Supporters of Kerry (or more likely haters of Bush) gathered for a their first group therapy session in Florida yesterday, and according to Boca Raton News they screamed "epithets at President Bush as they shared their emotions with licensed mental health counselors."
The first of several free noontime therapy sessions at the American Health Association in Boca Raton was designed to treat what mental health counselors have dubbed Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). “If I had a cardboard cutout of President Bush, and these people wanted to throw darts at it, I would let them do it,” Robert J. Gordon, AHA executive director, told the Boca News after the session. “It’s no joke. People with PEST were traumatized by the election. If you even mention religion, their faces turn blister-red as they shout at Bush.”
Oh no! Not religion... Ahhhhhhhh! What a sad bunch. Post Election Selection Trauma? I guess that's the new way to describe mental illness that can be blamed on the election. I keep thinking about what Kerry supporters and Bush haters would be doing today if Bush had lost. I imagine that if you multiplied the gloating I've done since November 2, you could increase that 10 fold, and it wouldn't even come close to the kind of activity the Left would have been engaging following a Kerry victory.
Reading through this article, one thing is clear, Bush's victory is not the cause of their mental instability. When you look at the things these anguished people lament about, they are regurgitations of Democratic talking points and Kerry campaign rhetoric.
The meeting facilitator also said, “The media outlets, especially Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on talk radio, scare our patients to death.” One patient is reported to have that he thinks the country "is now run by fascists." "Another felt personally threatened by the president’s love for big business. Many believe Bush is going to draft their grandchildren. The anxiety may not affect them every day, but it affects their energy level.”
Finally at the end of the article it is revealed that "many of the Kerry supporters had visited [the trauma specialist] for severe mental problems prior to the election." So here we have people with a history of mental problems claiming to have a bogus condition called Post Election Selection Trauma and repeating arguments and accusations made by the Democrats.
Who made these wackos even worse?? John Kerry and the Democratic Party.
Money can't buy you happiness, love, and for Democrats it can't buy victory.
Capping a stunning year of record fund raising by both sides, the Democratic National Committee said Thursday it outraised President Bush's GOP this election cycle. Its Republican rival wasn't disputing that, but noted the money didn't buy victory.Figures the DNC planned to file with the Federal Election Commission showed the DNC took in at least $12 million more than the Republican National Committee since Jan. 1, 2003.
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said he considered the fund raising - combined with a lack of debt - all the more remarkable because the party finished the 2000 presidential race with $18 million in bills to pay. Now, it can spend four years building the groundwork to try to reclaim the White House in 2008, he said.
The Democratic National Committee can keep the $12 million advantage for all I care... we got the White House!
In a reversal of their more familiar canine roles, we are lucky to be able to witness the assertive French shepherd guiding his obedient German poodle around the world diplomatic stage. As reported today, axis of weasel hall of famer Jacques Chirac (President of France) and his sidekick Gerhard Schroeder have backed Kofi Annan with their full-fledged support:
LUEBECK, Germany, Dec 2 (AFP) - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac pledged their support here on Thursday for embattled UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.We wrote about Sen. Coleman's call for Annan's resignation yesterday. While it is no surprise that France backs Annan so fervently, Germany's position is not quite as easy to comprehend. France, of course, was both a major patron and beneficiary of Saddam Hussein. Providing him with diplomatic cover, and effectively selling him their Security Council veto, France has much to be ashamed of (if that is possible) in this tawdry affair. French elites and companies raked in much of Saddam's largesse, but Germany does not appear to be so implicated in Oil-for-Food."Germany and France reiterate their full support for Kofi Annan whose commitment to the aims of the United Nations is total," Chirac said at a press conference after holding talks with Schroeder.
Schroeder also pledged his support for Annan, whose resignation is being sought by a US senator over the scandal-plagued Iraq oil-for-food program.
Perhaps it is simply that Germany has so hitched its future to a Franco-German dominated EU to thwart America that there is no other choice. But it does not make it any less lamentable that so many world "leaders" expend as much energy and passion defending terrorists and their enablers as they do castigating those who fight them.
Count this as another great reminder of how fortunate we are that President Bush has won re-election. Because Chirac and Schroeder, and Annan for that matter, represent the "global test" to which John Kerry was referring when he stated that American action ought to be subject to external approval.
If you think you've heard the last of MoveOn.Org, you're wrong:
After President Bush won re-election, many political observers expected MoveOn.org to move into retreat. The sentiment surrounding the liberal online powerhouse was neatly summed up by the satire publication The Onion in its spoof headline: "MoveOn CurlsUp InCorner."But on a Sunday night just two weeks after the Nov. 2 election, the group was back - hosting 1,600 house parties across the country where some 18,000 members gathered to vent and vote on how MoveOn should refocus after such a decisive Republican victory.
"With 56 million people not signed up to the Bush agenda and the Democratic establishment in exile, people are looking for ways to move in another direction," said MoveOn founder Wes Boyd. "In the current circumstances, we are more needed than ever."
Equally as distraught over the election results as they motivated to continue their battle, they certainly are putting a lot of thought into their future plans. Their message was an anti-war message, and even Democratic consultant Bill Carrick notes the flaws of that approach, "We got all the votes of people who were against the war - what we didn't get were the votes of people who were for the war ... Bush got the votes of people like married white women and Latinos who, despite their affinity with Democrats on other concerns, believed Bush would be stronger in the war on terror. And that wasn't really MoveOn's agenda."
Of course he also failed to note that MoveOn was merely "anti-Bush" and not "pro-Kerry."
But no worries everyone, MoveOn has plans for the future...
MoveOn plans a formal announcement in the next few weeks to lay out its agenda for the coming year. But at the November house parties members voted to prioritize efforts to remove barriers to voting, such as requiring electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts. They also vowed to pursue ways to create a media counterbalance to right-tilting Fox News."Our whole approach was to take people who are online members and get them into off-line activity," said Adam Ruben, MoveOn's field director. "We can get a lot done on the Internet but we know that to reach beyond the choir, there are essential parts of political activity we can't neglect."
Should be a fun four years ahead of us.
Despite devastating loses in the elections last month and basically the past four years, Democrats have been raising plenty cash, certainly hoping to build up a war chest to try to save a little bit of face.
The DNC announced Tuesday that it had raised at least $13 million in November. The total includes $10 million collected after the Nov. 2 election in which President Bush won a second term and Republicans strengthened their House and Senate majorities.Due in part to growth in fund raising over the Internet, the DNC raised more this election cycle than it did before corporate, union and big individual donations known as soft money were outlawed by a 2002 law.
The committee raised at least $400 million in the 2003-04 election cycle, compared to $210 million in 1999-2000, the last presidential election cycle in which it could collect unlimited donations.
Now, the national Democratic and Republican party committees can only collect up to $25,000 a year from each individual donor or political action committee.
All the power to them. Money can't buy a victory. It takes a lot more than good fundraising to win over the voters. Don't believe me? Ask Howard Dean, or the Kos Dozen.
Yesterday we posted an item on the hollow attempts of Kofi Annan's UN to "reform" itself. This followed a previous post about Congressional efforts to use America's financial muscle to compel true reform.
It seems that the voices of discontent are growing louder. Whereas the UN was once a sacred cow whose legitimacy was almost unquestioned and whose credibility was considered inherent within its charter, critics are now much more willing to openly call for radical changes. Once the province of isolated individuals who were outside the formerly monolithic political consensus that bestowed upon the UN a chaste and virtuous imprimatur, sharp critiques of the UN, its leadership and its underlying mission are now coming from reputable and mainstream quarters. And these critiques do not only carry the weight of respectability, but they also come with very real power and influence. As such, they cannot be summarily dismissed by preening UN functionaries or self-indulgent international diplomats.
Perhaps most pivotal, thus far, is today's piece by Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) in the Wall Street Journal. The title, "Kofi Annan Must Go," pretty much says it all.
While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch...Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food...
As a former prosecutor, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Such revelations, however, cast a dark cloud over Mr. Annan's ability to address the U.N.'s quagmire...it is clear the U.N. simply cannot root out its own corruption while Mr. Annan is in charge: To get to the bottom of the murk, it's clear that there needs to be a change at the top...
All of this adds up to one conclusion: It's time for Kofi Annan to step down. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less. If this widespread corruption had occurred in any legitimate organization around the world, its CEO would have been ousted long ago, in disgrace. Why is the U.N. different?
As chairman of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Coleman is influential. Less important, but noteworthy, is Dick Morris weighing in today in The Hill.
Whether the United Nations were located in New York or in Geneva, Congress cannot and should not continue to spend our money paying dues to an organization that will not open its records to our elected officials who are seeking to investigate numerous reports of corruption reaching high up in the U.N. organization...The matter is clear and all that remains is to cleanse the inept and corrupt United Nations.If the United Nations refuses to open its financial records to our congressional investigators, the United States should suspend payment of part of its annual dues as a punishment for the United Nations’ intransigence...
It is usually France’s business, not ours’, if their president, Jacques Chirac, or their interior minister, Charles Pasqua, profited from the oil for food program. It is usually Russia’s business if Putin or his United Russia Party was enriched from the same table. But when Chirac and Putin were influenced by these payoffs to cast their nations’ votes in the United Nations for or against the Saddam Hussein regime, the matter becomes our business. We must not let the U.N. Security Council become an auction in which the corrupt sell their votes to the guilty or the aggrieved based on who can pay them off more handsomely.
Not content with being the most catastrophically inept UN Secretary General in memory (or the most underhandedly malicious, depending on your point of view), Kofi Annan now seeks to reclaim a legacy for himself. Much as Bill Clinton tried to fit the square peg of Middle East peace through the round hole of Palestinian rejectionism in order to cleanse his record of the Lewinsky untidiness, the capstone Annan wishes to place on his career to cover a raft of scandals is something they are calling "reform." Fundamentally, it is a manifesto that seeks to emasculate strong countries and subvert national sovereignty to some international system that is both devoid of any moral underpinnings and lacks any popular legitimacy
AFP reports (via Drudge) that Annan has unveiled a "sweeping" reform proposal to reconstitute this defunct institution. A quick glance at the statement, though, reveals this as nothing more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic:
"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said.Oh, really? There does not seem to be any demonstrated effort by Annan to do anything about threats posed by Iran or North Korea. If the UN refuses to take a stand, America must."The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown," it said. "No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."
Annan has repeatedly maintained that many people around the globe are concerned about disease and poverty rather than terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and much of the report underlines his core argument.Perhaps those nations that are stricken with disease and poverty are the ones whose tyrants impose such depravity on them and also use the UN as a protective umbrella to preserve their kleptocracies. Give Kofi credit for chutzpah: the man who oversaw the world's most breathtaking financial fraud that fleeced billions from poverty-stricken people and manages a thoroughly corrupt organization that watches dictators use disease and hunger as weapons must have tons of chutzpah to make such declarations.The report identifies a wide variety of threats to international security today, citing organised crime, poverty and failed states along with war, terrorism and WMD.
It outlines three principles for collective security -- that current threats go beyond national boundaries, that no nation is strong enough to defend itself alone, and that not every nation will be willing or able to protect its own people or refrain from harming its neighbours.No nation is strong enough to defend itself alone? Tell that to the Israelis, who have been defending themselves alone against armies from at least 6 Arab nations as well as 7 decades of Arab terrorism. Perhaps the UN's assertion that it was entirely proper for UN troops in Lebanon to cover for Hezbollah when 3 Israeli soldiers were snatched and murdered might make some of us skeptical of the notion that nations ought to cede at least some security responsibilities to supranational organizations led by unelected bureaucrats and functionaries with no constituencies to serve.
This entire exercise in "reform" is just so much showmanship and stagecraft. The fundamental problem with the UN is that it is morally bankrupt, and this is not only structural but also cultural. Toying with the org. chart will not cure the UN's ills. When governments such as Cuba and Sudan can not only be shielded from sanction for their apalling oppression but also serve on the "human rights" commission, there is something wrong that is much deeper than structure. When a democratic nation with 5 million Jews and 1 million Arabs (who have full rights and some of whom even serve in government) can be the object of so much condemnation while a profoundly unfree nation like China is completely absolved for its erasure of Tibet, there is something wrong that is much deeper than structure.
