that after the "disaster" of the first debate in 1984, Reagan went on to win a 49 State landslide.

That little issue disposed of, its also good to get into the meat of what Kerry was on about in the first debate. Kerry, of course, is all about how President Bush's policies have alienated the world and this has made it harder for us to win the War on Terrorism. Indeed, Kerry pointed out that we're carrying 90% of the effort in Iraq (I guess Kerry doesn't think the effort made - and blood shed - by Iraqi's on our side matters all that much) and that this is wrong - that somehow, more of the burden should be carried by others and if we'd only be nice to them, they'd gladly carry it. I've discovered an excellent passage which illustrates the weakness of Kerry's position:

{MacArthur's} differences with the "politicians," as he described his civilian superiors, lay in several areas. Unlike the advocates of collective security and like the nationalists who had become his camp followers, MacArthur distrusted the Europeans. Washington's reluctance to offend them, he said, allowed the weaker members of the alliance to dictate the American policy. "If one nation carried ninety percent of the effort, it's quite inappropriate that nations that carry only a small fraction of the efforts and the responsibility should exercise undue authority upon the decisions that are made." Senator Theodore F. Green of Rhode Island asked what would happen if other UN governments with troops in Korea objected adamantly to an aggressive American strategy.

MacArthur: My hope would be of course that the United Nations would see the wisdom and utility of that course, but if they did not I still believe that the interests of the United States being the predominant one in Korea would require our action.

Green: Alone?

MacArthur: Alone, if necessary. If the other nations of the world haven't got enough sense to see where appeasement leads after the appeasement which lead to the Second World War in Europe, if they can't see exactly the road they are following in Asia, why then we had better protect ourselves and go it alone.

- American Ceasar, by William Manchester, pg 667

No matter what alliance any American President gets together for a foreign policy initiative, the United States will carry the overwhelming bulk of the effort - since World War Two, when the United States alone produced half the military goods used by all the allied forces in the world, the United States has carried more than its fair share of the burden. This is the harsh reality of the world - good things only happen because we make them happen.

John Kerry's plan is essentially a plan which will allow the weaker members of our alliances to dictate our policies - back during the Korean War, the policy pursued by then-President Harry Truman was exactly the policy proposed by Kerry; that nothing happen without a broad alliance and that the United States hold itself back unless the allies are in full agreement with an aggressive policy. In Korea, I'll remind everyone, 33,000 Americans died in battle for a stalemate...and this stalemate agreed to by the Kerry-like politicians back in the 1950's lives with us today, but worse as the lunatics we allowed to live in 1953 are now armed with nuclear weapons and missles to deliver them to our shores.

Certainly if Kerry were President there'd still be a war on - but a war which would never be fought to a finish by a man who would be held on a leash by weak-willed, corrupt "allies" who want America as a pit-bull to protect themselves, but don't want a changed world because that would be financially unprofitable for them. A Kerry Presidency would mean decades of war without end - re-electing President Bush means we fight this war to win...because as MacArthur once very famously said "In war, there is no substitute for victory."

The Media by all signs are going to push the following line this week:

"Kerry makes comeback in polls and closes gap on major issues."

Matt makes the point below that there appears to be collusion between the "paper of record" and the DNC/Kerry campaign.

The President needs to campaign and debate as if he really is down by 5 points, and continue to hit John Kerry with his inconsistencies and nonexistent "plans".

This as the saying goes is, "where the rubber hits the road", and we’ve got to keep the pressure on and get the word out however and wherever we can.

4 more years will be reality in just 30 days.

UPDATE: Newsweek is the first out with the "Kerry Comeback" poll, here are a few sites looking at the wacky numbers:

• Powerline
  
• Redstate
  
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Instapundit

Back in July I alerted everyone to the alarmingly high number of bogus voter registrations being sent to the Nevada Secretary of State; the problem has not gone away (annoying but free registration required):

LAS VEGAS - The federal government could send federal investigators to look into possible voter registration fraud in Clark County, state officials said.

"No decision has been made at this point but they would either assist or undertake their own separate investigation," Secretary of State spokesman Steve George said Thursday.

President Bush mentioned the subject on his visit Tuesday to Las Vegas, when he rode to the Las Vegas Convention Center with Secretary of State Dean Heller, Attorney General Brian Sandoval and Gov. Kenny Guinn.

"He brought it up and he was concerned," Heller told The Las Vegas Sun.

Clark County Registrar Larry Lomax first warned the public in July that his office was receiving a large number of suspect forms distributed by groups looking to register new voters in this tight election season.

We all remember how varied counties in closely contested States back in 2000 managed to register more voters than there were voting age residents...looks like for 2004, our Democrats are pulling out all the stops. Jim Geraghty over at NRO's KerrySpot gives us the rundown on a lot of other evidence of Democratic voter fraud - go read it all, but this struck me as quite amazing...

Joshua Sharf, who blogs View From a Height, has a ton of information on potential for voter fraud in Colorado. He writes:

The two biggest movers here in terms of voter registration have been the PIRG-funded New Voters Project, and a state outfit called Fair Vote Colorado, run by a research analyst at a liberal think-tank, and a former Democratic operative. Dems have out-registered Reps here, too.

Counties are required to register voters by mail, if they provide their name, address, and birth date, and a signature, and aren't required to check any of that information. (I was told on a number of occasions that these people were signing affadavits, after all.)

Colorado has implemented rules requiring ID at the polling place for so-called "provisional voting," required under 2002's Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Now, Common Cause has filed a lawsuit alleging that this violates the Federal HAVA, and that requiring ID constitutes a poll tax. Right. Requiring people to show their Medicaid cards or government checks is a poll tax.

Note that if Common Cause wins, someone could register to vote by mail, without ID, and vote, without ID. I have verified this assertion with the Colorado Secretary of State's office.

This. Is. Nuts.

I hope state election officials are keeping a close eye on this stuff. This sounds like a massive coordinated effort nationwide to facilitate voter fraud.

Attention, mainstream media: You want to stop being mocked as a bunch of girlie-men, start sniffing around this issue!

This is why we have to fight extra hard this year - the GOP has registered more than 3,000,000 voters, and normally this in and of itself would do the trick...but as we might have to contend with millions of fraudulent votes, we can't take anything for granted. Fight, fight and then fight some more...no excuses! Or are you ok with saying "President Kerry" for the next four years?

That is of course if you consider 58,000 President Bush Ohio voters small.

U.S. Rep. John Boehner called it "the largest political event ever to be held in Ohio."

(Picture 1, Picture 2)

John Kerry will not win Ohio.

Today, Bush-Cheney '04 announced the release of their latest ad, "Searching" which "contrasts John Kerry's numerous different positions on the War on Terror and asks how he can protect us when he does not even know where he stands." Click the image above to check out the ad.

Kerry said. "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

Unlike the MSM, the Register guard newspaper decided to see what story the troops are telling.

Lance Varney, Major in the 1st Cavalry Division;

"I think we're already seeing a turning point in most of the communities, despite what may be prevalent in the news," he said during a telephone interview following a long Friday on the job. "The markets are full of people shopping, driving. The open-air markets are completely full, the streets are packed with people driving up and down selling all kinds of stuff. Kids are back at school. Soccer fields are being used that used to be trash heaps."

The difference between John “white flag” Kerry and the troops can be summed up by attitude. One is of hope and duty and the other is of political opportunism and defeatism.

"I'll just say this up front: There are some bad things that happen here in Iraq, no one can refute that," said Varney, whose unit is not involved in combat operations. "What that means, in our daily routine, is that we have to be extremely cautious when we go places outside our immediate secure area. We go fully prepared, we go with the right armored vehicle, we go with the right force protection, we go with the right personal protective equipment, because it's a lifesaver."

That said, Varney asserts that most of the violence in Baghdad is caused by a very small number of people, many of them fighters from outside Iraq determined to thwart the American effort. The vast majority of Baghdadis seem to support the troops and their rebuilding projects, he said.

"When we drive by in our military vehicles going from Point A to Point B, the people for the most part, especially the kids, wave and give us the thumbs up sign," Varney said. "Women and children wave. That's kind of reassuring to see."

John Kerry has made accusations of trading in a Dictator for chaos. I guess from his comfy perch in the elite of elite American society that’s easy to say. The reality on the ground is much different.

"The people I work with in the mayor's office endured the entire regime of Saddam Hussein," he said. "They talk to me about what it used to be like when everything was rationed, all decisions were micromanaged. There was a great amount of tyranny and fear among the people, and they were destitute, they had nothing. And now they have a lot."

Varney said there's no question that the American effort has a long way to go before life in Baghdad is anything like that in a modern democracy. But he said the people, by and large, believe it will happen.

"It's not a question of, do they trust us. They know exactly what we're trying to achieve, and for the most part we're partnering up to achieve what they want," he said. "They're optimistic. I think they're very optimistic."

John Kerry should truly be ashamed of himself. He can make political arguments for his ideas on how he would fight the War on Terror and handle Iraq differently, after all that’s fair game and what political campaigns are all about.

It would be nice if he could do it without sounding the alarm of defeatism and disparaging our allies at the same time. The most despicable blunder he made this week was putting Prime Minister Allawi’s life in even more danger than it currently is.

John Kerry calling PM Allawi a “puppet” of America may have done more harm to the Iraqi people than any of the MSM misleading press all year.

If you do, then here's your big chance.

Its been a long year, and now we're in the hardest part of the campaign. The Democrats are going to hit us with everything they've got and anything they can make up about us - but the only thing that matters is who shows up to vote on Election Day.

From ages past, the Democrats have always had a superior "ground game" on election day - with their government employee union members (who often take the day off on our dime to help out the Democrats) and with their "walking around money" bribes to street hustlers, they've always been able to gin up voters for their side. We of the GOP have, on the other hand, relied upon our message and our record to get people to the polls for us - but we cannot keep to the quiet dogmas of the past; the stakes in this election are just too high.

Have you volunteered to help with the election effort? Those of us who have are already all set to go - but President Bush and the GOP need everyone they can get. I urge everyone who has not volunteered to click here and become a volunteer - and as soon as possible sign up for the Final 72 Hours effort; this is where we'll be manning phone banks, walking our neighborhoods, providing transport to the polls. In short, we'll be doing the ground work to ensure that as many people as possible vote.

No excuses, good people. None of this "I don't have the time" nonsense - our best and bravest are risking their lives to ensure you have the right to vote and you darned well can find the time to help out; the kids soccor practice can be put off, the car can be washed next week, and that leaking pipe will go one more day.

Get moving!

Bob Herbert asks this question about John Kerry in today's New York Times.

I have news for the Bob Herberts of the country, He Has!

What you see is what you get. Tall, Dark and Boring.

He has no Ideas for the Future and is living in made-up memories of days gone by.

This story fits in nicely with Paul’s first post of the day. It would seem that the Democrat’s can’t keep their rage under control.

The following is from a paper in Gainesville.

Politics in Gainesville turned rough and tumble Thursday night when, police say, a social behavior sciences instructor - a Democrat - punched the chairman of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee in the face.

David Philip McCally, 55, of Gainesville faces misdemeanor battery and criminal mischief charges after he was accused of hitting both committee chairman Travis Horn, 32, and a life-sized, cardboard cutout of President George Bush.

In typical Democrat fashion he tried to blame the victim.

McCally said he went into a nearby restaurant after going into the Republican office, and Horn was standing by the door cursing him. He went out, Horn continued to curse him and stepped too close. McCally said he hit Horn and let him get up. Then Horn gave him "a good one-two punch" and McCally went down. But Horn continued to kick him, McCally said.

"I've got the stitches and bruises to prove it," he said.

Luckily for Horn the Police were right there and saw the incident.

Reached Friday, Horn said, "I enjoy thoughtful debate with my counterparts on the left. I think this is what makes this country great, but when you cross the line with physical violence, it's absurd."

After hitting the cutout, Horn said McCally left the office where a Young Republicans meeting was taking place. When Horn went outside, he said McCally came up to him. "He proceeded to say how he had a Ph.D., and he was smarter than me. I'm a stupid Republican," and other comments laced with obscenities, he said.

Horn said he was hit and knocked into a wall.

His lips were cut and his nose injured.

"I then proceeded to defend myself," he said. "I used the minimum force necessary to subdue him."

The police report states Horn kicked McCally because McCally was holding on to Horn's legs.

Police happened to be pulling into the area at the time, Horn said. A police report states officers saw McCally throw what they later learned was the first punch.

The best part of this story is the last line.

As for Horn's commitment to his political opinions, he said, "If I have to take a beating every day for George W. Bush to be president, I'll do that. My passion for my beliefs continues unabated."

We've been told all year that there are 14 or so States which will be the battlegrounds of 2004 - States which went narrowly for President Bush or Al Gore back in 2000 and thus are ripe for poaching by either side. There is, of course, an element of truth to this - while voting patterns do shift, they tend to shift slowly and thus a place which was competitive in the last election is likely to be competitive in the current election, all else being equal.

That being said, there seems to be something going on out there which polling is only starting to pick up on. The invaluable, indispensible, wonderful and all 'round nifty Real Clear Politics links us to a new poll in New Jersey done by Survey USA (which pegged the California recall election last year very well) showing President Bush up by 4 percentage points in New Jersey. This is a State Gore won by 15 percentage points and all of punditry (yours truly, included) assumed it was a slam-dunk for whomever the Democrats nominated in 2004. The last three polls done in NJ have shown this 4 point lead for the President and a 3 and 4 point lead for Kerry - on balance, we have to assume with two of three polls showing Kerry ahead, that if the vote were held today, Kerry would win NJ - but only barely. That is remarkable.

New Jersey is a heavily Democratic State - a State so Democratic that when back in 2002 the Donks needed to dump a corrupt Senator in favor of a candidate with a better chance of winning, they had no problem flexing the political muscle in the State and getting it done - and then in spite of this political chicanery of the worst sort, they managed to get out the vote and win the general election. Nice, solid Democratic State - yet Kerry's eventual fate in the State is unknown; a likely win for him, but he'll have to fight it out. New Jersey is a battleground State.