Unless and until the UN considers that the spread freedom is its ultimate objective and it decides to side unequovically with free nations and to confront unashamedly tyrannical ones, the UN will lack the moral authority to do anything. Of course, this cannot happen if all countries must be represented at the UN, which is why a Community of Democracies is becoming ever more appealing.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi expounds upon the Democratic party's problems. Republicans reading this will no doubt be overjoyed, considering Trippi's prescription is to mimic Karl Rove's breathtaking success by playing to the party's base. The problem to which Trippi seems to be blind, because surely he cannot know it and simply choose to ignore it, is that the nation's center is to the right of where Trippi thinks it is and is closer to the GOP's base than it is to the Democratic base. Surely, if the GOP succumbs to hubris by using government to disperse tribute to favored patrons rather than shrinking it or high-handedness by veering too far right, the Democrats will benefit. But the impact of the Reagan Revolution, the lesson that Bill Clinton should have taught the Democrats about at least appearing as centrists and the argument made by Zell Miller are all lost on Trippi. Consider Trippi's observations:
Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government...Trippi's denigration of moderates and his plan to play to the grassroots (i.e. the activists who are almost by definition the most extreme) will only serve to drag the Democrats further away from the mainstream. And his plea to restore unions to their previous heights of power belies a faith in collectivism, and a corresponding contempt for meritocratic individual responsibility, that is out of touch with the increasingly information-driven economy of the future.Democrats can't keep ignoring their base. Running to the middle and then asking our base to make sure to vote isn't a plan. And to those who say talking to your base doesn't work--Read the Rove 2004 playbook!...
The one thing we learned in the Dean campaign was that the 30 people in Burlington weren't as smart as the 650,000 Americans who were part of our campaign. Instead of a DLC in D.C., Democrats should be holding Democratic Grassroots Councils in every county...
our party has got to find innovative ways to support organized labor's growth. A declining union membership is not good for the country, it's not good for working people, and it certainly isn't good for the Democratic Party.
This should be music to Republicans' ears and we should hope that Trippi's voice is heard within his party. Already Tom Vilsack has dropped out of the running for DNC chair, leaving Howard Dean as the most prominent contender to lead the Democratic Party.
I am not sure why this surprises me, but it has. Federal judges allows Universities to bar military recruiters.
Thank God, John Kerry will not have any chance of appointing any of these types of activist judges. It boggles the mind how un-patriotic our colleges and the left has become.
Don't ever bother trying to convince me that the left loves our military. Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the North County News, the Kerry-Edwards campaign's involvement in the recount of vote in Ohio is increasing. The Kerry-Edwards campaign website even posted this note, asking for supporters to contribute to the campaigns General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund:
The Federal Election Commission has just granted our request to raise funds now to cover recount expenses. Your contribution to Kerry-Edwards 2004 GELAC will provide the resources to make sure we are prepared to win the post election day battles.
The most interesting thing about this is the fact that for four years virtually everyone on the left and the Democratic Party used the circumstances of Bush's victory in 2000 (his winning the electoral college vote, not the national popular vote) to label him an illegitimate President.
Today, the Democrats have focused all their energies and conspiracy theories to hold out hope that Bush's victory in Ohio, much larger than his victory in Florida back in 2000, can be overturned. However, based on the number of votes at play, this could only give Kerry enough votes in the Electoral College to claim victory, but not the national popular vote. This would give Kerry an illegitimate victory by the standards they set for Bush four years ago.
Recount after recount after recount four years ago could not change the results in Florida. Do the Democrats and the Kerry-Edwards campaign really believe that the results of Ohio could be changed? My guess is probably not. Kerry supporters and Bush-haters on the other hand probably do to some degree.
Liberal bloggers certainly welcome the idea of the recounts, even with the zero-chance that the results of Ohio could be overturned. Why are the same people who were advocating abolishing the Electoral College now hoping to achieve a victory by the same means?
What could their justification be? Payback? A self-gratifying "Gotchya" moment? Would overturning Ohio suddenly mean Kerry has a mandate too?
Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "letting every vote count." They want to challenge every rule and every ballot, and claim irregularities and injustice gave Ohio to Bush. Any sane person knows that the results are not going to change. Is this really about votes, or public opinion? If it's about votes, then they are fighting a lost cause for a victory that they considered illegitimate not too long ago. If it is for public opinion, then they are only achieving further polarization of America, thus, the "divided America" they blamed on Bush would ultimately be the baby they raised and nurtured.
The Democrats clearly aren't confident enough in their ability to gain ground in the South, because they are instead looking to the West for votes:
Some Democrats are looking to the West as the region where they might be able to pick up votes in the future after losses to Republicans in the South and most of the Midwest.If only two or three Western states like Arizona, Nevada or Colorado had switched their presidential pick, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would be looking forward to his January inauguration.
...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Democrats must expand their base beyond the Northeast and Pacific Coast states."If we don't expand our base and cling to our limited base of support, I don't know how we win a presidential election," Feinstein said. "We have to build up the West."
As the article states, this will be a real challenge for the party, "Westerners often favor less government regulations on access to federal lands or environmental issues, which runs counter core Democratic beliefs." Imagine that.
This only the beginning. Perhaps when this fails they'll bring up secession again.
It is hard to take this Newsweek article seriously because it labels Howard Dean a centrist, but neverthless it poses the question "can Howard Dean save the Democrats?"
Liberal and conservative bloggers seem to like the idea of Howard Dean being chairman the DNC. The former because Howard Dean was their shining light up until his embarrassing finish in Iowa, and the latter for basically the same reason. Those of us on the right foresaw the disaster that would be Howard Dean, and see him as zero threat as DNC Chairman. Nevertheless, Howard Dean's decision to go for the chairmanship will likely come down to whether or not he plans to run for president again. If the liberal bloggers had a choice, which would they prefer?
Even Howard Dean will have to redefine himself in order to fit in with the Democrats' four-year plan to recapture the White House... But, if a New England Liberal can't win the White House, what makes the Democrats think that having a New England Liberal running their party will help their party's candidates win elections?
Democrats know that they have to move to the center in order to have any prospects of winning elections in the near future. Remember, Howard Dean was once a doctor for Planned Parenthood and he had promised during his campaign that if he was elected president he would veto any parental notification law.
I do not see the Democratic Party gaining votes on "that values thing" with him as the face of the party. All I see with Howard Dean running the DNC is more and more red counties and red states. So, with the interests of the Republican Party and the entire country in mind, I say "bring him on!"
Dean Esmay brings to our attention a Mr. Walter Lippmann. This "gentleman" seems to be a bit upset that our government did not send a "get well" greeting to Fidel Castro, the thug who has usurped the soveriegnty of the Cuban people - as well as torturing and murdering them, from time to time.
I hope that all and sundry will take a bit of time to send an e mail to Mr. Lippmann's getwellfidel@hotmail.com address and let Fidel know how you feel about him and his little injury the other day.
Best of the Web Today brings to our attention two interesting items. The first is from the LA Times:
In this month's election, President Bush carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, most of them "exurban" communities that are rapidly transforming farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls on the periphery of major metropolitan areas. . . .These growing areas, filled largely with younger families fleeing urban centers in search of affordable homes, are providing the GOP a foothold in blue Democratic-leaning states and solidifying the party's control over red Republican-leaning states.
Many agree that in these high-growth communities, as in much of the South, identification with the GOP has become a kind of cultural and social statement that also carries along voters who might be more open to Democrats in a less conservative environment.
The second is from The Economist:
Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation points out that the fertility rate in the Kerry states is 12% lower than in the Bush states. Vermont, the home of Howard Dean and perhaps the most left-wing state in the country, produces an annual average of 49 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age; in Utah, where 71% of the population voted for Mr Bush, the figure is 91. In deep-blue cities such as San Francisco and Seattle you find more dogs than children.
This, of course, spells doom for the Democrats - but, also, it points out our need to really push school choice; we don't want the Democrats hijacking the kids via their government-funded indoctrination camps (ie, public schools). James Taranto calls this the "Roe Effect" - a phenomena caused by the fact that people of the more liberal/left variety tend to have lower birth rates (and more abortions) than people of the centrist/conservative shading. It snowballs over time - less and less "blue" kids means that more and more areas will be taken over by the increasing number of "red" kids. The trends in polling, which show younger people actually becoming increasingly conservative over time, tend to confirm this theory.
A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished.Judge James G. Carr in Toledo ruled that the candidates have a right under Ohio law to a recount, but said it can wait. The judge wrote that he saw no reason to interfere with the final stages of Ohio's electoral process. Officials have said the results will be certified by Dec. 6.
The lawsuit by Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik had asked Carr to issue an order requiring Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to immediately begin statewide recount of Nov. 2 voting results.
The candidates received a combined 0.26 percent of the vote in unofficial results. But they contend a recount is necessary to ensure accuracy.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether they do the recount or not. A million recounts in Florida back in 2000 couldn't change the fact that Bush won the state. Bush leads by an even larger margin in Ohio, and there is no chance a recount was going to change the outcome of the Ohio results.
However, my problem was with the fact that third party candidates who never had the chance to win and claimed in the past their intention was not to alter the outcome but just to "make sure all the votes were counted" to be more of an attempt to cast doubt on the results of Ohio for an even longer period of time.
I'm sure this battle isn't over...
UPDATE: It also appears that the Magical Provisional Ballots which the DU-ers were sure would win it for Kerry are actually breaking for President Bush. Details here.
It's only been a few months since the Republican National Convention ended, now is as good a time as any to come up with an outrageous lawsuit right?:
Saying the city had created its "own little Guantanamo on the Hudson" during the Republican National Convention, a lawyer Monday filed a lawsuit on behalf of nearly 2,000 people arrested at demonstrations.The federal lawsuit claims protesters and bystanders alike were rounded up in mass arrests without cause; were kept without access to their lawyers or families at an old bus depot used as a temporary detention center; and were exposed for days to cruel and inhuman conditions.
I was at the convention, and for four days I had to take the subway to uptown and walk a couple blocks to Madison Square Garden. As someone carrying a laptop and other important items with me for covering the convention, I was personally on heightened alert for anything, and while I never had any problems with protesters, I know quite a few that did. Convention goers being harassed, having their credentials stolen.
Captain Ed, who was also at the Convention, and stayed at the Pennsylvania Hotel, also reacts to this story.
I can tell you that the areas being protected by the police department were only those adjacent to Madison Square Garden and the Pennsylvania Hotel. Police barricaded the streets surrounding these venues for good reason -- they didn't want anyone parking car bombs in front of them. The police forbade protests in this area because they wanted to focus on security, which seems like a reasonable decision to me. Other areas were ignored by the police, as close as a block away, but if anyone came into the secure zone to protest, they were politely asked to leave, and then arrested if they refused. I saw this myself twice during my stay in New York, and in both cases the protestors started quoting the First Amendment over and over again rather than leave.
Of course, back in Boston at the Democratic National Convention, all protesters were actually kept in cages if they wanted to protest.
According to Captain Ed, the RNC protesters "deliberately got themselves arrested," as part of a strategy "that they could paralyze the police by simply getting arrested over and over again during the four-day convention, lowering the security for the conventioneers by exhausting police resources in moving people back and forth constantly to the jails." This reflects what I was heard during the convention.
Governor Vilsack has taken himself out of the running to head the DNC..
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party.Citing his responsibilities as governor, Vilsack said "these challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share. As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."
Earlier this month, Vilsack, an ally of failed presidential nominee John Kerry, telephoned several Democratic National Committee members, seeking advice and asking them to temporarily withhold endorsement of any candidate.
The 400-plus DNC membership meets in February to select a replacement for Terry McAuliffe, who is not seeking another term.
Howard Dean, last I heard, was still interested... I'm routing for Dean!
Don't expect Michael Moore to be making a "documentary" about this:
President Clinton's new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen.The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week.
The article even notes how "Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia"
Even Craig Unger, who wrote the book "House of Bush, House of Saud" suspects that the Saudi support may have something to do with Hillary's potential presidential bid in 2008.
Michael Moore, where are you?
I'm here today to write the obituary of a once-great American political party. The Democrats have died - don't be fooled by that spasmodic twitching you see from the corpse; it is really most sincerely dead. The only thing remaining to do is to bury it.
How can I make such a broad assertion? Because now that its been a bit more than two weeks from the election, I've still yet to see anything remotely like comprehension from the Democrats about what happened to them - nothing which tells me they understand their plight and/or are thinking of a way out of the swamp. Jim Geraghty over at NRO's Kerry Spot joked that the initial commentary from Democrats post-November 2nd indicated that their 2006 slogan would be "Vote for us you drooling morons!" - a play upon the early Democratic implications that we Bush voters were, in the end, just too stupid to see we should have voted for Kerry. As Mr. Geraghty points out in his latest, this trend of Democrats insulting the 61 million people who voted for President Bush continues.
To me, this makes it clear that there will be no re-thinking on the part of the Democrats - they will stumble blindly into 2006 and 2008 without a clue as to what happened before and they'll lose by ever increasing margins as they do so. Eventually, all which will remain of the Democratic Party is a rump of leftists in New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco, still complaining about how stupid everyone else is. This is good news for short-term Republican prospects, but it is bad news for the nation as a whole. Politics is a cyclical creature - eventually, the bold reformers of today become the hidebound reactionaries of tomorrow. In the long run, even our GOP will need a reality check and the sad thing is that there wont be another major national Party to provide it.
Back in August of last year, I wrote (mostly to myself) an appreciation of what was going wrong with the Democratic Party and why they were doomed to defeat in 2004 - part of it goes thusly:
the Democratic Party was captured by something entirely outside of American political experience - political ideologues. Americans, of course, love to discuss politics - given that we are a democratic Republic, politics is to a degree in our blood. Some Americans also are quite committed to their own political beliefs - the old “Yellow Dog Democrat’ and “Mickey Mouse Republican” designated that sort of person who would vote for their parties come what may. But there is a difference between ardent partisans and political ideologues.An ardent partisan for a party will vote for his party’s candidate even if on some issues the candidate disagrees with the partisan’s view of matters. An ideologue, on the other hand, simply will not compromise his principles - even for long-term gain. An ideologue insists that everyone toe a strict Party line; dissent is stifled, people who publically disagree with the Party platform are ostracized from the levers of Party power when they are not hounded out of the party altogether. This sort of thing was alien to American experience, but it is no longer.
Ideologues also never let go - they don’t die off as time goes on. This is because being what they are, they ensure that the next generation coming up to power within the Party toe the established Party line. Each succeeding generation is just like the first generation of ideologues who captured the political organization.
The Democratic Party was taken over by these ideologues in the aftermath of the 1968 Presidential election and they cemented their control with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. It didn’t matter that it was clear right from the start that a candidate like McGovern had zero chance of winning - winning wasn’t as important as ideological purity.
I had thought that the remains of the moderate and conservative Democrats would rise up in anger at how the left has destroyed the Democratic Party - but it seems they are either acting like whipped dogs, or are sheepishly swinging over to the GOP. The rigid insistence upon Party ideological purity; the idiotic demonizaton of the other side for disagreeing - this is a death knell for the Democratic Party. Absent the miracle of a center/right coup in the Democratic leadership, I don't see how the damage can be repaired. I see the future being a place where the Democrats die off - becoming a select Party of urban elites capturing about 20% of the vote while. What will be the eventual result of all this I cannot tell, but it's a bit sad that an American political Party allowed itself to be destroyed - especially when you consider that, at bottom, it allowed itself to be destroyed by such a tiny minority of it's membership - a tiny minority which is extremely well-funded and very nasty when crossed, to be sure; but a tiny minority nonetheless.
Just think, a year ago, the Democratic Party was "reenergized" because of Howard Dean.
Today, they are suffering an "identity crisis."
Outpolled, outmaneuvered and out of power, Democrats are suffering an identity crisis.They could dig in for the long haul as an opposition party similar to many European semi-permanent parliamentary models, and espouse popular positions without worrying about governance. Or they could try to reach across party lines in hopes of achieving accommodation with the Republicans for the public good.
Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said, "Once they get out of the fetal position, which is what they're in right now, the Democrats in Congress are really going to have start catching the pitches that are thrown by the president ... They can't be obstructionist."
Call me cynical, but I expect the Democrats will in fact be obstructionist. Baker does however Democrats can take advantage of Bush's mandate on issues he deems as "fairly radical things" like overhauling the tax code and adding private accounts to Social Security.
These proposals may be ambitious, but I wouldn't call them "fairly radical." Even the Chicago Sun-Times, which endorsed Kerry acknowledged that "all Americans can agree on is that our tax system is too complex and has too many loopholes," and that our "Social Security system is an express train headed over a cliff, and the president is correct in making Social Security reform a No. 1 priority."
Ambitious proposals are not necessary radical. The Democrats may end up finding themselves learning to play ball with the President when it comes to issues and proposals that the majority of Americans support. Doing that they still stand to alienate their base.
The Democrats identity crisis is probably even worse then any of us realize...
The Democratic Party is stuck. With Bill Clinton once again taking the spotlight with the opening of his presidential library, the party he came from still needs to find their guiding light.
In the shadow of Bill Clinton and his gleaming new presidential library, leaders of the struggling Democratic Party held informal discussions this week of how to come back from their devastating Election Day losses.Big decisions loom, such as who will replace outgoing Chairman Terry McAuliffe and on a basic ideological direction. According to one senior Democrat, Lottie Shackelford, the party's vice chairman, party leaders decided to "pull back" and reflect.
"Most of the people with votes at our executive committee meeting in Orlando next month haven't even had a chance to talk about it," she said. "That's why there seems to be more of a consensus now that people need to pull back a bit and start to reflect a little on where we need to go, then start to think about who should be leading us."
Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala said the party should take his old boss' lead.
"The direction is something the party has to debate," he said. "We need to find out, are we simply a bunch of interest groups or a party with heart that provides opportunity in every community? If we return to that, we'll be all right."
This is a sign that the Democratic Party is the weakest it has ever been. They're struggling to redefine themselves, restructure their message in order to gain appeal. Their interest is not what is the in the best interest of the country - it is what can they do to get back power. Remember they're not saying they are having problems getting their message out. They are trying to redefine who and what they are in order to gain votes.
In four years, the Democratic Party, with their redefined image, will try and make a case to America why their candidate should be elected President. Just remember to look at the face hiding behind the mask.
...Let's talk about Daschle's farewell to the Senate again...
Democrat Tom Daschle urged often-warring colleagues to seek "common ground" on Friday as he gave an emotional farewell to Congress as the first U.S. Senate leader in a half century to be voted out of office."It's had its challenges, its triumphs, its disappointments, but everything was worth doing and I'm grateful for every moment," Daschle said of his 18 years in the Senate, the past 10 years as Democratic leader.
When Daschle finished, the Senate briefly recessed, allowing dozens of Democratic colleagues who sat with heads bowed during his speech to stand and applaud.
One by one, they exchanged hugs with the 56-year-old South Dakotan known fondly in his sparsely populated, Republican-leaning state simply as "Tom."
Thank you, John Thune, for unseating Tom Daschle!
A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state.John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.
...
Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.
Sylvester says of Condi, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion."
Miraculously, local political leadership actually spoke out condemning the remarks - sort of.
Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz called the remarks "racially insensitive," while Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement he joined "all Wisconsinites in rejecting" the statements.Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.
Sylvester defended himself by claiming he has "a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison's black community."
Who are the real racists here? Democrats find it generally okay to use racially motivated criticisms against black conservatives, but went into a frenzy when Trent Lott tried to honor his friend Strom Thurmond. Former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd also got a virtual pass for publicly-made racist statements.
For someone like John Sylvester to say Condi's place in the Cabinet is "an illusion of inclusion," shows at attitude that is by no means restricted to him. To him and other Democrats, Republicans cannot genuinely support anyone who African American or another minority without there being some ulterior motive to be artificially diverse.
All the while the Democratic Party has been taking the black vote for granted for years now. Then even went so far in this election to make claims of racially motivated voter suppression in order to scare black voters into supporting their party.
The only "illusion of inclusion" I recall seeing was when Bill Clinton was dubbed "the first black president" - a label which John Kerry, a rich white man, believed he'd be able to succeed.
I've seen a couple liberal blogs note the findings of a analysis by Jakob Nielsen on both the Bush and Kerry campaigns' utilization of email newsletters as a campaign resource. They tend to highlight one particular analysis on email newsletters during the last week of the campaign. The Bush campaign's final week of email newsletter were 54% on Issues and events. Nearly 60% of Kerry's final newsletters were asking for donations.
The liberal bloggers think this analysis has given them the ability to crack the code on the effectiveness of online grassroots... If only they understood...
Patrick Ruffini notes that Hillary has started her fundraising - ostensibly for her 2006 Senate re-election bid; but Patrick does note an odd thing - the "Hillary" bumper sticker doesn't say what she's running for, or when. Could it be that our Hillary decided to buy in bulk - and have enough for both 2006 and 2008? We report, you decide; you can check it out here.
Target the American Scrooge company is banning all Salvation Army bell ringers.
I have not been a huge Wal-Mart fan, but I have changed that opinion.
The bell ringers are ''very welcome" in front of Wal-Mart stores, said a company spokesman. Even so, the world's largest retailer imposes restrictions: Salvation Army volunteers can stand outside its stores and solicit for only a total of 14 calendar days, and for no more than three days in a row.
Target can be reached at guest.relations@target.com or if you rather call them, this link has several phone numbers listed. I have written them and advised them that they will not see one cent of my family’s money and that I am sending the Boston Globe story to all of my friends and family. We will be returning two items this week that was purchased as Christmas gifts at a brand new Target just several miles from us.
HAT TIP: Huge Hewitt
The AP reports that Daschle's successor as Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, "sounded out" moderate Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee to switch parties and join the Democrats in the aftermath of Bush's reelection.
Chafee said he rebuffed the offer from Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada in a follow-up phone conversation the same day, adding that Reid offered "no deal or anything like that" as an incentive to cross the political aisle."We had a brief conversation, just hello," Chafee said in an interview. He publicly flirted with leaving the GOP in the days before and immediately after the election, but has since affirmed he will not switch.
Reid placed his call in the aftermath of elections that left Democrats with 44 seats in the Senate and sent longtime Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle down to defeat at home in South Dakota.
At a news conference Tuesday shortly after his election as party leader, Reid twice refused to answer questions asking about his relationship with Chafee.
It is of course worth noting the Reid wsa involved in discussions back in 2001 which resulted in Jim Jeffords leaving the Republican party, transferring power in the Senate to the Democrats.
A long chain of bloggers brings this to our attention: Hat tip to Dean's World, Improved Clinch and No Treason. Apparently, some of our leftwing friends at The Stranger have decided to drop the mask and declare their hatred of the United States and alliegance to Osama bin Laden:
DEAR OSAMA BIN LADENI'm sorry. You were right. We deserve to be blown up.
After last Tuesday, well... what can I say? You had us pegged dead-on the first time--although I was in denial and refused to believe it up until now. We as a nation obviously ARE a bunch of mindless sheep, grown fat with consumerism and easily led down the primrose path into corruption. After what happened November 2, there's just no denying it anymore. I'm ashamed that I was so blind for so long.
After 60 percent of eligible voters turned out and 51 percent of those voted for Bush, I can't do anything but concede your point: There are no innocents left in America. We've brought this on ourselves. Go ahead and do your worst. We've got it coming--in a big way. All I ask is this: Give New York a break, okay? And leave New England, California, and the rest of the West Coast out of it as well. We're on your side already! Please, stay focused and plan your next attack against the real enemy: those "red states" in the middle of the map. Fly a Cessna into the stands of a NASCAR rally. Put a suicide bomber on the Arch in St. Louis. Drive a truck-bomb into the Grand Ole Opry. Release anthrax at an Astros game. It's all good! They've got it coming. I'm just sorry it took me so long to figure out how very right you were. Can you ever forgive me?
This is where you go when you first start to think that just maybe the United States brings the terrorists upon itself due to it's policies...once you start to doubt your own country then before long you will declare your support of your nation's enemies. What the moron who wrote this does not realise that the enemy will kill him as well - the enemy hates us because we are "The Other" to them...and in the barbaric world of Islamo-fascism, "The Other" is not something to be embraced, but to be butchered most cruelly.
At this point, anything coming out of the United Nations is rightly viewed as a joke, since its credibility and authority are non-existent. But that does not mean that it has ceased being a source of humor. In the wake of Kofi Annan's absurd letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, in which the disastrous Secretary General cautions Allawi against using force to quell the insurgent stronghold of Falluja and which Allawi slapped down with appropriate disdain, comes a new statement from some functionary called the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights that America ought to be investigated for war crimes there. Are these people really that stupid or are they really that sympathetic to Zarqawi's cause? Given the heroic send-off for the world's foremost terrorist Yasser Arafat, the answer seems clear. But that does not make it any less of a travesty. The UN's manifest anti-Semitism make it ironic to use a Yiddish word to describe these mouthpieces who infest the East side of Manhattan near 42nd Street, but they are constantly redefining the word chutzpah.
Top United Nations human rights official Louise Arbour has called for investigation of alleged abuses in Fallujah, Iraq, including disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilians.No such statements were made when radical Muslims enforced medieval rule on the city. This, of course, is because the UN has no way to enforce international law without U.S. power. When America does the dirty work to create security, then the UN can feel free to criticize us. This is why few Americans care what the UN says and its role in the world under Annan's incompetent and corrupt leadership is on the wane. Annan's lackeys should be worrying about issues other than how America liberates and protects people whose enslavement and torture were enabled and supported by a crooked and morally bankrupt UN.Those responsible for any violations - US and multinational forces, Iraqi government troops or insurgents - should be brought to justice, the former UN war crimes prosecutor said in a statement.