What are we to make of all this?

That there really is such a thing as a "9/11 Democrat" - a Democrat who in the aftermath of the worst attack ever launched on American soil has decided that winning the War on Terrorism trumps partisan political advantage. New Jersey, of course, was very heavily affected by the 9/11 attacks and thus would be all the more strongly influenced in its voting patterns by it - but to a lesser degree I believe that all areas of the nation have this effect (and its worked both right and left - a goodly number of strong conservatives who have reservations about some of President Bush's domestic policies have also determined that winning the war is more important than purity of conservative ideology).

Generally, this is not something which will show up in the polls - pollsters do their polls and their polling models say that Democrats will vote for the Democrat and Republicans will vote for the Republican and thus they are likely to toss out results which show too many Democrats supporting the Republican candidate. The net effect of this might be quite a surprising result in the voting on November 2nd.

The political battlefield has expanded - nothing may be taken for granted; we don't really know what is going on out there. Anecdotal evidence is, as they say, the worst sort of evidence - but in my day to day conversations I've noticed an emerging pattern: There are those who simply support the President, then there are those who dislike the President (mostly a residual resentment from 2000) and will simply look for a reason to oppose him regardless of the facts of the case, finally there are those who are a little shy of stating it, but when pressed a bit reveal that they are Democrats who are going to pull the lever for President Bush in 2004 - because there is a war on and we have to win it.

What November 2nd will show us is how deeply this goes. I think it goes very deep - I think that the political battlefield is not "Republicans vs Democrats" at all; there are no areas of the country which cannot be won by the GOP, because the political battlefield is not a few States nor a few voting demographics, but its a line right through the heart of every American.

It is up to us as people who support the President and are absolutely convinced that winning the war is vital to tread with care in this arena of politics. Fire must be fought with fire, but the fire must be used carefully lest it turn about and burn us. We are, in the end, all Americans and our fate is collective - there wont be victory or defeat for just one part of America; all of America will win, or all of America will lose. Keep that in mind - and seek by gentle nudging to move people towards our side, using the bludgeon only against those who are clearly of a mindset outside of logic and reason.

Zell Miller speaks his mind once again. He speaks about how unfit his party nominee, John Kerry is to be elected President. He also speaks to the "anger" that his fellow Democrats accuse him of.

First, the anger. A lot has been said about my angry demeanor. I've made enough speeches to know that you're supposed to connect with the audience by telling a joke or a humorous anecdote or some amusing tale. It's a tried-and-true formula that I've used for most of my life. But this was not a normal speech in a normal time.

Today, we are at the most serious moment of history that we may ever know, and I wanted to connect with the seriousness of this moment, not the audience.

The best hitting line, is his closing statement. You know that it is from the heart of a man whose political party has left not only him, but the rest of us as well.

So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands.

My friends, I have to say that the following can be found in the new Kitty Kelly book. This is so shocking and so powerful that it just may turn this race around for John Kerry.

p. 263: 43 gets really mad at someone at Yale who throws a football at him, and he throws it back REALLY hard.

Many asked what happened to the Bush twins blogging at the official campaign blog... Well, looks like they are back at the keyboard and reentering the blogosphere...

Yesterday, John Kerry bizarrely promised to create a "Department of Wellness." Where did this idea come from? It turns out that it came from the senator's biggest financial backer:

Apparently this idea comes from Teresa Heinz Kerry, who told the Boston Herald in January 2003 that she would, in the Herald's words, "be an activist first lady, lobbying for a Department of Wellness that would stress preventive health."

UPDATE: Since the wannabe first lady/lobbyist-in-chief would pay for this department with your tax dollars, it's worth noting that she refuses to make her tax returns public.

Has everyone checked out the recent slew of State polls?

CNN/USA Today/Gallup have it 52/43 for President Bush in Ohio, 48/47 in Pennsylvania, 55/41 in Missouri and 44/52 in Washington...not a bad run, if you ask me; comfortable in the "must win" State of OH and MO, giving Donk's the shakes in their "must win" States of WA and PA. And Rasmussen puts Kerry up by only 4 in New Jersey (Gore by 15 in 2000) and by 8 in California (Gore by 11 in 2000).

Missouri is still accounted a "battleground" State for this election - but with four of the last five polls in MO showing the President ahead outside the margin of error, I'm beginning to wonder just how our punditry is calculating "battleground".

All of this, of course, is part of the post-convention "bounce" the President got from our magnificent convention in New York last week - but its still nice to see movement our way.

Lets get back to work with a will.

Hat Tip: The incredibly wonderful Real Clear Politics

Yesterday, Time magazine released a poll taken of likely voters before George W. Bush accepted the nomination and gave his stirring acceptance speech.

Newsweek released its poll of registered voters taken after Bush had given his speech and the President has an 11 point lead, 54% - 43%

UPDATE: Wizbang discovers some fuzzy math by the Chicago Sun-Times.

President Bush takes his momentum gathering campaign to Ohio today and reaches out for votes from Democrats and Independants who voted against him in 2000:

Northeast Ohio's blue-collar cities overwhelmingly voted against Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign. But many suburbs are controlled by Republicans, as are fast-growing "outer-ring" suburban counties.

Bush's visit Saturday hits two of those locations - the Cleveland suburb of Broadview Heights, where he took 55 percent of the vote in 2000, and conservative Lake County northeast of the city.

David Tryon, 45, attending the Bush rally in his hometown of Broadview Heights, said he understands the importance of Bush winning Ohio and doing well in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County.

"I think that all of Cuyahoga County should vote for George Bush, including the inner city to be free from the tyranny of the Democrats who have destroyed the inner city of America," he said.

John Kerry can do no wrong, just ask him. No matter if he is falling down on the ski slopes or ineptly responding to troubles with his campaign. He always seems to blame missteps on “those other guys”.

The latest out of his sinking swift boat campaign is that he is “Mad”. Oh yes, he is so mad he passed on second servings of truffles and caviar this morning.

As many know by now, the men who know him best have put out a book (#1 best seller Unfit for Command) and have put out ads to correct the record and Biography Kerry has been trying to rewrite since the late 70’s.

The New York Daily News has this today.

Sen. John Kerry is angry at the way his campaign has botched the attacks from the Swift boat veterans and has ordered a staff shakeup that will put former Clinton aides in top positions. "The candidate is furious," a longtime senior Kerry adviser told the Daily News. "He knows the campaign was wrong. He wanted to go after the Swift boat attacks, but his top aides said no."

Instapundit has more.

The Democrats stepped in it today. The problem started yesterday when they tried to nail Bush on a Quote he gave "The Today show".

What the Dems and the Media what you to belive President Bush said.

"We can't Win the War on Terror"

The only problem the Dems/Media have is with the truth.

Read the conversation in context here,

Lauer: “Have you ever thought, President Bush, about what the first four years of your presidency might have been like were it not for 9/11?”

President Bush: “No, I haven't because I haven't had that luxury. Well, I haven't had the luxury because it was defined by 9/11. You know every day, as I tell the people, every day I wake up thinking about how better to protect America. It’s just the nature of the presidency right now--one of those moments in history that is a defining moment for all of us. I really haven't sat down and had that luxury of thinking what it'd be like.”

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

They knew going in that they would to take it out of context to make the smear attempt work, but it has backfired.

Now President Bush and Terror record are back at the top of the News.

He will be asked to clarify his comments at each and every interview. Guess what? This is a great chance for the people to hear how in-tune the President is with the real challenge we face.

From today's interview on Rush.

Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I was saying, you know, what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will find them on the offense. We will bring them to justice on foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people and in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying. The kind of war we're in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty -- and this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit -- and that's what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.

Right on.

I would like to ask the Dems to keep bringing up terrorism as much as possible.

Well, according to Drudge, he's doing well enough to have Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle use images of President Bush in his campaign ads:

Sen. Tom Daschle: Tonight, the President has called us again to greatness, and tonight we answer that call.

Male Voice: In our country's hour of need, Tom Daschle made us proud.

We've got 'em on the run.

John Kerry reached his island retreat at 2 a.m. Sunday, after taking a red-eye flight from Seattle on his campaign jet, for a week of ceding the political spotlight to President Bush.

He'll kite-surf the Nantucket Sound breezes, ride his $6,000, U.S.-made racing bicycle and dine with wife Teresa Heinz Kerry at restaurants in this old whaling port.

And now for the punch to the gut.

During the Democratic convention, Kerry told his Navy crewmates from the Vietnam War that he'd enjoy taking them "out on the water" while the GOP staged its show. But such a visit wasn't organized.

Watch what John Kerry does, not what he says he'll do. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure he planned to do it before he told his “Band of Brothers” to wash his car instead.

(story USA Today)

It will only get better

The World is a more peaceful place. Many on the left and their friends in the Media will want to hide under the bed for this report.

The authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in a 2004 Yearbook report says 19 major armed conflicts were under way worldwide in 2003, a sharp drop from 33 wars counted in 1991.

The Canadian organization Project Ploughshares, using broader criteria to define armed conflict, says in its new annual report that the number of conflicts declined to 36 in 2003, from a peak of 44 in 1995. (story)

President Bush is pushing a foreign policy that put Thugs and Murders on notice, and it’s working. This type of wide-eyed acknowledgment to the treat has many on the left and media clucking their tongues, but no longer will America sit idly by while terrorists kill our people. (Somalia, 1st World Trade Center Bombing, USS Cole, African embassy bombings)

We are about to start a week that will shine the spotlight on a leader that this country needs for the next 4 years.

In other news.... It looks like we have a Bull Market going into the Presidents Big Week.

Iowa Markets tracking.

A new Los Angeles Times poll has encouraging news for the Bush campaign.

President Bush has moved past Sen. John F. Kerry in three of the most hotly contested Midwestern battleground states despite continued doubts about the country's direction and the president's policies, new Los Angeles Times polls have found.

According to the surveys, Bush has opened leads within the margin of error in Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri — states at the top of both campaigns' priority lists.

In Missouri, Bush leads among registered voters 46% to 44%; in Wisconsin, he leads 48% to 44%; and in Ohio, the president holds a 49% to 44% advantage, the surveys found.

As to why the polls are moving Bush's way, the Times offers this commentary:

The surveys also show that voters in all three states pick Bush over Kerry when asked which man is most likely to develop a plan to succeed in Iraq and who would be more qualified to serve as commander in chief. Voters in all three states also gave Bush a big lead when asked which would best protect the nation from terrorism.

"I feel confident George Bush is an adult and he takes his job seriously," said Tom Kelly, an equipment operator in Cudahy Wis. "As far his Number One duty to protect citizens, I feel he's doing everything in his power to do that."

By narrow margins in Wisconsin and Ohio, and a wider margin in Missouri, more voters picked Bush when asked which candidate shares their moral values. And, as in the national poll, far more voters pick Kerry than Bush when asked which man is most likely to flip-flop on issues.

John Kerry sent his guys out for a good old Texas Cheap photo op.

You may have heard that former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went out to the presidents Texas Ranch to deliver a "letter".

The letter urged the president to specifically condemn the ads (Swift Boat), saying they "represent the worst kind of politics."

In return the President, Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Sam Johnson,Lt. General David Palmer, Robert O'Malley-Medal of Honor Recipient, James Fleming-Medal of Honor Recipient and Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.) sent this..

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office; President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

Newsweek's GENEXT Poll is out and the President is doing pretty well.

Registered voters under 30 say they prefer the Democratic candidate to George W. Bush by 50 percent to 41 percent, reflecting a smaller-than-expected 2-point gain for Kerry from the poll’s July results. Independent candidate Ralph Nader draws 5 percent of the youth vote.

I would have to guess that the Likely voters margin would be smaller. What may be more important is the view that the young set has for National Security.

According to the poll—taken after the Bush administration issued a controversial terror warning based partly on old intelligence—54 percent of young voters approve of the president’s handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism, up from 46 percent in July.

The numbers look better for Kerry on the domestic front but that could change after the Convention. The Media have played down many of the Presidents Domestic plans, Social Security, Health Care, Etc.Etc.

The Campaign for better or worse has been stuck in the Water boarders of Vietnam and Cambodia for the past several months and may only come out after President Bush’s speech at the Republican Convention.

Poll Story Here.

Tomorrow night you can go to GeorgeWBush.com and chat with eCampaign Director Michael Turk who will be discussing "the campaign's innovative online effort and takes your questions about using the Web to motivate grassroots volunteers and to communicate the campaign's message."

This is a good opportunity for the Bush Blogoshere to talk directly with the campaign about how utilize the web for grassroots efforts - like what we are doing here. Click here to register now and submit questions!

One of President Bush's most talented and trusted advisors is back from her time away from the White House:

The most important woman in President Bush's political life is back on the payroll as of today.

Longtime adviser and friend Karen Hughes traveled with Bush on the campaign trail this past week for the first time in the current election cycle.

Hughes is not ruling out an eventual return to the White House if there is a second Bush term. Her son Robert will be a high school senior this year.

Hughes and her husband, Jerry, prefer Austin — including their friends, church and and what she calls their "newly remodeled home" there — to Washington.

"That said, anytime the president wants to ask you to consider serving in his administration you have to listen and consider," she said.

Looking at the very real demographic shifts in population and voter make-up, President Bush is again taking his bus tour to the great state of Wisconsin:

President Bush is trying to capitalize on what some analysts see as a political realignment in northwestern Wisconsin that could put the state in the president's column in November.

Bush rolls out Wednesday on his third bus tour of the state since May, when he campaigned in the Mississippi River farmlands that eluded him in the 2000 election. He lost the state by fewer than 6,000 votes.

Bush stops first Wednesday in Chippewa Falls, an area he won by 700 votes four years ago. His second stop is in an area that includes Hudson, the fastest-growing city in the state and where voters narrowly endorsed him four years ago.

The presidential race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry is close in Wisconsin and Minnesota, which Bush also planned to visit Wednesday. He was scheduled to speak at a rally in St. Paul.

The trip will be Bush's fifth of the year to Wisconsin and fourth to Minnesota, matching Kerry's count.