Despite the dumping of Daschle, I think it is safe to assume that Senate Democrats are still going to find ways to justify filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
Newly elected Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid prodded President Bush and Republicans on Tuesday to join him in working across party lines over the next two years and said, "I would always rather dance than fight.""But I know how to fight," the 64-year-old Nevadan added in his first appearance as leader of a Democratic minority that was reduced to 44 seats in the Nov. 2 elections, fewest in seven decades.
Chosen without opposition to replace Sen. Tom Daschle as party leader, Reid also warned Republicans not to "mess with the rules" as they try to overcome opposition to Bush's most controversial nominees for the federal courts.
Don't mess with the rules? Does Reid have a short memory? Back in in May and June of 2003 that Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont urged Bush to consult with Democrats before choosing a nominee for the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy. Leahy wrote, "The courts are the one part of government people yearn to believe is free of politics." He expected Bush to get the permission of Democrats on whom to nominate. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the President seeking approval from Senators in his rival party. Who was really playing politics with the courts?
And Democrats want to talk about rules? Reid also said of Bush, "He said four years ago he wanted to be a uniter. ... That didn't work too well the first four years. We hope it works the second four years, because we want to work together."
It didn't work the first four years because Democrats knowingly and maliciously divided this country. They were the ones who blocked Bush's judicial nominees. They were the ones who stood behind him on such legislation as the PATRIOT Act and No Child Left Behind Act - only to turn around and use those as ammunition against him later on when it was more politically convenient. Bush reached out to Democrats plenty in his first term, only to be betrayed in the name of politics.
Enough is enough of the Democrats pretending like they want to "work together." They say that now so they can claim at some point in the future that Bush reneged on his promise to reach out to Democrats.
Daschle might be gone, but the fight for judicial nominees will continue.
Parting is such sweet sorrow...
Tom Daschle bade his fellow Senate Democrats farewell Tuesday with a plea that they seek common ground with Republicans yet continue to fight for the less fortunate. After 10 years as the Senate's Democratic leader, Daschle congratulated his longtime assistant and now successor, Harry Reid of Nevada, as Democrats chose their leadership team for the 109th Congress that takes office in January.The South Dakota Democrat, narrowly defeated by Republican John Thune in a bid for a fourth term, kept a low public profile on Tuesday.
He spoke only briefly on the Senate floor, making perfunctory remarks about the week's legislative calendar. He plans a public farewell on Friday, a day after attending the opening of the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.
Generally unassuming, Daschle, 56, appeared more reserved than usual. He passed up his usual Tuesday turn in front of television cameras, ceding the spotlight to Reid.
But in the Democrats' weekly closed-door lunch meeting, Daschle gave a talk that other senators described as positive, optimistic and gracious and was greeted with sustained applause and a few tears.
Sit back and smile. Daschle is gone!
The Times of London reports that arch-weasel Jacques Chirac is at his America-bashing best again. Now he is condescendingly scolding British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his friendship with America:
In other remarks that will sting the Bush Administration, he again outlined his vision of a “multipolar” world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US, and mocked Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for his division of Europe into old and new.Just as Dominique de Villepin lied to Colin Powell, Chirac is lying when he says it is absurd to imagine that he hopes to build a Europe against the United States. As has been reported thoroughly by The Telegraph, the BBC, The Economist and other sources, Chirac clearly envisions Europe not as an ally of America, promoting democracy and security in unity, but as a counterweight to America. The key part of the word "counterweight" is "counter," and if you look it up you will see it means "opposing" and "contrary." So either Chirac is ignorant of what these words mean, or he is lying. De Villepin's backstabbing at the UN was enough to destroy the Chirac government's credibility. But his preposterous claim during the Iraq debate that "We are not opposing the United States. We are defending a conviction, principles" is downright infuriating given France's complicity in the growing Oil-for-Food scandal.M Chirac said that there would be no division between Britain and France.
“It is like that nice guy in America — what’s his name again? — who spoke about ‘old Europe’. It has no sense. It’s a lack of culture to imagine that. Imagining that there can be division between the British and French vision of Europe is as absurd as imagining that we are building Europe against the United States.”
We hope Prime Minister Blair, and other European leaders, view this as not a problem with America but one with France. From helping Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear facility in the 1970's to taking Saddam's payola in exchange for a Security Council veto to his obsequious eulogizing over terrorist godfather Yasser Arafat (unsurprisingly, Chirac wept not a tear for such innocent victims of Arafat's murderous career5-year old Danielle Shefi, 2-year old Merav Hatuel, wheelchair-bound senior Leon Klinghoffer or Cleo Noel). Just as Arafat's legacy is to leave behind a radicalized people inculcated in the culture of suicidal violence and rejectionism, so Chirac has accomplished the lamentable task of playing on nationalism and jealousy to intensify the French belligerence towards America. But what are we to expect from such a crooked leader of a nation that, despite falling behind economically and militarily due to sclerotic socialist policies, seems committed to the quaint notion that it is still somehow a major world power. If it was not for its anachronistic position (permanent, veto-wielding Security Council member) in a corrupt institution (the UN), we could simply ignore France and its delusions of grandeur.
But because its primary foreign policy objective is not to rein in global terror and spread democracy, but to undermine America, we must re-orient our policy accordingly. We must begin to force splits within Europe and drive wedges between France and its European allies as part of American foreign policy. This ought not be done for spite, but to acknowledge that France does not view itself as an ally of America but as a "counterweight." And since France views itself as "contrary" or "opposing" America, our policy ought to be aimed at minimizing the power and influence of that counterweight. By his words and deeds, Chirac has moved from simply being a weasel to being an outright enemy. We need to treat him as such.
After successfully dumping Daschle, the Democrats have to pick his replacement, as of now, it appears Nevada Senator Harry Reid will fill those disgraced shoes:
Senate Democrats are changing management, their ranks reduced to a 74-year low and their longtime leader defeated for re-election back home.Sen. Harry Reid, a soft-spoken Nevadan, is moving in as leader of the shrunken minority, while Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota moves out after a decade as the party's chief spokesman and strategist on the Senate floor.
Reid's ascension was preordained at Tuesday's meeting of Senate Democrats, their ranks smaller by four following the Nov. 2 elections. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, in line to succeed Reid as the party's second-ranking Senate leader, was also unopposed.
According to the article, Reid is "in the mainstream of Senate Democrats" - whatever that means. He has also been a faithful Democrat when it comes to filibustering Bush's judicial appointments.
Jack Dunphy over at National Review Online advises us that the Democrats are working to erase that 3.5 million vote gap from this past election - by appealing to the approximately 4.7 million people currently incarcerated in the United States:
According to The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group that advocates alternatives to incarceration, there are about 4.7 million people currently ineligible to vote in the United States because of a felony conviction. Given that President Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote on November 2 was about 3.5 million, this untapped pool of felons must indeed present a juicy target to Democrats, who evidently feel confident that most of those 4.7 million ne'er-do-wells will vote their way.There remains only the small but persistent obstacle of the laws in 48 states that prohibit these people from voting (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions). But what does the law matter when you have judges on your side? Surely there is no law so enshrined, so well accepted, so deeply rooted that it cannot be deconstructed, disemboweled, or simply disregarded by a properly composed panel of our robed masters. Weave together a sufficient number of "penumbras" and "emanations" and the law can mean just about anything you want it to, up to and including the exact opposite of its plainly written text.
It does stand to reason that most criminals, if given a chance, would vote Democratic - the reason being, of course, is that Democrats are (very correctly) identified as being the softer Party vis a vis our felons. While the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to ban smoking in restraunts, they are less enthused about keeping robbers and drug pushers off the streets. You can almost see the glint in the Donk's eyes as they subtract 3.5 million from 4.7 million and come up with a 1.2 million advantage for 2008...all they need is a friendly Court to nullify the laws of 48 States. They're working on it:
In 1996, in the case of Farrakhan v. Locke, six current and former inmates in the state of Washington (including one Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, a.k.a. Ernest S. Walker) filed suit against Washington governor Gary Locke and two other state officials on the grounds that the state law barring them from the polls violated the Voting Rights Act. The law, the plaintiffs claim, is racially discriminatory because there is a disproportionately high number of minorities represented in Washington's penal system. The District Court dismissed the suit, but an appeal to the Ninth Circuit brought the plaintiffs before more sympathetic ears. While not fully endorsing the plaintiffs' claims, a three-judge panel ruled that the case should be allowed to proceed to trial. A petition to rehear the case before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit fell short of the necessary votes, bringing an unusually colorful and heated dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski, with whom five colleagues joined. Kozinski dispensed with the conciliatory pleasantries often found in dissenting opinions, going right at the majority with undisguised contempt from his opening paragraph:This is a dark day for the Voting Rights Act. In adopting a constitutionally questionable interpretation of the Act, the panel lays the groundwork for the dismantling of the most important piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The panel also misinterprets the evidence, flouts our voting rights precedent and tramples settled circuit law pertaining to summary judgment, all in an effort to give felons the right to vote. The court should have taken this case en banc and brought order back into our case law. I dissent from the court's failure to do so.
Kozinski does not let up from there, either. After offering page upon page of the relevant citations, he concludes his opinion as follows:
Every state in our circuit bars felons from the voting booth. The panel's decision will change all that. It contradicts our case law and the law of at least four other circuits, making us an outlier in voting rights jurisprudence. It does so without so much as acknowledging congressional approval of felon disenfranchisement and without any consideration of the grave constitutional consequences of its actions. I am troubled not only by my colleagues' insistence on an indefensible interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, but also by their utter disregard for our precedent. I dissent.
I don't know - this may backfire quite heavily on the Democrats; first off, not all felons will vote; criminals are generally not good citizens and thus are unlikely to bestir themselves to cast a vote - secondly, not all of them will actually vote Democratic. Additionally, the fact that there will be "Felons for Democrats" will be major grist for the GOP mill. What this really shows is the pathetic nature of the Democratic Party these days...a Party with good ideas in tune with the American people wouldn't need to bother with such things as trying to get criminals to vote.
What's next for the Democratic party? Who is going to step up to the plate in 2008? The Washington Post reports that Democratic Underground visitors think Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner could be their party's next presidential candidate.
Three years ago, Warner persuaded voters in an overwhelmingly red state to put him in office with a NASCAR-loving, pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, fiscally conservative campaign. Since then, he has backed some restrictions on abortion, signed more than a dozen gun rights bills, balanced the state's books and persuaded a Republican legislature to help him pass a $1.5 billion tax increase.
Placing strategy over policy, the belief is that nominating Warner would be "providing the party a presidential candidate who could appeal to the conservative, heartland voters who helped reelect President Bush."
Even Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's former campaign manager said that Warner has been able to relate to rural voters – something Democrats have had trouble with.
The only problem is, he'd have to survive the primaries first... and let's face it, no Democrat would make it through the Democrat primaries campaigning as a centrist.
The potential candidacy of Warner would fit will with the forthcoming makeover of Democratic Party – but it seems like the Democrats think they make themselves over by looking increasingly similar to Republicans.
So, is the key to Democrats' hopes a donkey in elephant's clothing?
Don't count on it. Republicans make better Republicans any day. When it comes down to it, the Democratic Party will nominate a liberal.
Written by guest blogger Yvette Stafford of Reporterette.
Nothing scares secular lefties more than an election where some 60 million Americans cast a vote for -- gasp! -- a President who finds great comfort in his faith.
Beltway blasphemy!
Republicans call it winning an election. Maureen Dowd calls it "merging church and state." And as the reality of a victorious conservative electorate sinks in, Dowd says she is ...
"... not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals who claim to have put their prodigal son back in office."
Instead, she is ...
"... getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels."
Vengeful mob? Torches and hatchets?
That's the difrerence between liberals and conservatives. Imagery Dowd uses to describe church-going Christians is imagery conservatives reserve to describe murderous thugs like the savages who killed and mutiliated the bodies of four Americans in Fallujah last March . Although Dowd's word choice is unfortunate, what is more troubling is her fear of Protestant evangelicals, an attitude reminisicent of anti-Catholic sentiments that emerged in 1928 when New York Governor Alfred Emanuel Smith became the Democratic presidential candidate. John F. Kennedy, facing similar hurdles when he ran for office, addressed the mistrust of Catholics to Southern Baptist leaders in 1960:
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me."
Bush delivered a similar response to his critics just days after his re-election:
"I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. If you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American."
Liberals conveniently ignore such similarities in history, particularly when they involve the hero of the Democratic Party and a conservative Republican President. Instead of taking a hard look at why Democrats lost the electoral and popular vote, Dowd and other liberal pundits are trying to de-legitimize the Republican win and guilt-trip the Bush administration into watering down its second-term agenda by "reaching out to Democrats" and helping "unite a divided country."
Will it ever end? I'm afraid we're going to hear analysis of John Kerry's failed presidential bid until the end of eternity. And it seems every article carries the same undertone: how did Kerry lose to Bush?
I guess MSM just can't accept the fact that Bush was the better man for the job. They are in complete denial, labelling Bush supporters as dumb, right-wing, Christian fanatics. It's no wonder newspaper circulations are dropping off the face of the earth or that Fox News gets ratings higher than the other networks combined. Somewhere out in that little liberal utopia someone's going to have to realize that Republicans aren't stupid and Bush isn't satan. But until then, I guess we just have to endure the incessant weeping by the losing team.
Here's another example. Again, the Boston Globe has decided to paint Kerry as the victim of unfair conspiracies and unjust criticism.... rather than accept the fact that he was a wishy-washy war criminal who would sell his own mother's soul to the devil if it advanced his political career or socio-economic status.
Some choice quotes from the unbiased rag:
A stiff wind was blowing across the canyon, and Kerry, whose hearing was damaged by gun blasts in Vietnam, had trouble understanding some of the questions being thrown his wayWould Kerry have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, one reporter asked, even if he knew then that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? "Yes, I would have voted for the authority; I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry replied, as aides stood by, dumbfounded.
The senator explained to aides that part of the question had been lost in the wind; he thought he was answering a variation on the same basic query he'd been asked countless times: Was it right to give Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq? Kerry had simply given his standard "yes," with the proviso that he would have "done this very differently from the way President Bush has" -- yet the misunderstanding now muddied Kerry's message.
If you're keeping score at home, it's Kerry Campaign: 0 Stiff Wind: 1 But, hey, at least it allowed the reporter to get a Vietnam reference into the story in just the second line.
"John got caught with his legalistic and logical mind wanting to make consistency matter, and not let them say [he's] a flip-flopper," said Kerry's longtime friend David Thorne.
Translation: "John Kerry's not the total idiot he seems to be. No, really, he's truly a genius despite how he looks and sounds."
"John's complexity hurt him," said his former Yale roommate Daniel Barbiero.
No, John being a liberal elitist, flip-flopping war criminal hurt him, but don't expect to see anything resembling the truth in these liberal post-mortems sponsored by the unbiased MSM.
Bush's critics depict him as simplistic and stubborn. But on Election Day, it became clear that a majority of Americans took comfort in the president's clipped certainty in the face of dangerous times and moral flux. When voters left the polls that Tuesday, they gave the president a 3.5 million lead in the popular vote.
Notice how they toss out the "he's a stubborn simpleton" reference, then say, "but a majority of Americans like that." God knows they couldn't bring themselves to even try and refute the allegations of Bush being a moron.
The article goes on to disingenuously call the Swift Boat Vets "conspirators" and their book based on "mostly unsupported allegations" without addressing the truths they presented.
The question of whether the campaign should have made Vietnam "such a centerpiece could be second-guessed forever," said Thorne. " And I think the answer is it served us well in distinguishing John's unique biography and also helped put forth an image of a strong commander in chief, an antidote to the very allegation that Bush was making -- that he is weak, can't lead the country."But the swift boat campaign, he added, was like aikido, the martial art in which you "use the other person's energy in your own defense. They used the energy that we had created about Vietnam to turn it against us."
That, and maybe the fact that Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam (despite not wanting to go there in the first place), garnered 3 purple hearts and quickly returned home to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
I guess this is our punishment for winning the election handily. We've now subjected ourselves to 4 years of whining and pouting. Well, considering the alternative, I can certainly live with it.
We've been tipped off to a website call SorryEverybody - from a look at the pictures, it's a bunch of slacker, tree hugging, hippie lowlifes presuming to apologise for the United States re-electing President Bush.
We here at Blogs for Bush wish to apologize to the world as well - for having amongst our citizenry such degraded, pathetic and stupid people. We promise a massive education program over the next four years to knock some sense into these morons.
Sticky-fingered aid over at Donk Headquarters:
The FBI and U.S. attorney's office are investigating the apparent theft of about $350,000 in checks from a Democratic campaign committee, federal law enforcement and Democratic Party officials said Thursday.The money was traced to a private bank account that bank records indicate was opened by Roger Chiang, who was employed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity...
...The campaign committee is the primary fund-raising and political organization for Senate Democrats. Overall, the committee reported raising more than $76 million for the two-year election cycle that just ended.
Campaign committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said the committee's internal auditors discovered the problem in early October. With the help of the U.S. Capitol Police, they traced and recovered most of the money in time to use it in this fall's Senate campaigns, he said...
...The alleged theft and the investigation were initially reported in Thursday editions of The Washington Post.
Chiang was previously director of outreach to Asians and Pacific islanders for the Democratic National Committee... He also worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration...
How come it doesn't surprise me that a common thief was once upon a time employed by the Clinton Administration?
Best of the Web Today brings to our attention this absolutely flabbergasting item:
A post on DemocraticUnderground.com, by someone called "mgdecombe" offers one explanation:Got a call from the March of Dimes today. I listened to the woman's prepared text, and said, "I'm sorry, we will no longer be donating, please take us off your list." She asked why, and I said, "Due to the election results, we have decided not to enable the Bush Administration by supporting charitable organizations who are filling the vaccuum [sic] caused by his mishandling of the country. It's all up to President Bush now."
She sounded surprised.
We will say this to all of the organizations we donated to last year, when they come a' callin' this month and next.
For the next four years, we help our own, and that is it. We contribute to political causes, and that is it.
Liberals, it seems, are quite generous--but only with other people's money.
They're unhinged. Absolutely barking mad. Can you believe this?
Some people never give up - Kerry has conceded, the DNC is working on plans for the 2006 mid-terms, President Bush is reshuffling his Cabinet...but for some of our Democrats it ain't over - even though the fat lady has sung, taken a bow, gone home and had dinner.
Starting as a bizarre bit of internet rumor-mongering, the Democratic attempt to steal Ohio, and thus the Presidency, takes on new life now that the Green and Libertarian Party candidates have formally demanded a recount of the Ohio vote. We also learn that the Kerry campaign, while maintaining that there is no chance to change the Ohio decision, is sending a team of lawyers to investigate the lunatic internet conspiracy-theory claims about the Ohio vote.
People, the story of problems in Ohio is entirely bogus from start to finish - I don't know if the leftwing crazies really think they can steal the election from President Bush or whether this is just some sick attempt to delegitimize the President's victory, but a stop needs to be put to this garbage. Enough is enough - the election is over, President Bush won and his opponents will just have to get used to the idea. A complete de-bunking of the story is available in this St Petersburg Times Online article. Spread it around to friends...its time we put these foaming-at-the-mouth leftists in their place.
Hat Tip: mytwocommoncents via NRO's The Corner
No, Michael Moore isn't going away anytime soon...
Michael Moore met with Harvey Weinstein and Moore says they plan to start working -- now -- on "Fahrenheit 9/11½.""We want to get cameras rolling now and have it ready in two-three years," Moore says. "We want to document and commercialize it. Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now.
Michael Moore thought that his movie was going to be the driving force behind Bush being voted out of office. So now he thinks he has to do another movie because the rest of us are uneducated. How's that for comedy?
Perhaps Michael Moore should spend some time correcting all the lies and distortions in his movies before he starts filming a sequel to his ineffective Fahrenheit 9/11.
It didn't take a genius to figure out that when Bush won reelection liberals would resist accepting it...
The Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee have accepted the results. Fringe liberals are still pushing a number of theories explaining the results of the election... They're just wrong.
Each of the claims is buoyed by enough statistics and analysis to sound plausible. In some instances, the theories are coming from respected sources: college engineering professors fascinated by voting technology, Internet journalists, election-reform activists.Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories — the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee — are not biting.
"At this point the number of irregularities brought to our attention is not going to change the outcome of the election," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera. "The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans received more votes than Democrats, and we're not contesting this election."
Why are liberals holding onto this? I suspect two reasons. The first being they want to make sure the legitimacy of Bush's presidency is always in question. The second reason is, they are so close-minded they can't believe that a fair election would result in their guy losing.
What I find particularly interesting is their attention to Ohio. Even if it were mathematically possible for results of that state to change because of the provisional ballots waiting to be counted, Kerry would only have won the electoral vote, not the national popular vote... The electoral may decide who wins the election, but Bush's losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote in 2000 was one of the main reasons they challenged Bush's legitimacy during his first term.
I guess they would have been willing to ignore their standard for Kerry if that happened to him to him this year?
France
"It is with emotion that I have just learnt of the death of President Yasser Arafat, the first elected president of the Palestinian Authority," Chirac said in a written statement. "I offer my very sincere condolences to his family and to people close to him."Chirac, who had visited Arafat days before his death,
called him a "man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians' combat for recognition of their national rights."Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin praised Arafat on Thursday as "an influential political figure on an international scale.""It is a heavy loss for the Palestinian leadership, and all Palestinians," Putin said in a statement released by the Kremlin. He credited Arafat with "strengthening friendly relations between Russia and Palestine."
China
Chinese President Hu Jintau said Arafat's "death is not only a great loss for the Palestinian people, but the Chinese people also lost a great friend."Holy See
The Vatican praised Arafat as a leader who struggled to win independence for his people and repeated its support of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.A Vatican statement called Arafat an "illustrious deceased" and asked God to grant eternal rest to his soul and peace to the Holy Land.
United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan was "deeply moved" by the death of Palestinian Arafat and urged renewed efforts by the Palestinians and the Israelis to reach peace, a spokesman said late on Wednesday.The spokesman said Arafat would be remembered for leading the Palestinians in a "giant step" toward peace in signing the Oslo accords in 1993 and, "It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled."
Annan expressed his condolences to Arafat's family and to the Palestinian people.
European Union
The European Union praised Arafat on Thursday for his "single-minded commitment" to the Palestinian cause and pledged to work with the new Palestinian leadership to find peace in the Middle East."We will work with the Palestinian authorities and the international community to contribute to realizing the aspirations of the Palestinian people," said a statement on behalf of the EU from Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot. The Netherlands holds the EU's rotating presidency.
At first I thought it a joke in poor taste, but then I went to the actual website (which I wont link, as we here at Blogs for Bush do not link to hate-sites) and found out differently - it's over on Bill Maher's website, if you're really interested, and here is what one enlightened, sophisticated and caring leftwinger had to say:
Is it now morally excusable to organize midnight raids on republican groups in the red states and "terminate" them with extreme prejudice?Watching Bush's acceptance speech on wednesday, with the Cheney's on stage as well....who would not have liked to see a bomb go off under the stage and wipe out the whole despicable slimy lot of them? And hopefully the shrapnel would have gone to the second deck and blown Mary Matalin's head off as well.
Be honest. Who would not like to see Karen Hughes run over by an 18 wheel truck? Who wouldn't like to see her carcass scattered all over highway 99?
Of course, you'd think that sensible leftists would immediately jump on this and offer stout condemnations of such hate speech. No such luck:
I actually would love to see Karen Hughes have to endure the following:3. I'd like to have her strung up in a bikini on a flagpole, and let random pedistrians and bystanders throw things at her and see if they can hit her.
I'd like to try and figure out what they've got against Karen Hughes - seems like a pretty regular gal, if you ask me...apparantly, though, she's hated with a passion. There is a poison in our political discourse these days - in my view, we've been infected by a leftist strain of thought which must create hatred in order to exist. Moderately conservative politicians are now considered the personification of evil - worthy of horrific death. Keep in mind, friends, that this also means you and me - if they hate Karen Hughes, then they hate all of us.
It's still a long, hard fight in front of us; keep the faith and keep plugging away. Eventually, this diseased sort of thinking is bound to burn itself out.
Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today
Drudge had the scoop, now the AP reports:
Three high school students, one allegedly armed with a bat, were charged with attacking a pro-President Bush classmate after he reportedly said only gays would support Sen. John Kerry."It's a good thing to see young people interested and excited about politics," said Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom. "It's obviously very disturbing to see this kind of violence over it."
The 17-year-old was assaulted last Thursday in the high school parking lot following a class discussion about the election, authorities said. He was treated for cuts and bruises and released.
The alleged assailants have all been charged: one with felony assault - because he allegedly went to his car to get a bat during the assault, prosecutors said - one with misdemeanor assault and one with disorderly conduct.
Of course, the AP missed a small portion of the exchange. Drudge has more of the story.
Nevertheless, we can see the hatred of the left... resorting to violence because of political differences...
Reporterette did some digging on Barbra Streisand's selected quote from Thomas Jefferson which she posted on her website following the election... and determines that Babs has taken Jefferson's quote out of context.
Well, let's give Babs some credit, atleast it actually was a genuine Jefferson quote.
In a glum post-mortem to the presidential campaign, senior advisers to Senator John Kerry said Monday that Mr. Kerry lost because he had failed to turn the election into a referendum on the economy, a problem they attributed to a barrage of foreign policy news and the success of the White House in wielding cultural issues.A pollster for Mr. Kerry, Stanley Greenberg, said that the campaign saw evidence that its position was slightly deteriorating among white rural voters 10 days before Election Day and that the erosion began "cascading from group to group."