While our Democratic friends decry the President's plans to scrap military deployments dating from the Cold War, President Bush is moving ahead with visions of the future:

Another thing that's interesting that's happening at Boeing that probably you aren't aware of, but you should be, is that Boeing engineers lowered the first ballistic missile interceptor into its silo at Fort Greely, Alaska. It's the beginning of a missile defense system that was envisioned by Ronald Reagan, a system necessary to protect us against the threats of the 21st century. We want to continue to perfect this system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: you fire, we're going to shoot it down.

I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system really don't understand the threats of the 21st century. They're living in the past. We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country.

"Living in the past"; that sums up our Democrats perfectly. A couple weeks ago, Kerry was absurdly claiming to have conservative values - but there is one quasi-conservative thing Kerry does do and that is to live in the past. For Kerry, its forever 1969 in the Mekong Delta - I guess since its the only worthy thing he's ever done, it has become the sine qua non for him. Our Democrats have become ossified - complete slaves to the status quo. They carp about removing troops from Germany. Why? Because it might break down our alliance with Germany. Do we need to be allied with Germany? Our Democrats answer "yes", but I'd like to have one of them explain just what vital function our so-called alliance with Germany carries out.

Abraham Lincoln once advised us in a time of great crisis that it is time to think anew and act anew - that the quiet dogmas of the past are not always sufficient for the current alarms. Trust me on this one: I'd much rather we had a world where the biggest issue I grappled with was the level of government spending - but such arguments are for a quiet time, now past; a time which may come again, but not until the current crisis is resolved. So, I follow President Bush - he leads us down a rocky path fraught with difficulties and risks, but its the only path to the future and if we dare not tread this path, others will and they shape our future for us.

Wired.com reports: Hackers are aiming to disrupt Republican websites during the Republican National Convention.

Hardened electronic activists are planning to jam up the servers of GeorgeWBush.com, GOP.com and related websites, once the Republican National Convention gets underway Aug. 29.

"We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again. These FloodNet programs are similar to hackers' distributed denial-of-service attacks, which overwhelm a server with thousands and thousands of simultaneous requests for information.

It actually gets worse...

According to Wired:

The point of the electronic demonstrations isn't to take down a site, according to Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, or EDT, which is releasing a FloodNet program of its own. Unlike hackers' denial-of-service attacks, which often hijack computers against their users' will, EDT's JavaScript-based software depends on how many people use the program. "It's a way to let people around the world gather and let their presence be felt," Dominguez said.

Not that he would mind if a Republican server just happened to crash along the way. In 2002, at the EDT's direction, 43,000 people flooded the site of the World Economic Forum during its meeting in New York. The organization's website went offline for several hours following the demonstration.

The Black Hat Hackers Bloc is hoping to cause a whole lot more trouble when the Republicans start to gather in New York. The groups will be targeting not only GOP computers, but "e-mail, faxes and phones, too," CrimethInc said, as well as unspecified "financial disruption."

It is terrorism.

In this case, it will be terrorism in support of John Kerry.

Will he denounce it? Will he call, now, for these e-terrorists to call off their attacks? He should.

UPDATE: Here's a call for "electronic civil disobedience," distributed by the Black Hat Hackers Bloc and The Hacktivist and the lowlifes at Indymedia. The BHHB asserts that hacking "can be used as a legitimate tool of direct action to fight for social justice and pressure corporation and governments for progressive change. Hacktivism is a non-violent act of civil disobedience that can complement street protests in challenging the status quo.

Targets for flooding are listed below. We are asking people to use all tools at their disposal to bombard the given servers with so much traffic that it will become unable to serve any more web requests. People can participate in the actions by using the given floodnet scripts on the campaign website or by launching your own distributed denial of service attacks."

DDoS attacks are a crime in at least 14 states, not a "legitimate tool,"as the BHHB asserts. DDoS attacks also are considered a crime by the Feds.

As Michael A. Vatis, director of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center, said in testimony Feb. 29, 2000, on cybercrime before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee:

The distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks earlier this month are only the most recent illustration of the economic disruption that can be caused by tools now readily available on the Internet.

We have also seen a rise recently in politically motivated attacks on web pages or email servers, which some have dubbed "hacktivism." In these incidents, groups and individuals overload e-mail servers or deface web sites to send a political message. While these attacks generally have not altered operating systems or networks, they have disrupted services, caused monetary loss, and denied the public access to websites containing valuable information, thereby infringing on others' rights to disseminate and receive information.

The Washington Post (not exactly a friendly paper to the Bush campaign) has a nice write-up on the growing strength of the Bush campaign:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa -- President Bush has formidable obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last week that he is a politician with formidable strengths.

Anyone who doubts it should spend some time watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush looked and sounded like someone dropping by a neighbor's lawn party -- no coat, no tie, rolled-up sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the job done."

In loosening his style, Bush tightened his message.

By the looks of the Latest USA Today/Gallup numbers President Bush is heading into the Convention is very good position.

President Bush's job-approval rating, a key indicator of an incumbent's chance of being re-elected, has turned upward, the Gallup Poll finds.

The share of Americans who say they approve of the job Bush is doing inched over the 50% mark to 51%. No president who was at or above 50% at this point in an election year has lost.

Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist, said, "It looks like the American public is not near as pessimistic as Sen. Kerry is."

Bush's job-approval rating hit its low point, 46%, in May.

The poll finds the presidential race essentially tied: Bush leads Kerry 48%-46% among likely voters; independent Ralph Nader has 3%. The difference between Bush and Kerry is within the poll's error margin of +/- 4 percentage points.

I am looking forward to a lot of powerful speakers at the upcoming Convention. We should come out in great shape for the home stretch.

First off, let me observe that its pretty sad that a Catholic politician has to have a "Catholics for" website - I mean, what's next? "Democrats for Kerry?" Anways, there is such a group and their website is here.

As they put it, Catholics for Kerry is...

...a grassroots effort by Catholics to support John Kerry and John Edwards in their bid for the White House. At Catholics for Kerry 04, we believe in the sanctity of life, but we also strongly believe in protecting the environment, protecting American jobs, women's rights, helping the poor and homeless, the right to unionize, defending the Constitution, law and order, defending the homeland, ending an unjust war in Iraq, keeping our Military strong, and restoring Americas credibility in the world.

That is quite a dog's breakfast of issues, don't you think?

They believe in the sanctity of life, so you'd think that Kerry wouldn't be their first choice (all that opposition to bans on the inhuman and barbaric practice of "partial birth" abortions, you know?), but then they go on and let us know what, apparantly, trumps a concern for life - things like the right to unionize, protecting American jobs and protecting the environment. I don't have time to read through the entirety of the Catechism at this moment, but from my past readings I don't believe I ever came across a really strong injunction for Catholics to ensure that workers can unionize...though maybe any first class Catholic theologians can set me straight on this. This Catholic, just to let you know, wants a clean environment - but he considers protecting the sanctity of human life just a little more important than the plight of the rain forest.

Far be it from me to question the faith of my fellow Catholics who have decided to support John Kerry; in matters of conscience, it always is ultimately up to the individual to choose his course. Still, Catholics for Kerry does have some rather strange friends, like the odd-ball who is linked here on their website:

WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsen, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations.

William Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has this to say about Catholics for Kerry:

“The home page of Catholics for Kerry 04 prominently lists comments by Wayne Madsden, who says, ‘George W. Bush’s blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to ‘evil doers,’ in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations—the anti-Christ.’ He also charges that Bush ‘couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult.’

“This is the language of a demagogue, and it has no legitimate role to play in presidential politics.

To which Catholics for Kerry responds by saying that the link about President Bush being the anti-Christ isn't "prominently" displayed. Call me some sort of screwball, but perhaps there just might be a question of judgement to be made here - and, just perhaps, its time for Catholics for Kerry to decide whether they are really trying to bring a Catholic perspective to the Kerry/Edwards campaign or are they, instead, just being shills for a uber-liberal pol on the make?

Floating around the blogosphere the past day or so has been this little gem from ABC News' The Note:

Forget the fact that that we still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004. (If you are that elusive figure, e-mail us and tell us who you are and why: politicalunit@abcnews.com.)

Well, Jeff Harrel of The Shape of Days has stepped up to the plate to help The Note out...

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, stand back now and prepare to be amazed. I had no idea that I was such a rare specimen, but apparently you guys "still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004." Let me help you out with that.

I turned 18 in 1990. In 1992, I voted for then Governor Clinton. I voted for him again in 1996. In 2000, I voted for then Vice President Gore, despite being a resident of the great state of Texas. I wasn't thrilled with the outcome of the 2000 election, but once it was all said and done I threw my support behind our President and waited to see how he did.

He didn't get much of a breaking-in period.

After 9/11, the whole country seemed to wake up. It was as if we all were blinking away our long national slumber. The murmur went out across the land: "It's time to make the doughnuts." We knew what we had to do, and we did it. As one nation, with one will.

Then, gradually, little by little, my fellow Democrats began to go insane.

I started to notice it in the spring of 2002. We had delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban the previous winter—hand over the terrorists or suffer their fate—and when they refused to comply, we did what we had to do. In the spring of '02 we delivered the same ultimatum to the corrupt, tyrannical, megalomaniacal leader of Iraq—disavow your support of terrorism and call off your quest for weapons of mass destruction—and just like the Taliban he refused to comply. But from way, way, way out there to the left, a distant cry was heard: no. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, they said. Which struck me as odd because you had to have been living under a rock not to know about Saddam's support for Abu Nidal and other infamous terrorists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they said. Which made me wonder if my fellow Democrats considered the score settled after the fall of Kabul. It's just a pretense, they said. As if we needed a pretense to take out a dictator who had been telegraphing his defiance to the world for more than a decade.

I disagree with the Republican party on some key issues: school choice and capital punishment, for instance. But I can no longer throw in my lot with a party that venerates Michael Moore. I can no longer throw my lot in with a party that thinks the war on terrorism is just a metaphor, like Johnson's war on poverty or Reagan's war on drugs. I can no longer throw my lot in with a party that thinks that the insane ramblings of a Jim McDermott constitute rational public discourse, or that the breathless appeals to international mediators of an Eddie Bernice Johnson are anything other than a national embarrassment.

As late as mid-May, I was still tentatively planning to vote for Senator Kerry in November. His key platform planks seemed to be more or less identical to the President's, and a change of leadership at the top would do a lot to heal the schism that's divided our country. But then I started listening to what he was actually saying. I heard him pound the podium over new initiatives—energy independence, counter-proliferation—that the President had announced a year ago or more. I heard him flip-flop on the Iraq invasion. I heard him promise to RAISE my taxes. I heard him propose a trillion dollars in new spending with no plan at all to pay for it. And I never, ever heard him say that he considers our country's interests to be above the interests of France, Germany and Russia.

That's when I started listening to the Bush campaign. Measurable improvements in reading and math scores. A whole new kind of school accountability: schoolresults.org. Medical savings accounts. A tax plan that favors small-business owners. A reasoned and measured approach to the sticky ethical dilemma of stem cell research. It started to add up. It started to make sense.

So I'm voting to re-elect the President in November. Not only that, but I'm campaigning for him. I didn't have much extra money in my pocket this year, but I gave what I could to the President's campaign, because I don't want a party that is united by nothing but bitterness and bile to win the White House.

And you know what else? I know lots of folks who feel exactly the same way.

So enough with the "we can't find a single American" stuff, huh? 'Cause if that's how it is, then it seems to me that you folks haven't been looking very hard.

Anyone else out there who was Gore supporter and is planning on voting for President Bush on November 2nd should e mail The Note at the above referenced e mail address.

Hat Tip: Dean's World

Well, that phony show of patriotism that the Donk's put on in Boston last week didn't help much, according to Ramussen:

Thursday August 05, 2004--A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

Take note of the fact that in the Rasmussen poll, those with no military experience back Kerry - in other words, Kerry gets a majority from those least knowledgeable of military affairs. Its also interesting that people are paying more attention to what family and friends say (and likely blogs like this one) than they pay attention to major media coverage. This probably also helps explain why non-military people back Kerry; people who have zero military exposure probably have friends who also lack this exposure; its a circle of ignorance feeding ignorance.

Personally, I've yet to come across a person who was in the military who is backing Kerry. I'm sure there out there (the poll shows it), but its a small number. Those who know the best are backing President Bush. That should tell everyone something.

On Sunday, John Kerry asked "four more years of what?" when he was confronted with some enthusiastic pro-Bush demonstrators at one of his campaign stops, according to Fox News.

Its a valid question, of course, but one that Kerry probably doesn't want answered. While President Bush will give the best and most complete answer to this question, I'd like to take a stab at it. What we'll get with four more years of President Bush is:

1. Four more years of a President who clearly likes average Americans. This might not seem like much, but the more we look at the Democratic leadership, the more we perceive that they don't really like average Americans. We're an annoyance to them - we're the people who, with our votes, prevent the Democrats from obtaining power. The happiest day for the Democrats in the past 20 years was the day in 1992 when the anti-Democratic vote split, thus allowing the small minority who still cling to the worn-out and corrupt Democratic Party to put their man in the White House. President Bush likes us as a people - he likes to be around us, he speaks our language and he's completely comfortable in large crowds of us.

2. Four more years of a President who recognises that its the average American who makes things work. It isn't academic "experts" who move America; it isn't entertainment industry elitists; it isn't corrupt union bosses - its just normal, average, everyday Americans who keep the ship of state moving along. Given that President Bush understands this, we can look forward to four more years of a President who will return to us our resources and our power to take charge of our own destiny. He'll do this in the form of further tax cuts, more expansions of school choice and faith-based initiatives, and the little things like, say, allowing the people of the western States to have a say in what lands are placed into reserves and which lands are retained for the use by the people.

3. Four more years of a President who, when America is threatened, thinks not of his Party or his own political prospects, but takes to heed only what is right for America. President Bush could have taken the easy way out after 9/11...dropped a few bombs, made a few speeches and then left it at that; but that is not the sort of man President Bush is. We can rest assured that when bold and dangerous action is necessary to secure the United States and its allies, President Bush will order the necessary actions. We had 8 years of never-ending adolescence in our government - for the past three and a half years, we've had hard-nosed and strong willed adults at the helm, and its a comfort to know this.