According to Greenberg, the economy was the issue Kerry needed to be in the forefront, but it got drowned out in the final days of the campaign by the "missing" explosives story and the bin Laden tape.
Isn't that interesting, the Kerry campaign blaming external events for their demise. Whatever excuses they come up with for their defeat, it is time for reality to sink in. It has for James Carville...
James Carville, a Democrat who was an informal adviser to Mr. Kerry's campaign, told reporters that President Bush achieved a "monumental political achievement" in winning despite polls that showed deep concern about the direction of the country and unhappiness with his job performance."If this is an election that we couldn't win . . ." Mr. Carville said, his voice trailing off, as he sat next to Mr. Shrum and Mr. Greenberg. "The purpose of a political party is to win elections, and we're not doing that.
"I think we have to come to grips with the fact that we are an opposition party right now and not a particularly effective one. I'm out of denial. Reality has hit."
Kerry's advisors do concede that John Kerry "never presented an overarching view of what his presidency might be like." The Democrats need a message to sell to the voters... And this year, according to Kerry advisor Bob Shrum said, "I don't think it came through. Everybody said we lost in 2002 because we didn't say anything. You can't say that this year."
Maybe they just need to realize the country heard them loud and clear... America just doesn't like their message.
Clearly, the whole political world is fixated on how the Democrats will rebound from their defeat in 2004. Just as in the primary campaign, there appear to be 2 different paths for the Democrats to take:
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party...Based on Dean's role in the primary, that last line could be construed as indicating his belief that the Democrats were not firm enough in their liberal ideology to win. On the other side, we have this:Dean has been outspoken since the beginning of his presidential bid in saying that the Democratic Party must establish a separate and unique identity from Republicans.
Democratic strategist James Carville said yesterday that the Democratic Party's losses last Tuesday were no fluke, and that they need to rethink exactly who they are and provide something more than a litany of policy proposals...Recall that it was the Clinton team that wanted to make sure Dean would lose the nomination, though Dean did not help himself either. But it sounds as if the party, no longer united behind its failed ABB strategy, must choose between Clintonian centrism (or the appearance thereof) and Deanist liberalism. It should be interesting to watch as the Democrats decide whether to become more blue or add a bit of red.One possibility, he said, was to embrace a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda. That would require the ability of members of Congress to reject pork projects for their districts and stake the party's fortunes on fiscal discipline.
...On second thought, don't bother.
I'm convinced now it is not George W. Bush's place to reach out to Democrats and liberals... they have to swallow their pride and reach out to him.
The summer of love has given way to the autumn of fear in San Francisco, a liberal stronghold where residents bitterly disappointed by the Bush victory are in no mood to reach out and mend divisions.Rather, they are waving "United States of Canada" maps, redrawn to show Canada extending down to include California, New England and the other so-called "blue states" that voted decisively for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race.
Some are canceling plans to travel to neighboring "red states," where Bush drew most of his support. They are asking serious questions about the future of American democracy. And the usual post-election bravado about moving out of the country when a favored candidate loses is sounding different this year. It sounds a lot more serious.
Indeed. While I have yet to hear anyone claim they wanted to move out of the country, I've heard theories from disappointed liberals about an "inevitable civil war" and of course, the belief that all the blue states should secede.
There is plenty of proof that the Democrat Party is not the party of tolerance and diversity, and the results of last weeks election has certainly inflammed the hatred of the left.
Peace and tolerance have long been the words to live by in San Francisco, known for its large gay community, broad ethnic mix and frequent anti-war protests. But days after the election, many residents said they were so worried about an erosion of civil rights, environmental standards and the escalating violence in the Middle East, that they did not know how they could tolerate the Bush administration, or Americans who voted to re-elect him."I have family in Idaho, but I told my wife we're not going to visit them now. It's all Republicans there," said Ron Schmidt, a public relations executive. "We have family in Indiana and I don't want to go there either."
Sounds a lot like segregration to me. Is this what it's going to come to? Liberals in the front of the bus while conservatives have to sit in back? Separate bathrooms, restaurants, stores, etc. etc. etc.?
Mr. Schmidt considers Kerry's loss by 3.5 million votes as a indication that he has been disenfranchised. "The ideologies of the two parties are too different. I don't see how healing can take place. I feel like the disenfranchised minority now, and that's a funny thing for a tall, good-looking white guy like me to say."
It's time for liberals to understand something. Democracy isn't broken just because your party or candidate lost. You don't always get what you want. But that doesn't mean you have to hate people who disagree with your politics, and choose to segregate yourself. America isn't about surrounding yourself only with people who agree with you.
If that's how liberals see America, then I'm glad they're not in control.
Besides celebrating victory, I've found myself so incredibly amused by the disgraced Democrats who keep asking themselves "What went wrong?" which is often followed by questions of what are they going to do next.
As expected, new party leadership has been considered. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has overseen most of the Democrats downward spiral, and it's time for him to start sending out resumes. So far, only one name has been tossed around as a replacement.
Howard Dean.
After experiencing their most embarrassing years, the first name to come up to replace McAuliffe is their biggest party embarrassment Howard Dean?
Are Democrats playing into Republicans' hands or what? Howard Dean was the guy who "energized Democrats" and "inspired new and young voters" or whatever... Yet he couldn't win Iowa, New Hamsphire, or any other state besides his own. His grassroots organization couldn't help Kerry win the election.
And they think Howard Dean will be their savior? Ha! I would love to see them try... Bring it on!
It seems like every election Democrats are armed with excuses for their loses. The excuse most commonly overused is that they failed to adequately get their message out.
Former DNC Chairman Steve Grossman admits that Democrats have not been appealing to a broader portion of the electorate. "We have to broaden our base and not have everyone agree with every principle of the party platform," He said. "People have to see us as more inclusive and more thoughtful than we often appear to be."
Appear to be? Let's think about this for a minute... Over the past few months we've seen some really ugly sides of the Democrat Party. From break-ins and vandalism at GOP and Bush-Cheney headquarters, to stolen and damaged signs, the Democrat Party may stand for a lot of things, but accepting different positions is hardly their strong point.
With a recent suicide at Ground Zero by a liberal "depressed" by Bush's victory, and a flood of hits to Canada's immigration website, the only thing that can be deduced about the "open-mindedness" of Democrats is that "open-mindedness" is non-existent in their party. It doesn't matter whether it is outside of their party or within it.
Joe Lieberman was the Democrats best chance to show their ability to "broaden their base" and they discarded him... never mind he was their VP nominee a mere four years earlier.
But party leaders still see time for a shakeup. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says "There's no question that it's time to rebuild America's oldest political party brick by brick … The Democratic Party must lay a new foundation and stop spending its political capital defending old programs and initiatives."
If this campaign offered any insight into what issues they may try to adopt, I would say faith and moral issues, and strong on national defense.
Brazile also said, "How can we defend ordinary people when they do not know what we stand for? We must reclaim the mantle of the party of mainstream values."
How can the Democrat Party be the party of mainstream values if they don't even know what those values are and are still struggling to determine what they stand for?
Give me a break.
The Democrats are going to try to give themselves a makeover before the next election. Prepare to be very amused.
After the intensity of the election campaign, I decided to take a couple days off from everything; decided to go to Los Angeles because my fiancé wanted to find some fabric and you can get really good prices on same in the Fashion District downtown - plus, I used to live in Los Angeles and I've always loved the city.
For the most part, of course, it was just an uneventful but satisfying trip - but going through West Hollywood to get some breakfast, I couldn't help but notice that this very Blue City was not like most of the places I spend my time. From the "War Is Not the Answer" bumper-stickers to the freshly painted "Hail to the Thief" sidewalk graffiti, it was clear that this was a city of people very unhappy at the results from last Tuesday.
I'm afraid I saw Edwards' two Americas - but it wasn't exactly as Edwards had it. What I saw in West Hollywood was a very rich, very white area of an awesome metropolis - a small segment of that gigantic urban organism known as Los Angeles. In contrast to this I saw the downtown area of Los Angeles - my fiancé and I were two of a very, very few white faces in the downtown area. That Fashion District was heavily Hispanic, and what wasn't Hispanic was black, Asian and middle-eastern - the very groups of people that white GOPers like me are supposed to despise, and white leftists in West Hollywood are supposed to champion.
I was treated in downtown Los Angeles, as usual, with unfailing kindness by all and sundry - and equally as usual I had a delightful time...I was treated with indifference in West Hollywood, until someone spotted the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker...then the nasty looks came out. I looked with some care, but I didn't see the black, Hispanic and Asian faces in West Hollywood - oh, I'm sure they are there...but whereas they are so prevalent in downtown that I was the odd man out, they were so few in West Hollywood that it struck me as odd. It showed me a truth that I had only dimly realized - that for our rich, white leftists the black, brown and "other" people are just props; props for leftism's morality plays - and props, moreover, that rich, white leftists don't even understand. Didn't see even one American flag out in West Hollywood - but saw them in every other storefront in downtown Los Angeles; proudly displayed by all manner of people, some of whom were likely not even in the country legally.
Some of our domestic leftists have opined that they'd like to secede from the nation - in some ways, I say we let 'em...but they only get to take the really "blue" areas of the country - they can have West Hollywood, but not Los Angeles; they can have Manhattan, but not the rest of New York; they can have San Francisco, but not Silicone Valley - because, friends, the leftism which worked so strenuously for the defeat of President Bush isn't organic to America - it's a parasite on the American body politic and body economic.
Do they secure our freedom? No - they'd rather die than serve in our military. Do they build our economy? I don't see them manufacturing cars in Brentwood, nor producing textiles in Manhattan. They live off the America defended by others and built by others - yet they presume to know better than the defenders and producers. They are lawyers, artists, actors, trust fund babies, professors - useless froth, utterly dependent upon us, and despising us with a deep and abiding hatred.
What is to be done with them? Nothing - leave them be; now that we can reform education, they wont even be able to propagandize the rising generation and thus they are doomed to disappear from the United States - and good riddance to bad rubbish. The only question I have for them is: How do you look yourselves in the mirror each morning?
Major Democratic party activist, Lawrence O'Donnell, recommended secession because his party lost the 2004 election last night on the McLauglin Group show. What is even more laughable is he is making the claim that President Bush did not win a majority of the vote. This is the same military loving Democrat that went nuts on MSNBC's Scarborough Country and said he doesn't care if our troops get demoralized.
As Blackfive said:
And do I have to mention that the military supports the President. And most military bases are in Red states. I'm sure some of you could come up with better reasons...like, um, common sense and the fact that most who voted for Kerry aren't frothing at the mouth for civil war...that there won't be a secession from the union.
Just when I think that the Democrats cannot lower themselves any lower than they already are then they surprise me by doing exactly that. Zell Miller was right. Democrats are a National party no more - Which works out quite well for the rest of us.
Hat tip Blackfive
Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast.
The most telling line is:
Franca's friend, Jeffim Kuznetsov, a 25-year-old student from Russia who lives in Atlanta, said the suicide is evidence of how deeply many Americans were affected by Kerry's defeat."It's a national tragedy," he said. "This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy."
Bush wins by over 4 millon votes and that isn't "democratic" enough for "all those who believe in democracy".
How quaint.
I do not understand why this woman is not in prison or deported.
When one of the Republican students asked one of the women that if she hated America so much, why she didn’t leave, she screamed at him ‘I have some pride. I would strap a bomb on myself and blow myself up as a suicide bomber rather than call myself an American.
What is also disturbing is that the Campus police "“just stood around watching and, instead of protecting the College Republican students". When they finally jumped in want to guess what their solution was? Of course, they asked the Republican Students to leave, not the Asshats making the threats to blow them up.
Not sure why anyone of the Jewish faith would vote for a left wing Liberal ever again. Common sense should tell you that you are voting for your own destruction. If the woman in the story gets her way, then there is a good chance that is exactly what you will get.
What is rather amusing, is that these same types of people think that those of us who support President Bush and the other GOP leaders are the evil ones. Odd, I just don't recall wanting to blow up another American who disagrees with me. I do recall wanting to destroy those that want to destroy us all, that I do not deny.
I guess in their way of thinking, that makes me evil.
I can live with that.
Le Sabot Post-Moderne has compiled a film montage of photos and quotes of liberals and asks the question, "Can we stop pretending the Left loves America, too?"
Most of Americans look forward to the next four years with optimism. The millions of dollars spent by liberal 527s and the propaganda of the Hollywood liberals and Michael Moore was no match for Bush's strong leadership and moral convictions. Liberals fought hard, and today we are the ones celebrating. And we have every right to celebrate.
Kerry supporters on the other hand are taking it hard.:
It's a long way from the Manhattan office of psychoanalyst Sherman Pheiffer to the Cambridge, Mass., practice of psychologist Jaine Darwin. But both are in blue states that voted heavily for John Kerry, and on the day he conceded, they heard plenty of distress about the election."My patients were incredulous, depressed, angry, very frightened," Pheiffer said. "Everyone talked about feeling frightened (about) the future of this country."
Darwin heard the same kinds of reactions. At the end of the campaign, Massachusetts Democrats "kind of let themselves hope Kerry would pull it out," she said, so patients felt "the roller coaster had crashed. I think we all had a little post-Red Sox magical thinking."
And among Kerry campaign volunteers, of course, the loss was still stinging the day after the concession.
I have to say, I feel a little sorry for them, but they get no sympathy. These are the same people who stole Bush-Cheney signs, broke into Bush-Cheney headquarters across the country, vandalized property, attacked supporters of the President, etc. etc. For four years they personified the nastiness of politics, and the came out this year with a vengeance.
They're not getting my sympathy. John Kerry in his concession speech spoke of the need to unite this country, meanwhile the supporters to whom he spoke are the very ones who divided us, and will continue to divide this nation. They are not going to go down quietly.
Truth be told, Democrats "misunderestimated" George W. Bush again. They're going to have to accept that.
I have to say, the Democrats' base have become so full of partisan hate... On Democratic Underground they have a poll which asks "What is more depressing . . 9/11/01 or 11/3/04?"
The fact that they even pose such a question is disturbing, but not only that, as of this post, over 70% were more depressed by Bush's victory than 9/11.
These are sick people...
Picking up on Matt's theme below, another loser reared his head yesterday. This time it was Le Worm, Jacques Chirac. As London's Sun reports, while he had time to visit arch-terrorist Yasir Arafat, Chirac went out of his way to snub Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Despite the fact that supporting and stabilizing a democratic Iraq is in the interest of all peace-loving nations, whether they were for or against the war, Chirac's pettiness is so consuming that he is actually helping the terrorists simply to spite President Bush. Apparently, his country's complicity in the Oil for Food scandal is no cause for shame. So while people talk about olive branches and healing the trans-Atlantic rift, we see another example of the true cause of friciton among "allies." Though you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who sincerely thinks of Chirac's France as an ally.
Another wonderful thing about Bush being reelected this week is that the Democrats will perceive it not as Bush's victory, but as their loss. From where they stand, they lost big time.
Michael Moore is one of the biggest losers. He thought his movie Fahrenheit 9/11 would brainwash enough people to vote Bush out. I would guess that had Bush been defeated, Moore would have stepped up to the nearest microphone and claimed credit for it.
Now, Michael Moore is in shock. The ticket sales, the DVD sales... didn't mean a thing. The lies and propaganda couldn't dent Bush's support.
Today, Michael Moore came out from hiding and gave his followers "17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists" which he opens with his own pitiful concession:
Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.
He then proceeded to list 17 things he felt would cheer up his fans. A very sad and pathetic display if you ask me. The one thing he refuses to get is the fact that more people voted for Bush than voted for Kerry. Michael Moore has yet to endorse a candidate who has won a presidential election... Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry have all been major disappointments for Michael Moore. He doesn't seem to understand - or is too blinded by ideology to see that Bush won big time on Election Day. From being the first candidate since his father back in 1988 to win with more than 50% of the popular vote... to gainings seats in the House and Senate, in both the midterm elections of 2002 and in this year's election. Michael Moore can say anything he wants, but he can't deny what happened and what it means...
Michael Moore is a sad figure, and no matter what he says or does, Kerry wasn't the only person who lost on Tuesday.
Because these pictures speak for themselves. These are the same moonbats that encouraged our troops, who are in harm's way to shoot each other as a condition of their support.
Us Ohio Buckeye's will just not put up with that kind of crapola. This goes along way in explaining why there isn't one single Democrat holding an Ohio state wide seat. Call it Mid-western values, call it common sense, call it what you want. What you can't call it is Ohio going to the Democrats on election night.
Asshats like these is why I will still be part of Matt's continuing efforts. If we do not point out how loony the left is, then who will? On Inauguration Day 2005, B4B will be re-launched as GOPBloggers.org. I can only dream what is in store for all of us over the next several years.
What I can tell you is we won’t be dreaming with our eyes closed.
I knew things were bad in the Kerry campaign, but boy, I didn't know just how bad it was.
In a behind the scenes look at the Kerry campaign, story after story shows that the only quagmire in 2004 was the Kerry campaign.
When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled, writes Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in an exclusive report in Newsweek's special election issue. "He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"
Nothing indicated major problems in the campaign more then the campaign leadership shakeups. Apparently, even James Carville saw a campaign in disorder:
Following the missteps of August, Clinton veteran James Carville confronted Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, telling her she had to step aside and let newly arrived Joe Lockhart run the campaign. So worked up, Carville began to cry, imploring Cahill: "You've got to let him do it." Carville continued, "Nobody can gain power without someone losing power." Carville threatened to go on "Meet the Press" the next day "and tell the truth about how bad it is" if Cahill didn't give effective control to Lockhart.
John Kerry was also desperate to recruit John McCain as his running mate. According to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, If McCain were to accept the offer and join the ticket, Kerry would "expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. McCain exclaimed, 'You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell.'" Kerry was thwarted and furious. "Why the f--- didn't he take it? After what the Bush people did to him...'"
The stories go on and on. It is embarrassing to say the least. From the reactions to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, dealing with Teresa, John Edwards desperation to be picked at Kerry's running mate... Read the entire report... it's pathetic.
Little Green Footballs has brought our attention to the fact that all 15 congressional candidates that the Daily Kos "sponsored" lost...
Tom Daschle, about to lose his Senate seat to Republican John Thune, has resorted to the Democrat's Ultimate Weapon - the lawyers:
Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle sued his opponent, John Thune, and the GOP in federal court tonight, asking a judge to stop what Democrats call intimidation of Native American voters in Tuesday's election.In a complaint filed late this afternoon, Daschle asked U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol to keep 200 Republican monitors from engaging in a list of activities at polling places across South Dakota, including writing down license plate numbers and taking notes.
"The Daschle-Thune election should be a fair one," the lawsuit reads. "The conduct of Republican Thune supporters will make it an unfair one, unless restrained by this court."
Daschle is depending on heavy turnout from Native American voters, who overwhelmingly support him over Thune, to win what is expected to be an extremely close election.
Thune aides said the lawsuit was an outrage.
"Unbelievably, they are trying to exclude Republican poll watchers from watching the process," said Dick Wadhams, Thune's campaign manager. "He thinks he's going to lose this seat."
"Fair" to the Democrats means no GOPers to witness their ballot-box stuffing. Nothing doing, Donk's - we've got poll watchers (yours, truly included) to keep an eye on you...you can whine all you want about it, but we're going to ensure a free and fair election in this country...you're biggest fear, because a free and fair vote means we win.
From our friend at ABC's "Noted Now":
CHENEY IN FORT DODGE, IA: "He went out and went into the field with a public opinion poll to find out what he should say about this tape of Osama Bin Laden. Tt was as if he doesn't know what he believes…"Here are Cheney's full remarks.STAN GREENBERG TO REPORTERS ON DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL: "I'm going to read you a paraphrasement about the release of Bin Laden's videotape, please tell me what comes closer to your view: One, it makes me think that George W. Bush took his eye of the ball in Afghanistan and diverted his resources to Iraq; Two, it underscores the importance of George Bush's approach to terrorism. By ten points, 46-36 percent, voters responding to the survey agreed with the first statement, rather than the second."
UPDATE, by MATT MARGOLIS: This story is incredibly shocking... why? Because itt was only a couple days ago the Kerry campaign was accusing Bush of politicizing the tape, because Bush made sharp attacks on Kerry while campaigning in Ohio. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said, "This is a serious issue, and it's disturbing that the White House seems intent on making it a political issue." He claimed that because Bush had been briefed on the tape before making a campaign speech that criticized Kerry, it was one of Bush's "most negative and divisive attacks of this campaign."
And what does the Kerry campaign do next? They take a poll on the bin Laden tape.
And Cheney was absolutely right to criticize the Kerry campaign for doing that:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that Sen. John Kerry's first response to Osama bin Laden's new videotape was to take a poll to find out what he should say about it.A spokesman for Kerry's campaign did not deny polling on the bin Laden videotape, but suggested President Bush has done so. Bush's campaign strategist denied asking any poll questions about the al-Qaida terrorist.
"The thing that I find amazing about it is that John Kerry's first response was to go conduct a poll," Cheney told supporters in Fort Dodge, Iowa. "He went into the field ... to find out what he should say about this tape of Osama bin Laden."
"It's as though he doesn't know what he believes until he has to go and check the polls, his finger in the air, to see which way the wind is blowing and then he'll make a decision," said the vice president, who offered no evidence to back up his claim. "George Bush doesn't need a poll to know what he believes, especially about Osama bin Laden."
Cheney basically captured exactly what the problem with Kerry is. He's not a decisive leader. He needs to take polls to find out what he should think and what he should do about a particular issue... and of all things, the war on terror is not something we need a commander-in-chief taking polls on.
A part-time college instructor has apologized for kicking a student because he was wearing a Republican shirt.Fort Lewis College student Mark O'Donnell said he was showing people his College Republicans sweat shirt, which said "Work for us now ... or work for us later," when Maria Spero kicked him in the leg at an off-campus restaurant.
Spero then said "she should have kicked me harder and higher," said O'Donnell. "To physically take that out on someone because you disagree with them, that is completely wrong."
Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O'Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29.
"I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened," she wrote. "Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student."
The college also formally apologized, said David Eppich, assistant to the school's president.
O'Donnell said the apology wasn't enough and he plans to file a complaint with the college.
Amazing isn't it? Remember this story, and if you're in Colorado, volunteer to help Bush win the state.
when he said world leaders are telling him they want him to win?
Hat tip: The Corner.
A while back, would-be first lady Theresa Heinz, said anyone who didn't agree with John Kerry was an idiot. Pinking up on that line of thinking John Kerry is worried that the only reason George W. Bush could win this election is that America is "sleeping" and needs to "wake up" to the truth that is the brilliance of his 8,000,000,000 billion different opinions on all issues and how he is offering absoutely NOTHING in term of specifics on Iraq, he can fight the war on terror better than George Bush:
"Wake up America, wake up. ... You have a choice," he said.What is startling to me is for about the last year or so I always thought this election would be remniscent of 1996's campaign and not the obvious (and wrong) comparison of trying to paint GWB's re-election as analogous to GHWB's re-election.
Check out this quote from Bob Dole in the waning days of the 1996 campaign:
Where is the outrage in America? Where is the outrage in America? Where has the media gone in America? Where is the outrage in America?Kinda eerie, don't ya think?
Update: Does John Podhoretz read Blogs for Bush? Maybe. We did meet him during the convention and he was a regular in "Bloggers Corner." Looks like the influence of B4B is spreading!
John Kerry has acted as if he is your everyday "Joe" in his fan support of the Red Sox and other local sports teams while he is on the stump. But as we have reported when he called the home of the Packers "Lambert Field", and when Peter Gammons reported on the time Kerry said his favorite player was Ned Yost (who never played for the Red Sox), or when he recently referred to the Sox best hitter Manny Ramirez as Manny Ortez, you see an unfolding picture of a man who doesn't know squat about sports but can't even pander well. Thankfully, a couple enterprising Fantasy Sports fans registered as a 527 Organization and stated their own website to track Kerry's flubs: Football Fans for Truth.
Here is a quick excerpt:
Last month, John Kerry lauded "Lambert Field" during a visit to Wisconsin. He has yet to acknowledge Lambeau Field, the historic home of the Green Bay Packers.And there is so much more! Check it out for yourself as these guys reveal what regular readers of Blogs for Bush already know: John Kerry is a big, dorky phony.John Kerry also praised the Ohio State Buckeyes football team--during a visit to Michigan.
John Kerry throws a football like a girl.
In the first presidential debate, John Kerry said, "As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. " Football Fans for Truth has collected reams of evidence casting doubt on his ability to do so.
First off, a bit of the flavor of President Bush's visit to Michigan....
President Bush's first Oakland County campaign stop came Oct. 6 in Farmington Hills.Tom Mulcahy of Rochester Hills said he attended both appearances and was more impressed with Bush's speech on Wednesday.
"He hit upon the issues that are most important to me — security issues," the 45-year-old said.
Before Bush arrived, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson asked the crowd gathered at the former home of the Detroit Lions: "Which candidate will carry Oakland County next Tuesday?" In response, a roar went up in the stands.