4. Finally, and most importantly, what we get with four more years of President Bush is a continued sense that America is taking charge of its own destiny - that we are not in an era of limits, a time of American dimunation; a place where America becomes just another nation in the United Nations roster, no more important than any other. Just as back in the heady days of Ronald Reagan, the United States is once again that shining city on a hill; a beacon of strength and liberty for all well-disposed men and women to repair to. After 8 years of petty-minded navel-gazing, its great to have an America on the move, again.

President Bush is not the perfect man - just like any other human being, he is a flawed person who makes his mistakes; but what he has done for three and a half very intense years of American history is do the right things as he has perceived them. Better than the IQ of a Einstein or the panache of a Clinton, President Bush brings to the table a sterling character and a moral strength which has proved sufficient to lead us from crisis to the verge of victory. As for me, the only possible disappointment I'll have on November 2nd is the knowledge that we'll be losing this great President without fail by January 20th, 2009. He'll be hard to replace and if we're lucky, we'll get a man of half his calibre to eventually replace him.

Written by guest blogger Kevin McCullough of kmc.crosswalk.com.
________________________

Thousands of white, black, hispanic, and Asian churches from the New York area are marching on NYC City Hall today to make a proactive statement of support for President Bush's constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

I have talked about it on my sydnicated radio show for weeks but today on my weblog you can read for yourself the details of the latest updates as they occur today...

Here is just a sample: "For the last 120 days we have talked about the need to send a message of support for the institution of marriage as it has been defined from the beginning of civilization. The day has arrived and the time to act is here.

Today at City Hall Park in downtown NYC, you are invited to come and renew your marriage vows. Marriage by definition is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. This ceremony today is extremely significant to this regard.

Significant in size and scope. Today unified African American churches from the COGIC denomination (Church of God In Christ) in NYC will work together with suburban white churches in ways never before seen. COGIC has roughly 5000 churches in the Tri-State area. CONLICO which is the largest association of hispanic churches in the NYC Metro area and consists of roughly 7000 churches in the Tri-State area is also participating. And the City Covenant Coalition, which brought together 400 pastors on the steps of City Hall back in the spring will again be the organizing agency to accomplish today's task will also play a major role in the day.

In the past several weeks we have talked with Pastors Joe Mattera, of CCC, Bishop Hector Banano of CONLICO, and Dr. Jerry West of COGIC on the show. In addition to that better than a dozen more pastors have made appearances in support of the event today.

We have made personal pleas and asked pastors to do the same in their pulpits...

So today the day arrives...be at City Hall by no later than 3pm - you will want to get a good spot. Remember there are no placards denouncing anything. This is a pro-actively positive statement by the unfied church community in the New York area to say "we value marriage as an institution and we wish to see it protected from being redefined so as to become meaningless."

The major media CBS/NBC/ABC have ignored the groups efforts thus far. It seems anytime that large numbers of African Americans rally in support of something that the media opposes that it gets little attention. Today - blogs can make a difference.

• Go to the rally
• Write about your experience
• If you cannot make it to the rally, scan the web for any coverage and write about the coverage
• Check back with http://kmclive.com throughout the day to have a complete listing of stories that are coming in as they get posted on the web - primarily from New York media.

This should on its own merits be a huge story today. The Democrats are preparing to deconstruct the American family next week just a few miles north of where more than 250,000 Blacks, Hispanics, and others will gather to raise their voice in support of President Bush's idea of what family is.

I have written more than a few posts on this topic although I ignored the non-story of Bush skipping the NAACP convention due in large part to their racist ads against him in 2000.

Well, at his Urban League speech the President poses some great questions for the black community. Questions I believe will resonate far more strongly them than the NAACP or Democratic party would like you to believe:

Does the Democrat party take African American voters for granted?

Is it a good thing for the African American community to be represented mainly by one political party?

How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?

Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat party truly served the African American community?

Does blocking the faith-based initiative help neighborhoods where the only social service provider could be a church?

Does the status quo in education really, really help the children of this country?

Does class warfare -- has class warfare or higher taxes ever created decent jobs in the inner city?

Are you satisfied with the same answers on crime, excuses for drugs and blindness to the problem of the family?

While John Kerry had this to say yesterday:

Brokaw: "Did you know that [Berger] was under investigation?"

Kerry: "I didn't have a clue, not a clue."

Brokaw: "He didn't share that with you?

Kerry: "I didn't have a clue."

President Bush had this to say today:

It's now been three and a half years since the Vice President and I took office. We've faced significant challenges. We have met them head-on. I believe it's the President's job to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations. Because of our actions, America is becoming a safer and stronger and better country.

So, while the SS Clueless is hitting an iceBerger, President Bush is actually getting the job done.

Who do you think is gonna win?

Oh, and go read the whole speech by the President - its excellent!

J. McIntyre over at Real Clear Politics has an excellent analysis of the state of the race for the Presidency at this point. Among the more important points made is the fact that our Democratic friends are growing ever more confident in their man's ability to pull this off - the change from last year when the Democrats were largely sure their quest was pointless to today is remarkable. The basis for our Democrats optimism is the fact that, boiled down, the two candidates are tied in the polls and that President Bush's approval ratings have been hovering around the high 40's for a while now - the conventional wisdom is that such a situation leads to a challenger winning because the "undecided" vote (about 10% in most polling), breaks 3 or 4 to 1 in favor of the challenger. Thus for the Democrats the thinking is that 45/45 split means that once the undecided decide, it will be about 52/48 for Kerry and the rotten, evil, nasty and unfair Bush Administration is history.

While I hate to burst bubbles, I think some bubble-bursting is in order.

The Pew Survey, which paints about the rosiest picture for the Democrats these days says this about itself:

Results for the July 2004 Foreign Policy and Party Images survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,009 adults, 18 years of age or older, during the period July 8-18, 2004. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. For results based on 1,568 Registered Voters, the sampling error is plus or minus 3.0 percentage points. For results based on either Form 1 (N=1003) or Form 2 (N=1006) general public, the sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Keeping in mind that this rosy survey - which purports to show the Democrats tied or leading on all issues save that of who best handles the domestic terrorism threat - still only gives John Kerry a 2 percentage point lead. Why would a polling agency poll non-voters about a prospective vote? Well, you tell me because I can't figure it out; but if you look into the details of the Pew Survey, you'll see that while they concentrated on the registered voters for the "will you vote for A or B?", they suddenly switched over to using everyone when it came time to ask about the military effort in Iraq, and for some bizarre reason when it was time to ask if they approved or disapproved of President Bush, only 927 of the 2,009 responses were used (I guess the other 1,082 people didn't give the right answers?).

Our Democrats are confident because the polling appears to show some promise for their guy Kerry - I'm confident, on the other hand, because I believe in President Bush's program and want to support it to a succesful conclusion. We've got our work cut out for us, fellow GOPers, but its the difference between our supporting a candidate and the Democrats opposing a President - we want a positive outcome (our guy to win), they want a negative outcome (our guy to lose). The election, on both sides, is all about President Bush - and if the Democrats try to make the election about John Kerry, then they'll find they have the most liberal Senator in the United States as their man and they'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

First off, it seems that the "Edwards Bounce" has faded. According to Rasmussen, for the last two days the poll results (of 1,500 likely voters), has shown the race at 47% for President Bush and 45% for Kerry. Still within the margin of error, of course, but the plain fact of the matter is that Kerry should be 5-7 percentage points ahead at this point, if historical trends are anything to go by.

The Washington Times brings to our attention a poll done by the Pew Center:

More than two-thirds of Americans think the Bush administration has done a good job in fighting terrorism, according to a poll released yesterday.

The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, showed that 53 percent of respondents felt that the government had done its job "fairly well" and 18 percent felt that it was "doing very well," Agence France-Presse reports.

The center noted that the approval rating for the war on terrorism has remained relatively unchanged during the past two years. In August 2003, 75 percent said the administration was doing well at fighting terrorism, compared with 76 percent in August 2002.

If correct, then this poll is devastating for any small chance Kerry might have had. Its my view that the War on Terrorism will be the central issue of the actual vote on November 2nd - for Kerry to win he has a dual task; to convince the American people both that President Bush has failed and that Kerry will do better. Its not looking to good for Kerry on this point at this time.

Perhaps the economy will be a better issue for Kerry? Well, no:

Tuesday July 20, 2004--After reaching a new six-month high yesterday, the Rasmussen Consumer Index gave back two points on Tuesday to 121.6. The Index, which measures the economic confidence of American consumers on a daily basis, is up four points from a week ago, up one point from a month ago and up eleven points from three months ago.

People thinking President Bush is doing ok on the war and the economy, just what is a Donk to do these days? Ah, I know, try and spin a bit of skullduggery from a former Clinton aide...ah, well, it keeps 'em busy for a bit; the Donk's wont have much to do after November 2nd...perhaps we can rent them out to some country in need of a bunch of losers?

Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping points out that a group which is seriously called Godless Americans has endorsed John Kerry for the Presidency. Sensing goes on to point out that he had heard a rumor that the Communist Party USA had also endorsed Kerry - unfortunately for Mr. Sensing, the Commies website was down earlier so he couldn't verify the rumor - fortunately for us, the Commies got their act together and its back up. Its not an endorsement of Kerry, but its a list of reasons for defeating President Bush which is, in a way, a de-facto endorsement of Senator Kerry because is a dead certainty that the Communist candidate wont win in November.

So, there ya have it - Godless people and commies want Kerry elected. In case any of you Donk's want to contest this, I draw your attention to the following:

1. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all...

2. Bush has chosen to lavish tax cuts upon the wealthiest among us while working Americans struggle to afford health care for their families...

Guess which one is the commie statement and which one is the Kerry statement.

Number 1 is the commies, number 2 is the Kerry...you should have figured it out easy as number 2 is always supposed to be in the John.

The President is showing strength in huge numbers at his campaign rallies over the past week. I can only guess how much bigger they will get. This shows that the Left-Wing Media still has a long way to go for their team John/John.

The president wowed about 8,000 supporters with a 45-minute speech that stuck to his campaign's basic mantra of "America: Safer, Stronger Better" since he took office nearly four years ago.

"Thanks for invitin' me. And thanks for comin'," Bush said in his Texas drawl.

Bush noted that the last time he was in Duluth was in November 2000, during his first run for the White House.

"It was a little colder that day," Bush joked.

The left-wing press will be putting on the full court press leading up to and including the week of the Democrat convention. But don’t believe the hype. G.W Bush is strong and We will win Nov 2.

Remember all the Donk complaints about how President Bush's "money advantage" was oh, so unfair - how President Bush was going to be able to come on like gangbusters with ads and poor little John Kerry could only hope that his message would get out? Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way:

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

Of course, you have to add in the "527's", but, still, 82% percent more pro-Kerry/anti-Bush ads. So much for "poor John Kerry" and so much for "GOP money advantage".

Now, for the good news...

With all this spending and all that "Edwards bounce", the aggregate of polling over at Real Clear Politics only shows a slight lead for Kerry/Edwards over Bush/Cheney. In fact, I heard on the news today that Kerry's people are starting to downplay expectations for the "Edwards bounce". While in historical terms Kerry could expect a 10-15 percentage point surge after his VP pick, it looks like the actual bounce will be in the 5-7 percentage point range. Meanwhile, we've not even begun to fight...

Bush campaign officials say the data do not trouble them. "The Bush-Cheney campaign has $64 million in cash on hand. The campaign is very comfortable that it has the resources to implement its strategy," says Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt. The Kerry campaign had about $30 million on hand at the end of June

I wonder if President Bush ever gets tired of playing "rope a dope" with the Donks? All this spending, all this negative advertising, all the thrill of Little John...and its getting them nowhere, and the President has $64 million to blanket the airwaves right after the Donk convention and before the GOP convention...and, meanwhile, the conservative "527's" are just ramping up...

But, at any rate, lets never hear again from the Democrats that they are at a money disadvantage with the GOP...in fact, they have the advantage overall, and its quite large...wont work, of course; you have to have something worth selling before people will buy it...and the Two Johns just ain't what the people are looking for...

So, guys and gals, what this is is the perfect moment to go here and slip the Bush/Cheney campaign a bit more cash...the more we have, the harder we'll hammer 'em in August with more ads like this one.

We all remember how in 2002, Republican John Thune (running again this year against Tom Daschle) lost his Senate bid in South Dakota against Democrat Tim Johnson by 527 votes - what most people don't remember is how the race was decided when a very late-reporting district provide just enough votes to Johnson to pull off the win. Its good to keep that 527 vote loss in mind as we also remember the many stories of voter registration fraud in South Dakota in the run-up to the vote. We were informed in news reports before the vote of things like this:

More and more counties are uncovering fraud. Rapid City officials are investigating two brothers who may have forged registrations. Denise Red Horse of Ziebach County died September 3 in a car crash. But both Ziebach and Dewey counties found separate absentee-ballot applications from her dated September 21 in bundles of applications mailed from Democratic headquarters. Maka Duta, who worked for the Democratic Party collecting registrations in Ziebach, bought a county history book that contains many local names. Some are turning up in the pile of new registrations. At least nine absentee ballot requests have been returned by the post office. Mable Romero says she received a registration card for her three-year-old granddaughter, Ashley. Some voters claim to have been offered cash to register to vote. In both Dewey and Ziebach counties, the number of registered voters easily exceeds the number of residents over 18 counted by the 2000 census.

This is important, friends, because it looks like its happening again. As of this moment, I don't have all the details - I don't know which Party has been sending in the fraudulent voter registrations, but that fraudulent voter registration has hit new highs here in Clark County, Nevada (think: Las Vegas) is indisputable:

Nevada's position as a battleground state in the presidential election has sparked a surge in fake voter registrations, Clark County's top election official said.

"We've never seen anything close to this," said Larry Lomax, registrar of voters.

So far, the office has flagged several hundred suspicious registration forms, but Lomax believes many more escaped detection among the 5,000 forms coming through his office every week.

"There are stupid criminals out there, and there are smart ones," Lomax said. "We can spot the stupid ones because they submit them in a stack."

Because of the state's swing-state status, political groups are paying people to register as many voters as possible, a common practice.

However, some groups are illegally paying for each registration form submitted instead of paying workers by the hour.

Again and again, we've heard our Democratic friends state that they will do just about anything to get President Bush out of office - I leave it to anyone who wishes to take a stab at it to try and prove to me that the Democrats will not do in 2004 what they've done in 2002 and before - register fraudulent voters and then stuff ballot boxes with the resultant votes.

We cannot counter this by legal actions - it would be impossible in the four months remaining before the vote to investigate all voter registrations and bring cases against the criminals who are doing this. We can only work very, very hard to get enough real voters to the polls to counteract the hundreds of thousands of fake voters the Democrats are going to rely upon to win the election for them.

What can you do? You can go here and sign up as a Bush/Cheney campaign volunteer and also make a donation. We've got a lot of work to do and not much time to do it in, so get busy or get ready for a President Kerry.

Is it just me, or do you agree that Sen. John Edwards looks a lot like Richie Rich?

John Kerry and John Edwards, the wealthiest presidential/vice presidential ticket in American history (and the most liberal!) sets out on their first campaign swing to convince average Americans that they are just like them.

Except that they have million-dollar vacation homes and a whole lot more money. And better hair. And a plan to raise your taxes.

That's them in the last photo, waving, appropriately, to the people on your LEFT. And yes, it really does say Million Air on the steps. And no, it isn't accurate. Kerry and Edwards are both a lot richer than that. Kerry inherited some of his money and married the rest. He barely shows up anymore to do the the job for which taxpayers pay him $140,000 a year. Edwards got his money by suing doctors and health insurance companies, driving up the cost of medical care for everyone else while funding the purchase of his very own mansion.

Kerry/Edwards: Just Like You - Except Rich Enough To Not Sweat the Tax Increases They're Planning For You.

Its been an article of faith for our Democratic friends that there simply wont be any Gore voters pulling the lever for President Bush in 2004 - I actually first heard this assertion only a couple days after the election in 2000. In the Democratic meme, whomever was the Democratic nominee was essentially assured Gore's 48% of the vote in 2004 - thus it only became a matter of getting two more percentage points (and, of course, getting them in the right electoral States) and, viola!, a Democrat wins in'04, and Bush the Younger becomes another one-term Bush President. But is this true?

Of course its not - in fact, its asinine and always was. Anyone with any political sense at all knows that there is always shifts between elections...the guy who voted for the loser might be pleasantly surprised by the winner, while the guy who voted for the winner might be annoyed by his choice as time goes by. The only thing we do have a good read on so far is that President Bush's base is very solidly behind him. In poll after poll, President Bush is scoring the strong support of 80%+ of people who voted for him in 2000 (and 90%+ of GOPers)...meanwhile, in poll after poll Kerry seems to only be the sure beneficiary of about 60% of the people who voted for Gore in 2000.

James Taranto of Best of the Web Today gathered together some interesting letters from people who voted for Gore in 2000 and are set to vote for President Bush in 2004. Here's a sample:

I wanted to e-mail the gent who claimed virtually no one who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in '04; however, no e-mail address was available for him. Perhaps you might forward my message.

I accompanied my parents as they campaigned for John F. Kennedy; my husband and I went door-to-door for George McGovern; I've lived in major urban centers my entire adult life, haven't had a TV since '75, lived abroad during much of the '80s, speak and write Japanese, have an advanced degree but no children, and produced and hosted a feminist radio show on an NPR affiliate in the '70s, and of course voted for Gore in 2000. All very nice and leftish.

However, I believe George W. Bush is one of our greatest presidents and I will cast my vote for him in November. I can only speak for myself of course, but if a committed lefty like me can change her mind, all I can say is carry an oxygen tank, you might get buried in that landslide you're predicting.

--Kelly Colgan Azar

Go read them all as they are all illuminating. Of course, some of President Bush's 2000 voters are going to vote for Kerry this time around - but the concept that there is this monolithic and united Democratic Party, burning with desire for revenge for Florida 2000, is just plain and simple nonsense. There are such people out there, of course; but how many people do you know who stay angry forever? We've all known people who carry grudges, but lets face the fact that as time goes on, most people we know drop it and move on...most people who were burned up about 2000 have moved on. The problem for the Democrats is that they are banking entirely upon angry Gore 2000 voters to be joined by seeing-the-light Nader 2000 voters and carrying John Kerry (or a stuffed pepper, if the Donk's nominated same) into the White House.

They've got paranoid, conspiracy-theorist-financial shark George Soros, we've got Sir John Templeton.

World famous financier Sir John Templeton has donated $1 million through his foundation to a political group that will encourage religious conservatives to vote this November.

Templeton’s significant donation is another sign the hotly contested 2004 race may turn out to be a battle of billionaires for the hearts and minds of Americans.

The John Templeton Foundation, launched in 1987 by philanthropist, author and financier Sir John Mark Templeton, has earmarked the donation to kick-start an independent-expenditure group that will “counter the millions of dollars being spent to attack and discredit President Bush by leftist organizations such as those supported by billionaire George Soros, Hollywood liberals and others,” according to the group’s president, Colin A. Hanna.

This is another one of those "about time" moments, of course; but we on the right had to wait and see what the legal ramifications were...while liberal/left groups like MoveOn are in their typical "law-be-damned" mode so common among liberal special interest groups.

Its going to be a battle royale from now till November - nothing but political fun, fun, fun; with the best bit being that seeing as all these liberal interest groups and bazillionaires are going to be spending their money fruitlessly trying to defeat President Bush, we can look forward to a few years of peace and quiet - they'll be too broke on November 3rd to bother us for a while.

Its been widely reported that Vice President Cheney had some choice and rather colorful words to say to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy the other day in the United States Senate. This has set off a minor kerfuffle; you know, the phony claims of being shocked from the ranks of the John F'ing Kerry supporters. The same people who defend Stern's right to be raunchy on the radio are claiming they are feeling faint after hearing about a swear word uttered by the Vice President.

Let me first say that as a former sailor in the United States Navy, you can get a lot more foul-mouthed than the Vice President (or Senator Kerry, for that matter). It is a sign of the crudeness of our modern society that such words are uttered seemingly more frequently than in the past but, hey, it wasn't conservatives who urged everyone to loosen up over swear words...its exceptionally hypocritical for liberal Demcorats to claim offense at the uttering of words they think its ok for 8 year olds to hear on TV.

Vice President Cheney has recently stated that he's got no problem with what he said; no apologies and no regrets. This is refreshing - we're all human and sometimes someone does something which requires something a bit stronger than an "I deplore" or "I'm offended". Senator Leahy is a man who seems to go out of his way to do things which make people want to tell him, strongly, where to go.

Senator Leahy is, first and foremost, a pork-barrelling politician on the make. He's never met a government subsidy he didn't like and he's firm in his opposition to tax cuts because this would provide him with less government swag necessary to buy him the votes for re-election. In addition to this run-of-the-mill corrupt politics, Senator Leahy also routinely makes himself a royal pain for anyone who wishes to approach the problems of government policy using logic, reason and a clear concern for the actual facts in the case.

Senator Leahy has long been one of the most outrageous Democratic Senators in his actions vis a vis President Bush, the Bush Administration and the War on Terrorism. When someone makes a Senate speech deploring, say, the over-emphasis on side-issues like Abu Gharib, what they are usually really deploring is Senator Leahy's brand of facts-be-damned political demagoguery on the issue.

Its Senator Leahy who is leading the charge in claiming there is a "cover up" about Abu Gharib, even though pretty much the only thing we don't know is what brand of underwear was used. Senator Leahy is also one of those who are trying to say that we went into Iraq in order to get Haliburton some contracts. Lets just say that if someone were lying about you as brazenly and as constantly as Leahy lies about President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the whole Administration, you'd be willing to let him know in no uncertain terms what you thought about him.

Well, guys and gals, you've been waiting for them, and here they are.

A conservative group launched its first television ad Thursday that shows President Bush shaking hands with firefighters amid the World Trade Center wreckage and poses the question, "Could John Kerry have shown this leadership?"

Progress for America Voter Fund said it will spend $1 million over three weeks to run the commercial - and another to be unveiled after July 4 - in the swing states of Nevada and New Mexico.

The organization said the ads are the first step in a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to counter the pro-Democratic groups that have spent more than $40 million on ads criticizing Bush.

I've seen the ad as it ran here in Las Vegas; nicely hard-hitting. You can see the ad by clicking here. Progress for America Voter Fund describes itself thusly:

The liberal politicians are working overtime to push their failed policies on America and distort the accomplished public policy records of conservative leaders across this nation. Everyday their campaigns engage in double-speak designed to bring us back to the days of tax-and-spend, government-knows-best policies. These policies thwart the ability of American families to keep more of what they earn and provide a safe environment for educating their children and growing the economy.

Progress for America Voter Fund ("PFA-VF") is a conservative issue advocacy organization dedicated to keeping the issue record straight on the campaign trail and serving as a "Political Truth Squad".

According to the linked news article, their goal is to at least match the $40 million in liberal special-interest money which has so far been spent lying about President Bush's record. So, if you've maxed out your contributions to President Bush and you're looking for another way to help, now you know where to go.

Real Clear Politics has the run-down on the lastest polling trends. On the whole, things have swung to President Bush's favor:

Prompted by the Harris poll showing a ten point lead for President Bush among likely voters I speculated that the Normandy commemoration, the G-8 Summit, the formation of the new government in Iraq, the unanimous UN Security Council resolution and Reagan's death had perhaps provided a turning point in the race. Since then we have seen the release of three major polls (ABC News/Wash Post, CNN/Gallup/USA Today, FOX News/Opinion Dynamics) two of which support the contention there has been real movement towards the President, one which does not.

ABC/WP's poll indicated a four point shift towards Kerry among registered voters. Their poll from May 20-23 had the race tied 46%-46%, this week's poll taken June 17-20 has Kerry ahead 48%-44%. However, Gallup's poll showed a seven point swing towards President Bush among likely voters. Their poll from June 5-8 showed Kerry ahead 50%-44%, while the poll taken June 21-23 has Bush ahead 49%-48%. The FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows the same seven point move towards President Bush. Their poll from June 8-9 had the race tied at 42%, the new poll taken June 22-23 has Bush ahead 47%-40%.

In addition to these swings in the national polling, I've noted some interesting poll results in the "battleground" States - namely that President Bush is gaining support in MI (Bush 42/Kerry 40), FL (Bush 48/Kerry 38), PA (Bush 46/Kerry41), and OH (Bush 45/Kerry 41). Of course for each of these States there is also polling showing advantages for Kerry - but taking one thing with another, I believe we are seeing a general trend towards the President.

As Real Clear Politics goes on to point out, however:

I said after Kerry captured the nomination that these polls were going to bounce around and it would be a mistake to get caught up in a blip one way or the other (barring one side being able to establish a five plus point lead for more than a week). And I think that is still good advice until we get through Kerry's VP selection, the Boston convention and then the 9/11 anniversary and the GOP convention in New York.

In other words, there are many major events to get through which will have their effect on the race - so we can't say for certain what is going to happen. By mid-September we should have a pretty clear picture of how things will come out, but thats three months from now. Lots of work left to do, so don't forget to go here and do some work.

Still, Kerry's people gotta be feeling a bit down right now - and I agree with Real Clear Politics that eventually relentless negativity gets "priced in" to the political landscape. In other words, the reporting about Iraq has been so overwhelmingly negative that any glimmer of good news coming through stands out that much more prominently and, also, if things start to go to hell in a handbasket, it wont be noticed too much because the reporting has made it look like hell all along. The one constant in political life in the era of Bush the Younger is the consistent way the left and its lapdog media shoots itself in the foot.

In conclusion - be of good cheer, the President's re-election plan is working and as long as we "nose to the grindstone" it out till November 2nd, we'll get what we want.

"This is Not a Time for Pessimism and Rage"

Click this link to see it.

We can only hope that they decide to run this on TV. Shows it all; shows for real what the President's opponents are all about...

I didn't want to mention Michael Moore's insane, anti-American propaganda flick here at Blogs for Bush. Given that we try to stick to the facts of the case, it didn't initially seem like a worthwhile exercise to bring up Michael Moore's new movie because its well-known to be a horrific hodgepodge of lies. But there's a definitive political interest in this movie at this point.

It may end up being that final little pebble which starts to bury the Democrats under an electoral avalanche this November 2nd.

How so? How can an anti-Bush polemic done in a slick manner by a man who, regardless of politics, is an excellent film-maker work to President Bush's advantage? For two reasons:

1. Because the film is a laundry list of every paranoid conspiracy theory out there - from the supposed idea that we liberated Afganistan to build a gas pipeline to the concept that we liberated Iraq to get contracts for Haliburton, Moore's film reviews each conspiracy theory in turn and essentially claims each is valid.

2. Because of this:

In addition to McAuliffe, other Democrats at the Washington screening included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and others. Harkin told the Associated Press that all Americans should see the film. "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore."

The major Democrats went to see it. They went to see it - and then came out of the flick saying it was good. The movie is the ravings of a madman - and the Democrats went to see it. The whole question for us to ask from now to November 2nd of these Democrats is: "Do you agree with the conclusions of the film?". If they say "yes", then they're nailed as paranoid conspiracy theorists (President Bush wins the whole of the center, scores 60% of the popular vote); and if they say "no", then they enrage the paranoid, anti-war left who then vote in droves for Nader (Kerry wins 25% of the vote).

I've been ransacking my brain for something a senior group of GOPers could possibly go do and be this bizarre and self-destructive and nothing comes to mind - the sort of drivel that Moore presents is unfit for anyone with any education or wisdom at all, and there is no parallel to Moore on the right. Guys and gals, we play this right and the Donk's just handed us the election on a silver platter.

As an aside, I'm not the only person who sees this: check out this article from a source not unfriendly to Democrats - his take on it is slightly different from mine, but he's on the same page as he understands that Moore is kryptonite for any Democrat who comes near him.

Maybe both parties pick and choose what information to share with the public, but the Democrats are choosing to leave out big chunks of the big picture:

Both campaigns are selectively using data to support their arguments about the economy, which has been under special scrutiny as Kerry highlights ways he says he would deal with such anxieties as rising prices for gasoline, health care and tuition.

The Kerry campaign wants voters to answer the question that Ronald Reagan first used with great effect against Jimmy Carter in 1980, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

The Bush campaign, arguing that America has gone through a series of shocks from recession to terrorist attacks, wants voters to examine a different time fame — the past 12 months, when the economy has finally begun to show signs of a strong rebound.

"The administration is focused on an improving economy while the Kerry folks are focused on the fact that the economy is improving after a very difficult period and there are still lots of households that are stuck in a very deep hole," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

Which puzzle pieces are the Democrats leaving out of the big picture? For one, the fact that the "very difficult period" was actually a recession that President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration. And no leeway is given for the fact that recovering from a major terrorist attack takes time. Had there been no 9/11, who is to say how quickly this economy might have grown?

To bolster their rebound argument, Bush and the Republicans note that the gross domestic product, the total output of goods and services, started revving up last summer and is forecast to grow this year by a sizzling 4.7 percent, which would be the fastest in 20 years.

That fast growth has triggered stronger job creation, something that had been badly lagging. Nearly 1 million jobs have been created in the past three months and 1.4 million since August.

"People are going back to work. The economy is getting better," Bush told a crowd in Ohio, where he traveled on Monday to tout new job figures showing that Ohio, one of the hardest hit manufacturing states, had seen its unemployment rate decline in May to 5.6 percent. Similar improvement is being seen in several battleground states.

But as the Kerry campaign is quick to point out, the current job growth follows a dismal period at the beginning of the Bush presidency when the country was shedding jobs because of the recession and the lackluster recovery.

At the bottom of the jobs slump last August, the country had lost 3.5 million positions since Bush was sworn in. Even with the rebound since then, Bush is still down by 1.2 million payroll jobs from when he took office in January 2001. If that deficit isn't made up by the end of his term next January, he would be the first president since Hoover with a net loss.

While all of this is true, it continues to ignore the fact that GWB is also the first president to face violence on mainland soil, spit in the face of terrorists, and develop new (and costly) defense techniques to guard against future violence, all of which can only be good for this nation.
And let us not forget:

Bush supporters note that the nation's unemployment rate — at 5.6 percent — matches the level of unemployment at the same point that Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996.

The Democrats, still flustered by the fact that they have so little to go on, are busy coming up with new ways to bash the president, which is the one thing they are very good at.

The "Misery Index," the total of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate, is now at 7.3, reflecting consumer prices outside of energy and food rising by 1.7 percent over the past 12 months and an unemployment rate that is down to 5.6 percent, after having peaked at 6.3 percent last year.

That level is better than it has been in most of the years since World War II.

However, Bush does not fare as well under a new version of the "Misery Index," created by Kerry strategists, that measures seven indicators they say are a better indication of middle class welfare — the prices of gasoline, health care and college tuition, the number of jobs, median family income, personal bankruptcies and homeownership.

Under this measure, only homeownership, currently at a record level, has shown improvement during the Bush years.

The Bush campaign says the measurements were selected by Kerry's people to make Bush look bad and that some, such as college and health care costs, have been going up for decades.

"Whatever he can find to make people unhappy, he will find it," said publisher Steve Forbes, a Bush supporter.

The Kerry campaign, however, sees its new index as a way to explain why many middle class families feel they are losing ground in a globalized economy that has seen U.S. workers face intense competition from low-wage countries.

"We were trying to look at things people talk about over their kitchen table," said Gene Sperling, a Kerry adviser and former top economic adviser to Bill Clinton.

Fortunately, the light at the end of the tunnel is that most reasonable Americans see through the facade, and that's what Bush is counting on this November.

While recent polls have shown lingering unease over Bush's economic positions, supporters contend that by Election Day, with more months of strong job growth, voters will feel more confident that the president's policies of tax cuts to spur economic growth are working.

They may be right, economic forecasters say.

"Most of our historical work suggests that voters have very short memories and it is really the last year that dominates their thinking with employment tending to be the best variable to predict the outcome," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

It's easy to have a short memory and a forgiving spirit when your president passionately leads you in the face of such negativity.

In a surprise move, Governor Jim McGeevey (D, NJ) has decided to make the GOP problem in New Jersey tremendously easier.

With most polls in New Jersey showing a slim lead for the putative Democratic nominee, John Kerry, it was expected that the strength of the Democratic Party in New Jersey coupled with New Jersey's strong Unions, which traditionally back Democrats, would ensure that New Jersey and its precious 15 electoral votes went for Kerry on November 2nd.

Governor McGeevey, in a move which caused RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie to exclaim "you're kidding right? Even a Democrat isn't that dumb", has decided to add a record income tax hike on top of his record increase in government spending. Contacted later, and aide to Mr. Gillespie was quoted as saying "its like they want us to win, or something".

An expert on American politics who refused to be named in this report, states that "in an election year, for a politician to raise taxes...well, he might as well come out with a proposal to ban motherhood and apple pie. There's just no chance that any politician would be that obtuse....you're kidding....no....really? He raised taxes! Man, oh man - I'll have to re-write my 'dumbest moves, ever' list".

In attempting to reach the Chairman of the DNC, we discovered that their website is down for maintenance. If anyone hears anything from them on this, please let us know.

Heck, we made 'em mad talking about the South, lets really tick 'em off by talking about California...

This article has a good bit about how hispanic Republicans are shaking things up in California...leading a newly revitalised California GOP in making hay against the purblind, corrupt and regressive California Democrats.

There are seven Hispanic Republicans challenging Democratic incumbents for congressional seats and another dozen or so running for the state Assembly...

...When Tim Escobar goes door-knocking in a leafy neighborhood of the L.A. suburb of La Mirada, he tells residents proudly of his Republican affiliation. And he tells his potential constituents that he is trying to unseat first-term Rep. Linda T. Sanchez — Loretta Sanchez's sister — in the state's 39th District.

"I'm just a normal guy who wants to go to Washington," he tells a resident named Frank, who doesn't give away his political affiliation.

Frank has an American flag outside his one-story ranch home proclaiming "We support our troops." And on his white Chevy van, he has a Teamsters sticker.

"This district is registered 57 percent Democrat, 29 percent Republican and is 60 percent Hispanic," Mr. Escobar says later. When he spoke to a living room full of Hispanic residents in nearby Lynwood earlier this year, "they were listening to their first Republican."

With immigrant Ah-nuld leading the way, the California GOP is looking for a much brighter year than the disasters of the recent past...and, who knows?, maybe they'll even put California in play for the Presidential vote...

We might get a few too many unreconstructed Rebels due to this thread, but lets have at it anyways.

This article is a long and exceptionally interesting look at the political prospects in the South. Herewith a couple quotes from it:

...Bob Clement and Joe Turnham, a pair of battle-scarred Southern politicians who lost to Republicans two years ago, are far less upbeat.

Former Rep. Clement...lost by 10 points to former Republican Gov. Lamar Alexander, a two-time presidential candidate. Clement says that having a "D" by his name on the ballot hurt him.

A staunch Democrat whose father was a three-term governor of the state, Clement even goes so far as to say that he would have won if he and Alexander had reversed their party labels on the ballot.

"It was unbelievable," he said. "Everywhere I would go, people would say, 'Bob Clement, we think a lot of you, you've been a great congressman, but we have to stand by our president,' " he said...

...Turnham jumped into the race in 2002.... An evangelical Christian who talks easily about the importance of faith to his life, the 44-year-old Auburn, Ala., businessman seemed to have the perfect profile for a Democratic candidate in the Deep South. In his effort to appeal to rural voters, Turnham proposed a Congressional NASCAR Caucus and even challenged his opponent to prove that he really had hunting and fishing licenses.

"Here I was, a Methodist lay speaker, I was going to sponsor a constitutional amendment to protect the wording of the Pledge [of Allegiance], I was pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and endorsed by Democrats for Life ... but when somebody sends 30 direct-mail pieces out and it is, 'Joe Turnham and Ted Kennedy,' and 'Joe Turnham and Barney Frank,' and 'Joe Turnham and Nancy Pelosi' ... it still works" in Republicans' favor, he said.

What did he learn? "You just know that people in your own family and your own church and your own community that know you, love you, and will ask you out to dinner, will not vote for you. It is a cultural phenomenon."

This year's Democratic Senate candidates have obviously already decided that, if they are to remain competitive, they must show independence from their national party...

For example, when freshman Sen. Lincoln of Arkansas was asked in an interview why she had not endorsed Kerry, she suggested that such a move was just a formality. She certainly intends to support Kerry, she said.

But would she welcome Kerry down to her state to campaign with her? She replied, "It is important for Arkansans to see me standing on my own two feet, not campaigning with Senator Kerry. They want to know that I am going to be standing up for Arkansas, and I have pledged to them that I would do that. And I always have. My moderate and independent voting record reflects that."

Similarly, Merle Black said that he "was struck by what I was reading about Inez Tenenbaum," the Democratic Senate nominee in South Carolina. "She seems to be going out of her way to emphasize conservative positions that she is taking. She is with Bush on Iraq. She is with Bush on family and [gay] marriage..."

What this article boils down to, for me, is that the Democratic Party dare not mention its name in the South. The majority of Southerners just don't believe the Democratic Party speaks for them, and they understand that a vote for even a conservative Democrat means that liberals like Ted Kennedy (and John Kerry) get empowered. This actually speaks to a growing political sophistication in the South - and understanding, at bottom, that the Democratic Party only speaks for a tiny, elitist minority nearly entirely disconnected from the mainstream of the American people.

My view is that of Zell Miller - that the Democratic Party is a national Party no more; they represent some coastal enclaves and a few central urban areas and nothing more. Furthermore, that their power is vestigal - in other words, those areas outside of, say, Manhattan and San Francisco which still return Democrats to power are just quirks...a full understanding of the Democrats by the people of such non-urban/liberal areas would result in the rejection of the Democrats altogether.

The article is about the possibility of a re-alignment in the South - the emergence of a nearly unassailable GOP majority in the South. Some Democrats snort at such a suggestion - and correctly point out that the GOP will not become as overwhelmingly dominant as the Democrats were from Reconstruction to Civil Rights Era; but the facts remain that the Democrats are losing support steadily in the South and, as noted, the Democrats who run down there distance themselves aggresively from the national Democratic Party.

November will prove or disprove; personally, I see President Bush running up Reagan totals in the South: 60% of the vote in each Southern State. And as the GOP is going to "nationalise" the Senate contests in the South (ie, a vote for the Democratic Senate candidate is a vote for Ted Kennedy), I think that President Bush's coming impressive win in the South will have quite a long coat-tail.

The ultimate political lesson here is that if you are to be a national American political party, you have to have a national constituency. Like, say, the GOP - which has politicians as liberal as Guiliani and conservative as Jesse Helms, but are united in their love of country, their demand for law and order, and their penchant for tax cuts and allowing the people to rule their own lives. The Democrats, on the other hand, represent a few well-heeled pressure groups (environmentalists, feminists, race-hustlers, eg) - over time, pandering to these pressure groups has erroded Democratic support and my view is that they are about to really pay the piper on November 2nd.

Like the news media in general this past week, John Kerry went off half-cocked on the release of a preview of the upcoming 9/11 report. Just like the media, John Kerry got it wrong. John Kerry, in the words of William Kristol in his latest piece for the Weekly Standard, has been “carefully suppressing his left-leaning foreign policy instincts.”

Like a trap that has been waiting to be sprung, the President and his team shot back.

President Bush explained on Thursday, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney went on television that night to elaborate: "The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. . . . And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not [Iraqis] were involved in 9/11. And there, [the commission] found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways."

By the end of the day, 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton were emphasizing that the commission had never said Iraq-al Qaeda links did not exist. Nor, Hamilton explained, did he "disagree" with Cheney's statement that there were "connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government." The New York Times, having asserted on Thursday that the commission's report "challenges Bush," failed on Friday to report this statement of Hamilton's.

What this does is put the debate on the table. Kerry is going to have to account for not only what the Bush Administration has said of ties - but also what Bill Clinton's Administration has put out in the past. The news media will try to cover for Kerry as long as possible but the debates are coming and George W. Bush is locked and loaded for this fight.

This election is going to turn on who is seen as the true protector of American values and America’s strength around the world. The voters will pull the lever for President Bush by a wider margin than pundits dare speak of today. The media are in the business of the "election business". A "horse race" makes news, even when it’s manufactured by spinning the news in very Left leaning partisan ways.

Family Circle is running their election year poll for the best cookies by the wife of the candidates for President.This poll has been the correct predictor of the last 3 Presidential elections:

We all know that Laura Bush probably baked her share of cookies in her day while Theresa Heinz likely had her French maid do her dirty work, Do your part today and vote for Laura Bush!

Tricky Dick Morris has it right with his opinion column in the New York Post. His point is that Osama and his Terrorist cohorts would love to see President Bush lose this November.

We have to make sure the American people understand that this is the case. Al Qaeda, the Ba'ath Party, Islamic jihad, the PLO and every other terror group is wearing a Kerry 04 lapel pin.

Morris goes on to say this,

During the Cold War, American politicians regularly used to campaign as the candidate the Russians wanted to lose. Bush's people should begin to speak of the message a Kerry election and a Bush defeat would send to the terrorists. The Spanish example is worth citing.

It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out. It might profit Bush's supporters (though not the president himself) to point out this obvious fact to the American people.

And I agree.

The left wants Bush out, but if only they could find a good candidate to replace him...

Liberal Democrats say they are organized, united, and determined as never before to oust President Bush from the White House. But when more than 2,000 of these progressive activists from across the country gathered under a "Take Back America" banner yesterday, it was Howard Dean, not John F. Kerry, who stole their hearts.

Amusing, but frightening, as it seems their reasons for not being overly enthusiastic about Kerry stem from the growing hatred and irrationality of the left. Still, this seems to be good news, as it shows that most people recognize Kerry's constant flip-flops as a true weakness.

"We'd rather [Kerry] were bolder, we'd rather he be stronger in many different ways," said Robert Borosage, codirector of the Campaign for America's Future. "But Kerry is going to decide how he is going to run his campaign, and we're going to focus on the real threat, which is an administration that waged a preemptive war and brought preemptive tax cuts.

(...)

In seeking the support of independent voters, Kerry has played down his own record as a liberal Massachusetts senator, expressing support for civil unions but not gay marriage and suggesting he could nominate antiabortion judges. His focus on reining in the federal deficit, and the musings of campaign aides that, as president, he might bring Republicans into his cabinet, also make liberal activists uneasy. Kerry also supports continuing the military occupation of Iraq at least until the country has a stable government.

It seems all voters, whether liberal or conservative, appreciate and need a strong stance on the issues, whether they agree with them or not. A strong nation needs a solid, determined leader who won't be change his mind according to which way the wind blows on a given day.

Kerry is anything but determined and solid.

I hope that everyone enjoys their Memorial Day - remember the veterans, but also have a good time. Relax, take it easy.

Tomorrow its back to work and back into the political trenches. You don't think our Democratic friends haven't been spending the last three days re-sharpening their knives for us, do ya?

Rasmussen shows a bit of a jump for President Bush over the past few days since he gave the War College speech. Still tight in the Rasmussen poll, but its interesting that when President Bush gets out there front and center he does better, while whenever Kerry gets in the news, nothing happens.

Trouble in Ohio for President Bush? Thats the conventional wisdom - and there have been a couple polls to indicate this. The latest poll, however, shows President Bush up by 6 over Kerry in a three-way matchup. I think its interesting that the larger the number of people polled, the better the President does. Does the smaller polling numbers, which tend to indicate trouble for President Bush, actually indicate trouble, or manufactured bad news to hurt the President? We report, you decide.

How is the President's political base doing? Well, the latest poll in Alabama has President Bush up by 19 percentage points - President Bush won that State by 15 percentage points in 2000. How about John Kerry's political base? Well, New York went for Gore by 25 percentage points, latest poll there indicates Kerry solidly ahead - but by 19 percentage points; this is what I've seen all year...President Bush doing remarkably better in his base than Kerry is doing in his. What it shows is that people who voted for President Bush in 2000 are even more likely to vote for him in 2004 - while Gore's voters are still waiting for a reason to support Kerry.

They wont get one.

The summer political doldrums are upon us, good people - for the next three months, don't pay too much attention to the polls, but the polls taken in the Spring give us every reason to be optimistic.

Hat Tip: Real Clear Politics

It’s the Buzz that just won’t stop. Kerry/McCain or McCain/Kerry as some newspapers put it.

I guess with such a shallow candidate and a non-existent bench to draw from, the Democrats have no choice. I for one will not shed a tear to see Senator McCain jump ship. He has been a pain in the Presidents side since he has taken office and will only become a pain in Kerry’s if he puts the poor sad sack of a Senator on his ticket.

The Seattle-Times is out with the latest siren call. “Buzz grows over Kerry-McCain ticket” goes the headline by Steven Thomma. Steven says it would be one of “boldest choices of a running mate in U.S. history.”

McCain for his part has said "I will not be vice president of the United States," and "I have totally ruled it out," he said another time. This is a byproduct of a recent CBS NEWS poll that shows Kerry leading Bush in the poll by a margin of 49 percent to 41 percent. But a Kerry-McCain ticket leads a Bush-Cheney ticket by a much larger margin of 53 percent to 39 percent. The Numbers are farfetched to begin with and the Presidency is always won by the name at the top of the ticket.

RealClearPolitics shows three polls that maybe closer to the truth.

• Rasmussen: Kerry 45, Bush 45
• Quinnipiac: Bush 43, Kerry 42, Nader 6
• Insider Adv: Bush 43, Kerry 43, Nader 4

Here is a great extensive write-up about the volunteers nationwide to help re-elect President Bush:

If you were a George Bush supporter four years ago but didn't show up to vote on Election Day, Karl Rove has your name on a list.

The president's top political counselor counts 119,000 Bush supporters in King County who failed to vote in 2000, a number that would have been almost enough to overcome Al Gore's statewide margin of victory in Washington state.

"There are a lot of friends, a lot of supporters, a lot of our philosophical compatriots who don't register, who don't get out to vote," Rove told King County Republicans in a speech earlier this year.

He doesn't want it to happen again. From his office in the White House, Rove has spurred the Bush re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee and state parties to develop the largest and most tightly controlled voter-outreach effort in the history of professionally run presidential campaigns.

For the Bush campaign, Republicans have been given county-by-county goals for registering voters and detailed plans for how the final three days of the campaign will unfold.

Volunteers also work the crowds at events like the recent May Day Marriage Rally at Safeco Field, at smaller gatherings hosted by Republican-friendly ethnic "coalition groups," and in evangelical churches throughout the state.

Yesterday, hundreds of volunteers staffed 21 phone banks around the state trying to recruit volunteers...

There are more personal efforts, too. From his home in Silverdale, Kitsap County, Scott Youngren has become a champion Bush volunteer. He was featured last week on the Bush campaign Web site's "Leader Board." He's in the No. 20 spot nationally for recruiting volunteers and writing letters to the editor — he's written 136, though it's hard to find many that have been published — and ranks No. 17 for "Calling Talk Radio," with 68 calls.

Finding the right voters

To do that, though, Republicans need lots of volunteers. So far, the Bush campaign claims 12,494 volunteers and more than 1,900 precinct chairmen who will be in charge of making sure Republicans in their neighborhoods vote on Election Day.

Yesterday, volunteers recruited more help from phone banks in businesses around the state.

John Kerry ought to be way ahead in states like Michigan and New Jersey, traditionally solid Democratic states. But he isn't.

Several states once seen as "solidly" behind Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, including Michigan and New Jersey, have turned into battlegrounds where President Bush is a serious contender. Months ago, Michigan and New Jersey, which are heavily unionized and voted for Al Gore in 2000, were considered beyond Mr. Bush's reach. Now, despite the president's falling national approval rating for his handling of the Iraq war, pollsters say the economic recovery and perception of the president as a strong leader have turned both states in his direction.

"It's very hard to see us winning in November without carrying Michigan and New Jersey," said a Democratic National Committee official.

The swing in these two pivotal states underscores growing criticism within Democratic councils that Mr. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, has not put together a compelling message for the swing voters he needs. Mr. Kerry has grabbed the lead in one state that Mr. Bush carried in 2000, taking a seven-point advantage in Ohio, but he remains in virtual dead heats with the president in five states that Mr. Gore won - Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon.

In New Jersey, Mr. Bush has surprised even his own campaign by overcoming Mr. Kerry's double-digit lead in the past month, as the state's unemployment rate remained below the national average at 5.3 percent.

"With continuing good news like this, it makes a compelling case for a really aggressive move on New Jersey," a key Bush strategist said.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said New Jersey's proximity to New York is playing a role in the polls. "The September 11 attacks hit very close to home and are very much on the minds of people in New Jersey, and the president has a strong record on those issues while John Kerry has backed away from them," Mr. Holt said.

The Bush Campaign has released a web-based quiz titled Our Growing Economy. Take the quiz and test your knowledge of America's growing economy!

Well, the major media meme is that its all President Bush in trouble...the supposedly uniformly bad news out of Iraq is, according to all of the Republic of Punditry, dragging down President Bush's poll numbers and giving Kerry is shot at the White House.

I've doubted this - just didn't seem right that in the middle of a war the average American would turn towards a man who called American soldiers war criminals and who voted against the war he voted for. Just a small snapshot of polls, but it tends to confirm my views:

Research 2000 reported in a poll of 800 likely voters taken March 1-3 that Kerry was winning IL by 54% to 36%.

Rasmussen reported in a poll of 448 registered voters taken March 3 that Kerry was winning IL by 52% to 39%.

Research 2000 reported in a poll of 625 registered voters taken March 8-10 that Kerry was winning IL by 47% to 39%.

Rasmussen reports in a poll of 500 likely voters taken May 12 that Kerry is winning IL by 48% to 43%.

Gore won the State by 12 percentage points.

Illinois should be a slam dunk for Kerry. Why isn't it? The media isn't ever going to report it, but I begin to see that the American people, including Democratic-leaning voters have taken a long look at Kerry and found him distinctly wanting.

UPDATE: Kerry up by 3 in New Jersey; Gore won it by 15; President Bush up by 29 in Texas, he won it by 21.

Voting statistics don't lie and the GOP has needed to reach women voters more aggressively to win elections across the country. Thankfully with a compassionate conservative in the White House who is not only liberating countries but liberating women from repressive governments, the Bush campaign is making a compelling case for women voters:

Trying to close a gender gap that could decide the election, supporters of President Bush launched a " `W' Stands for Women" campaign in Florida on Tuesday.

"Some would like to believe that somehow the Republican Party does not relate to women," Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings said during a rally at an Orlando hotel that also featured Florida First Lady Columba Bush. "Well, I stand as the example: I didn't notice the Democrats having a lieutenant governor who was a woman."

But when it comes to women voters, the president has plenty of work to do...

Republicans insist they can do better, saying they simply haven't done a good enough job reaching out to women.

"When we get our message out, people will identify with it," said Florida GOP Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan at the rally attended by about 100 people, most of them women.

Jordan called women voters the GOP's "secret weapon." Bush campaign officials say similar "W" groups will be established in all 50 states.

"Women are a huge group," Jordan said. "We will make the difference."

Jennings, Florida's first female lieutenant governor, agreed that her party has to do a better job of explaining how its platform helps women. For instance, when she touted Bush's business policies during their rally, Jennings made sure to point out that more than 10 million women own business.

When she talked about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said, "Because of this president, women that are in those countries have made more gains in the last six or eight months than they have in the last 60 or 80 years."

"You have to relate it to what women care about," Jennings said afterward. "You have to put it in that kind of language."

Lest we forget that there is a softer side to the Bush White House, Laura Bush rallies the Bush Brigades out west:

Laura Bush stumped at her first solo campaign rally on behalf of husband George W. Bush, tackling sensitive issues such as the war in Iraq and the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"We must be vigilant in protecting the rights of all Iraqis," she said during a 15-minute speech. "The pictures we saw recently from the Abu Ghraib prison do not reflect the character of our troops. The vast majority of our military has conducted themselves with honor and compassion."

She spoke to a rally at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, earning thunderous applause and cheers of "Four More Years" from a ticketed crowd of more than 1,000.

Some people held placards reading, "W Stands for Women."

Polls, we've got polls; as usual, Real Clear Politics proves itself invaluable in this as it so much else concerning politics.

We've got this poll from Rasmussen showing President Bush's approval rating at 52%. On the other hand, we've got CBS with this poll showing President Bush's approval rating at 44%. Thats a big difference - 8 percentage points; entirely outside of the margin of error in any poll. One is right, the other is wrong. Which is it?

The Rasmussen poll was of 1,500 likely voters over a three night period. The CBS poll was of 448 adults done on one night. Its a worthless poll - so why put it out? The only surmise one can make is that CBS got the result they wanted and determined to run with it in the service of a clear, identifiable agenda.

This is important, in my view, because I do believe that with the Abu Gharib story the liberal press is in a full-blown attempt to wreck President Bush's Administration and by extension elect John Kerry President of the United States. As we've known for a while, there is no BS out there quite like C BS; this poll shows it clearly. CBS news has decided it doesn't like the President so much that they are turning to manufacturing news in order to support their agenda.

The problem, of course, is that all too many Americans get their news in snippets; they don't go in depth in their news reading and thus the headilne "President Bush Approval at 44%" is (a) shocking and (b) presumed to be true.

CBS is, of course, not the only offender out there - in the Columbus Dispatch poll, President Bush led among Ohio voters by 45% to 43%...shows a nail-biter building up in Ohio, right? But then we get the ARG poll which shows Kerry ahead by 7 percentage points. The Dispatch poll was of 3,344 registered voters and the ARG poll was of 600 likely voters; which do you think is more likely to be accurate? Well, of the respondents to the ARG poll, 40% consider themselves to be Democrats...problem with that is that most national polling on party identification shows that only about 35% (at most) consider themselves Democrats - and some polls have the number of self-identified Democrats at 30%. We know from all polling on Party ID that the number of Americans self-described as Democrats has been declining for years now and the number of self-identified Republicans has been rising. How do get a poll with a Democratic-ID advantage out of kilter with reality? Intentionally, in my view. And this explains why TIPP/IBD would show President Bush 5 percentage points ahead of Kerry at the same time ARG shows Kerry 1 percentage point ahead of President Bush.

What all of this shows is that its going to be a long, hard fight right up to November; not only will we have to fight to get the President's positive agenda and superb accomplishments out into the public square, we'll have to contend with a liberal media deliberately lying about how things are going all down the line. They wont tell the truth about the economy, they wont tell the truth about the war and they sure in heck aren't going to tell the truth about how the election is going...they seem determined, in the end, to try and depress us President Bush supporters into not showing up at the polls.

Let us prove their efforts worthless. With stout hearts and positive minds, lets get to work, do what we can, and win this thing. Its Us vs Them, lets take the old Latin phrase Ut Vincent Omnes (which very, very loosely translates as "let 'em all come!") as our motto and have at it. Negativism, cowardice and political hackery will never defeat people who are engaged in a fight for liberty and justice for all.

Today, Zogby has come out with an opinion that the election is Senator Kerry's to lose. Boiled down, Zogby's thesis is that the Iraq situation will not improve, the economy will not be credited to President Bush as it continues to improve, that President Bush cannot change the dynamic of the situation, and that John Kerry will come on strong for a fantastic finish. True enough, if all of this were true, the election would be Kerry's to lose. Zogby, however, is whistling past the graveyard...a good pollster, but his Arabist leanings have turned him into a wishful thinker on the part of the Presidential election...he can't stand President Bush, so he's come up with a theory about how Kerry can pull it off. I'm old enough to remember the same sort of things being written about Mondale in 1984. We do all know how that came out, right?

To imagine that the President of the United States cannot influence the dynamic of the race, to presume that he's at the mercy of events and cannot explain things to the American people who will get their opinions entirely elsewhere regardless of what the President does, is absurd. To presume that continuing good economic information will keep Kerry in the advantage seat on the economy is to assume that people are impervious to good news. To assume that the Iraq situation will continue as rough as April all the way through November is to overestimate the enemy and underestimate the United States military. To work from past history, where uber-liberal Kerry managed to pull out wins in uber-liberal Massachusetts doesn't, in my view, show great strength...indeed, it shows tremendous weakness...he's had to work like a dog to win what should be slam-dunk elections.

Additionally, Zogby's polling is a bit suspect - he has it that Senator Kerry has an overwhelming advantage in the Gore "blue" States, while President Bush's advantage in the "red" States is marginal. Ok, so thats what Zogby's polls say; and he has been a good pollster...but so, too, has SUSA polling (they pegged the recall election in California last year exactly), and they have President Bush trailing Kerry by, drum roll please, a whole one percentage point, with a margin of error +/-4 percentage points. In other words, in the absolute "must win, can't possibly win as a Democrat without it" State, John Kerry is locked in a statistical dead heat.

Of course, its also May - just under six months from the vote. There has been pretty much a full-court press on the part of the Democrats and the lapdog media (and the Abu Gharib incident is entirely a big issue because they feel it can hurt the President) to chip away at the President...meanwhile, Kerry's standing the polls seems to be more a function of the lapdog media carrying his water for him...If Senator Kerry was subjected to the examination the President has been subjected to, he'd be polling at 10%. He's been badly hurt just by the ads of the President - imagine what will happen to him as the inevitible happens, and Kerry is subjected to a rigorous screening.

All in all, we are well positioned going into the Summer campaign doldrums. Politically, don't expect much to happen over the next four months...people will mostly have other things on their minds until at least the Democratic convention, and wont really refocus on the election until after Labor Day.

When President Bush visits these battleground states, he connects with these voters far batter than your typical soundbite politician. His visit to Ohio was no different with the voters touching many issues pressing to every American:

Support for Bush remains rock solid along Lebanon's tidy main street of antique shops and general stores, where few voters question his decision to go to war in Iraq or blame him for a slumping economy.

"I have been very impressed with him. He's proven himself to be much more intelligent and capable than anyone gave him credit for," said Melissa Applegate, a registered nurse from nearby Milford who was shopping in Lebanon's historic district the day after Bush's campaign bus tour made a stop.

"I think he's a steady leader," she said, repeating a phrase that has blared endlessly at Ohio residents from their television sets during a cascade of Bush campaign commercials.

Ohio and its 20 electoral votes promises to be one of November's biggest battlegrounds.

"I don't want to change war horses in midstream," said Karen Cejka, a clerk in an antiques store across the street from the site of Bush's rally in Lebanon on Tuesday.

"We needed to go into Iraq, whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not," Cejka said, noting the lines in Bush's speech about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and his decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq drew the day's biggest cheers.

Marty Barnes, a retired secretary from Lebanon, said she liked Bush's aggressive response to the New York and Washington attacks. "He acted like a leader, like somebody who could take charge and I could trust to take care of me," she said.

Interviews with two dozen likely voters in southwest Ohio's fast-growing Warren County, where Bush swamped Democrat Al Gore by more than 2-to-1 in 2000 while barely edging him statewide, found high praise for Bush among Republicans and lukewarm support for Kerry even among Democrats.

"He just came into office at a bad time, he's done a very good job," said Laura Shaw, a branch bank manager in Lebanon. "There wasn't much he could do about the economy, it always has ups and downs."

"He is a religious man and I have the same faith system. I think he's the best man for the times," said Marilyn Haley, who decorated the front windows of her home goods store with stacks of President Bush action dolls that she said were hot sellers.

Even many of the region's long-time Democrats said their support for Kerry would be half-hearted.

"I think he's just saying what he thinks people want to hear. He'll say anything to get people's vote," said Judy Sheridan of nearby Springfield, a Democrat who plans to vote for Kerry anyway. "He doesn't impress me."

Which means, of course, that President Bush has started to rise again in the polls, and Kerry continues to slip. The Morning Read has the details:

A new survey by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows President Bush leading by four points. Americans are showing that they trust the President to handle the difficult challenges ahead in the war on terror. At the same time, John Kerry's tendency to take two positions on every issue is widely recognized -- and disliked. The New York Post's Deborah Orin writes:

"Bush got 46 percent to Kerry's 42 percent with independent Ralph Nader getting 5 percent, according to the nationwide poll of registered voters, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points...

Kerry's problem is that voters are cooling to him personally. This poll, like a University of Pennsylvania poll a day earlier, found the attacks on Kerry in Bush's TV ads are sticking."

When asked what they like least about Kerry, 49 percent - including 44 percent in his own Democratic Party - cite a tendency to straddle both sides of issues.

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has the full results.

Why is this happening? Well, President Bush is showing firm leadership - the anti-war Left (ie, the Democratic Party leadership) wants the President to hem and haw and wring his hands and get down on his knees and beg forgiveness...Ted Kennedy wants us to raze the prison where the abuse of prisoners took place (ie, to try and hide the indelible blot on our honor, blah, blah, blah), other Democrats want the President to fire Donald Rumsfeld - ain't happening. President Bush isn't the man to grovel, nor is he about to buy into the garbage that somehow the acts of a few denigrate the sublime acts of nearly everyone else. The other part of the equation, Kerry's slipping, is explained by T. Bevan over at Real Clear Politics:

It is well documented that by the time John Kerry left Yale and shipped off to Vietnam, he was carrying with him not only the initials of John F. Kennedy but the political aspirations as well.

By that time Kerry had also expressed grave doubts about the war in Vietnam, most notably on June 12, 1966 when he said in an oration to his fellow students, "We have not really lost the desire to serve. We question the very roots of what we are serving."

Yet even though Kerry didn't believe in the political reasons for the war and was an outspoken critic of the tactics used to fight it, during his 4 1/2 month tour of duty Kerry was known for being an extremely aggressive commander - even to the point of being reckless.

More telling was Kerry's desire to document his exploits. Kerry was so interested in doing this he bought a movie camera that he even used during battle....

...Because when Kerry returned home from Vietnam, first accused huge numbers of his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam on a daily basis and then used his ribbons as a public display against the war, he specifically told America - but especially his fellow soldiers - that the "perversion" of Vietnam "denied us the integrity those symbols [military medals and ribbons] supposedly gave our lives."

By keeping his medals after making such a statement John Kerry created a contradiction that remains irreconcilable to this very day. He publicly denounced the value and integrity of the ribbons, medals and service of all Vietnam veterans in 1971, but he continued to hold onto his medals and to use his service in Vietnam in future years as a reference point for his own personal integrity and a central tool for advancing his political career.

You can't get around dishonorable behaviour - once you go down the trail of expediency instead of honor, there's often no coming back, and certainly you cannot come back if you add to the dishonor by being dishonest about it.

Meanwhile, for a slice of the real man President Bush is, take a look at this amazing article.

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager's head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

President Bush hosted a Cinco de Mayo observance in the White House. For all of those here who are a bit too gringo to understand that, Cinco de Mayo is the Fifth of May; a date of great celebration in Mexico observing the date in 1862 when a poorly armed and trained Mexican army defeated the French (woohoo!...nuttin' better then beating the French!) at the battle of Puebla. Essentially, is Mexican Independence day, along the lines of our Quatro de Julio.

Normally such observances are mere political boilerplate - part of the "kissing babies and eating blintzes" that all politicians engage in as they work the gigantically multi-cultural political landscape of the United States. But in this year of 2004 there is a lot more to it than usual.

Hispanic Americans make up the largest minority in the United States - a year or two ago they surpassed in numbers the size of America's African-descended community; and the Hispanic community grows by leaps and bounds. Some rather unthinking people (among them some of our fellow conservatives and GOPers) are alarmed at this, but take a look at some of President Bush's words at the ceremony:

Mexican Americans have brought many strengths to our nation: a culture built around faith in God, a deep love for family, a belief that hard work leads to a better life. Every immigrant who lives by these values makes our country better and makes our future brighter.

Many Mexican and Hispanic Americans have shown their belief in this country by defending it. More than 600,000 of our veterans are of Mexican descent. Hispanic Americans have fought bravely in all our wars, including our own fight for independence. And for their valor, over three dozen have received the Congressional Medal of Honor.

On Cinco de Mayo, 2004, more than 130,000 Hispanic Americans are serving in the United States Armed Forces.

In the end, the more Hispanics the better - or would you rather have us get a flood of Euro-trash, socialistic weenies emigrating here to demand welfare? Growing up in San Diego, I have a life-long affinity with Hispanic culture - to me, its part of my native culture, though I have no Hispanic ancestry; to imagine an America without a huge infusion of Hispanic culture is to me to think of the unimagineable. These people are our future, and they are here today working their collective butts off and, as the President noted, laying their butts on the line for us in our armed forces.

These people are, also, up for grabs politically.

While the race-hustlers of the Democratic Party have been playing a pied-piper tune for Hispanic Americans, trying to get them in on the useless resentments and feelings of entitlement they have laid out for other American minorities, the plain, hard fact that Hispanic Americans are enthusiastic volunteers for the American dream has made them a tough nut for the Democrats to crack. Its got to be kept in mind that these Hispanics are either the immigrants themselves of the sons and grandsons of immigrants who came here to work and prosper - and they are culturally conservative by grace of their largely orthodox Catholic background. Fertile ground for the GOP's message to grow.

Polling has shown us that President Bush is doing well among Hispanic voters and that, most importantly, Hispanics generally view the President as more "down home" than they do Senator Kerry. Of course, we all know that President Bush scored an unprecedented near-50% of the Hispanic vote in his 1998 Texas re-election race - getting anywhere near that number nationally in 2004 would absolutely kill any chances Kerry has of winning. Cultural affinity, general aims and practical politics all call the GOP to do more and more to court the Hispanic vote, and President Bush is doing this.

We've all been wondering when our side would start gathering million dollar donations to do "527" ads against Kerry the way the DNC worked them up to run attack ads against President Bush. Well, we're off and running:

Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, says his group will jump into the presidential contest soon.

"[We're] collecting donations to start doing voter-education ads on the records of [Sen. John] Kerry and [President] Bush," Mr. Moore told reporters Monday at a Washington breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "We will probably be on the air sometime in the next couple of weeks ... [in] Arkansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania — any of those states that were decided by four points in the 2000 election."

Mr. Moore said his group has raised "several million" dollars, "and it didn't take a lot of effort. ... These people who used to give a million dollars to the party can't do that anymore [and] are looking for new outlets. ... I think we can raise $15 million or so."

Mr. Moore added: "Kerry has a big bull's-eye on his chest. It is such a target-rich environment. I think Kerry is an incredibly flawed candidate. I think he is going to wear like Michael Dukakis did [and] Bush will win pretty handily."

The Club for Growth you might have heard about recently when they funded Pat Toomey's primary challenge to Pennsylvania's GOP Senator Arlen Specter...a good man, who unfortunately has a habit of being nice to liberals. The race was tight, but the work was done well - Specter, in order to win, had to shift right which helps the GOP as a whole, and the President in particular, in the United States Senate. Now its on to the main contest.

If the "Weapons" ad wasn't powerful enough, the Bush Campaign has now released an interactive Flash version of the web ad!

Last night, the Bush Campaign did live blogging of Parties For The President across the country. Grassroots supporters sent in guest blog entries from their parties. Photos were also submitted and from them you can see, the tremendous enthusiasm for President Bush.

Check out the archived blog entries here: http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/cat_grassroots.php.

If you attended a Party For The President, you can share your experiences here in this thread.

Slate has a PowerPoint presentation of John Kerry's military record. I particularly like slides 5 thru 9.

USA Today reported today on the "Party for the President phenomenon":

In living rooms, restaurants and dorm rooms throughout the country, fans of President Bush will gather Thursday night for thousands of Internet-organized parties for the president.

In this hotly contested election, the parties are one more sign of how the presidential campaigns are trying to reach more voters in more ways earlier than ever before.

The parties aren't fund-raisers. They're sales parties similar to Tupperware or Amway parties. What they're selling is the president.

Guests — neighbors, friends, strangers — will get Bush bumper stickers and T-shirts, sign up to volunteer, watch a videotape from the president, and get a conference call from Vice President Dick Cheney. Hosts can buy a $19.95 party pack with hats, buttons, bumpers stickers and yard signs.

"It's about getting in touch your neighbors, getting your neighbors involved. This is grass-roots politics at its basest," said Scott Lepsky, 34, an electrical supply salesman in Fairfield, Ohio, who is hosting a party with two friends.

The original goal of the Party for the President effort was to have 2,004 parties across the country tomorrow night. There are now over 5,000!

The most interesting part of the article actually was the expected response from the Kerry campaign:

Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the Bush house parties as a gimmick.

"It seems like George Bush has a gimmick for every single thing he's doing on this campaign, but not one bit of real leadership required to rebuild the economy and win the war on terror," Burton said.

Just a gimmick? If the Parties For The President are "just a gimmick" why has the Kerry campaign started their own imitation of the parties?

It seems more like John Kerry has a gimmick and a excuse from every single thing he's doing on his campaign. Clearl, Burton, on behalf of the Kerry campaign, is trying to dismiss the success of the Parties For The President. I'm curious why Burton couldn't have just admitted that the Kerry campaign realized the potential of this so-called"gimmick" to the point where they felt they had to imitate the idea to use in their own campaign.

Clearly, the Kerry c