Later, after the introductory speakers had finished, but Bush had not yet arrived, the crowd kept up its buoyant mood by doing the wave and chanting "four more years."
Noel Kocher, 66, of Troy said he thought Oakland County would go for Bush this time, but not by a landslide.
"All of our friends are Democrats, and we're going to show them," said his 65-year-old wife, Janice.
That is all cool and great and all, but the kicker is that after Kerry's Donk mouthpiece said nasty things about the President...
Fowler said Kerry would campaign in Detroit on Sunday or Monday.
Heading to Michigan on the last day or two of the campaign? Things aren't all peachy in Kerry/Edwards-land, good people...a Donk doesn't go to Michigan at the end of the race if things are going his way...
Karol at Spot On has brought my attention to an article by Richard Rushfield, who experimented with wearing a Bush t-shirt in a "blue" neighborhood, and a Kerry t-shirt in a "red" neighborhood.
The results of this experiment are quite interesting. The contrast of experiences between the "red" and "blue" neighobrhoods is obvious: virtually no reaction from Republicans to the Kerry shirt, and evil eyes and jeers by Democrats to the Bush shirt.
My everyday life is a similar t-shirt test. As a Bush supporter in Massachusetts, I know what the looks and harassment feel like. I have my sanctuaries and I have my dungeons in this blue state - but whether its the taunts of Kerry backers, or the warm friendlines of newly found Bush supporter, I am always emboldened and inspired to fight the good fight.
Wear your shirts and hats proudly everyone. Don't ever be bullied into submission.
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe were just on "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert. The last question they got was "Are we going to know on the night of November 2, who's going to win?"
As expected, they both said we would, but when Terry McAuliffe gave his answer he also said he thinks "we're going to know early." Of course, he also said John Kerry would be the winner.
Early? Why would he say early? Did Terry McAuliffe slip up and confirm what we reported earlier that John Kerry is going to declare victory regardless of the outcome? The DNC and the Kerry campaign keep talking about "not making the same mistakes as Al Gore did in 2000," so it appears that Kerry is prepared to declare victory early in the evening regardless of what the results are, or perhaps even before we know the final results...
UPDATE: Despite Democrats attempts of voter fraud we have to focus on our Get Out The Vote effort. Karol at Spot On has some promising information on Colorado, and reminds us we all have to do our part to help bring Bush to victory.
I got this via my Dad from an interested party...
While suturing a laceration on the hand of an 80-year-old grizzled Texas rancher (whose hand had caught in a gate while working cattle), a doctor and the old man were talking about John Kerry's possibility of being in the White House.The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Kerry's one of them 'post turtles'." Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.
The old man said, "Well, when you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor dumb bastard get down 'afore he hurts hisself."
Nuff said............
In a USA Today interview, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry had this to say:
Q: You'd be different from Laura Bush?A: Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about.
First off, don't you just love the condescension on view here? Poor, little Mrs. Bush, she just doesn't have the life experiences of Teresa Heinz-Kerry...you know, that marrying first for money and then for power stuff that has given Teresa such wisdom and understanding of the human heart. Secondly, I guess this utter dimwit of a broad, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, doesn't bother to check up on things because if she had she'd find out that Mrs. Bush, like her husband, holds a Masters Degree and worked for years as a teacher and school librarian - or is it that such work is not a "real job" to Teresa Heinz-Kerry? Perhaps "real work" is something you do on your back for a billion dollars? Someone should ask...
Blogger Rodger Morrow neatly ties together the varied strands of Democratic slime - being used in every greater amounts as the Donk's slowly realise that they've nominated an empty suit heading for a crushing defeat.
In the past 10 days or so, the Kedwards campaign has:Accused the Bush administration of planning to reinstitute a military draft.
Recycled the "no blood for oil" canard of the looney left.
Alleged that the Bush administration is somehow in the pocket of the Saudi royal family.
Told voters that, if they elect John Kerry, "people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Suggested that President Bush was planning a "January surprise" to privatize Social Security.
Advised Democratic campaign workers to launch a "pre-emptive strike" charging voter "intimidation" on election day even if no evidence exists.
Warned Florida voters that Republicans are "trying to keep people from voting."
Blamed the flu vaccine shortage on President Bush.
Twice called attention to the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.
Can you just smell the desperation emanating from the Democrats?
Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today
From the WashPost: "Poll Shows Disapproval of Cheney Daughter Reference"
An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.It looks like the Kerry campaign misunderestimated the impact of the Mary Cheney comment.Nearly two in three likely voters -- 64 percent -- said Kerry's comment was "inappropriate," including more than four in 10 of his own supporters and half of all swing voters. A third -- 33 percent -- thought the remark was appropriate.
Written by guest blogger Aaron Margolis of Pardon My English.
A Washington Post poll released last week gave Bush a 51 to 45 lead.
But I'm not here to talk about that.
What I want to talk about is something else I found on the Post's "Charting the Campaign" page that was quite strange. The Post has been tracking the visits to certain states by the candidates... here is what they have for state visits since March 3, 2004.
President BushOhio (14 visits)
Pennsylvania (14 visits)
Florida (11 visits)
Michigan (10 visits)
Iowa (9 visits)
Sen. John. F. KerryWhat is so strange about this list, you might ask? If you haven't figured it out, I'll tell you what I found strange.Florida (22 visits)
Ohio (21 visits)
Pennsylvania (19 visits)
Wisconsin (13 visits)
Massachusetts (12 visits)
John Kerry has visited Massachusetts 12 times since it became clear he was the Democratic nominee in March. Of all the states John Kerry could of visited 12 or more times, he has visited Massachusetts more than Bush has visited Florida, Michigan, and Iowa, respectively (of the states in the top 5 visited column).
"But Kerry lives in Massachusetts, you dummy!" you must be saying right? This is true, but President Bush lives in Texas, and he's undoubtedly been there more than 9 times since March, but it's not on his list. Why? You could assume that the Post is only counting campaign visits, thus, Bush's visits to Crawford would not be counted. Under that assumption, why are Kerry's visits to Massachusetts making his home state his 5th most visited state for his campaign?
In 2000, Gore won Massachusetts with 60% of the vote, versus 33% for Bush--not a surprising results in the least. Back in August, a Merrimack College poll gave Kerry a 56 to 30 lead over President Bush. Again, not suprising, but a mildly disappointing result for Kerry, losing 4 percentage points since Gore. What is even more suprising is the most recent Merrimack College poll, Kerry's lead has dropped to 50, and Bush has actually picked up 3 points since 2000, giving him 36%, with 14% of respondents still undecided or voting for a third party. Despite the liberal majority in Massachusetts, 59% of those polled believe that Bush will win in November, which is strange because the majority of Massachusetts think Kerry will perform better in all major issues except the US campaign in Iraq.
It's no wonder Kerry is making an concerted effort to visit his home state. Is he worried he won't win his own home state? In all likelihood, Kerry will carry Massachusetts, the question is "By how much?" Al Gore had 1,610,175 votes in 2000, Kerry had 1,605,976 votes in 2002 (a non-Presidential Election year where 450,000 less voters turned out to vote). It would be a huge embarrassment for Kerry if he can't outperformed Al Gore in Massachusetts in 2004 (in an election that will likely have an extraordinary voter turnout). In 2002, Kerry ran against three opponents, and won 72.3% of the vote. That was the same year that Mitt Romney won the gubernatorial race with 49.1% of the vote.
Kerry should be walking away with close to 70% of the vote in Massachusetts, but as of today, he has around half of the voters, signifying a significant downward trend. One thing is for sure, Massachusetts voters are learning a lot about Kerry this year, and Kerry's lost about 20 percentage points in likely votes.
Is John Kerry visiting Massachusetts so much so he is not embarrassed for not carrying more votes than Gore? Is Massachusetts looking at a turnaround? Is Governor Mitt Romney's popularity having an effect on voters?
Will Massachusetts be a swing state in 2008?
After fighting like hell to keep voters from having a choice in the election, Terry McAuliffe and his DNC are now gloating over the fact they were successful in keeping Nader off the ballot in PA. In a show worthy of a third ground "nanny nanny boo boo" exchange, McAuliffe said, "[Nader] couldn't get 50,000 signatures in Pennsylvania without including Fred Flintstone, a stone age cartoon character". Such class.
But in a very revealing moment in the Press Release, McAuliffe pled with Ralph Nader to "endorse John Kerry so that George Bush doesn't get another four years..."
The Left has been accusing Bush of being a moron and a draft dodger over and over again... and yet, they have to cry to a virtual non-existent third party candidate for help in getting their decorated Vietnam vet with 20 years in the Senate elected.
Oh, the irony is almost too much.
Despite protestations to the contrary, the supposed "allies" that John Kerry insists he can persuade to join us in Iraq have made clear they have no intention of changing their minds regardless of who is president. While Kerryites were giddy over a Financial Times article that indicated otherwise, the Germans rushed to quell any talk of a change in policy. Reports The New York Times:
German officials on Wednesday reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led force in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a published interview with the country's defense minister, that the policy might change.That must have been some mighty fine Oil-for-Food payola."There will be no German soldiers in Iraq," a government spokesman, Thomas Steg, said, answering reporters' questions about the interview in The Financial Times in which Defense Minister Peter Struck seemed to hold the door open for a possible change in Germany's policy.
"The position of the German government as far as Iraq is concerned is clear - it will not be changed," The Associated Press reported that Mr. Steg said. "It will remain in the future what it was in the past - there will be no German soldiers in Iraq."...
"No one in the federal government, including the defense minister, is thinking about a change of position on Iraq," the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was quoted as telling cabinet members in a meeting on Wednesday.
Apparently Italy is "abuzzing" today because HBO in Italy aired John Kerry saying that the condistions of the Iraqi Army were so bad that even the Italian Army could "kick their asses."
I don't know Italian, and I can't confirm this, but Michael Ledeen over at NRO has the scoop.
The human rights lobby has really gone off the deep end. Most people can probably agree that American citizens are due their constitutional rights in this war on terror. But most people would also agree that foreign terrorists do not have those same rights, nor do they have Geneva rights because they do not abide by those conventions. That does not stop the radical left from complaining about the treatment of our mortal enemies:
Human Rights Watch listed the names of 11 senior Al-Qaeda suspects it said were held by the CIA in secret locations overseas, where some had reportedly been tortured.I think I speak for most Americans when I say, "Boo friggin' hoo." James Taranto, Editor of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, says it well:The suspects were detained with no notification to their families, no Red Cross access and, in some cases, no acknowledgement that they are even being held, the New York-based watchdog said in a 46-page report.
"'Disappearances' were a trademark abuse of Latin American military dictatorships in their 'dirty war' on alleged subversion," said Human Rights Watch special counsel Reed Brody.
"Now they have become a United States tactic in its conflict with Al-Qaeda," Brody said.
Latin American prisoners who were killed and buried in secret were often called the "disappeared."
Detainees profiled in the report included Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged principal architect of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Abu Zubayda, reputedly a close aide of Osama bin Laden...
While recognizing the United States' right to gather anti-terror intelligence, Human Rights Watch argued that the secret incommunicado detention of suspects violated the "most basic principles" of a free society.
"Those guilty of serious crimes must be brought to justice before fair trials," said Brody. "If the United States embraces the torture and 'disappearance' of its opponents, it abandons its ideals and international obligations and becomes a lesser nation."
the reason KSM and his cohorts are being held incommunicado is to prevent future terrorist attacks, like the one that led to the disappearance of some 3,000 people in one day.
I think everyone is a bit dumbfounded that John Kerry said that the tragic events changed nothing about his view of the world and terrorism. Rudy Giuliani, who rose to national prominence for his brilliant leadership during those dark hours, puts Kerry's recent disasterous pronouncement that we need to get back to treating terrorism as a nuisance in proper perspective:
For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.There can be no starker contrast between the two choices on November 2nd after reading this entire transcript.I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
Democrats Support Freedom of Speech ... for Liberals Only
Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats are up in arms over an anti-Kerry film called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," which is planned to be broadcast on as many as 62 television stations, many of them in swing states.
[T]he documentary features Vietnam veterans who say their Vietnamese captors used Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he recounted stories of American atrocities, prolonging their torture and betraying and demoralizing them. Similar claims were made by prisoners of war in a commercial that ran during the summer from an anti-Kerry veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
What are Terry McAuliffe, the Kerry campaign and Democrats doing now? They're filing an FEC complaint. Why? They're charging that the Sinclair Broadcasting is giving "illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush-Cheney campaign."
Now, we all know Terry McAuliffe is a liar and an idiot, but he's hypocrite.
Terry McAuliffe has no problem with Michael Moore's broadcasting of Fahrenheit 911 the night before the election on TV does he? To Terry, that is probably "freedom of speech."
Now we know Michael Moore is trying to influence people not to vote for Bush. We know the Kerry campaign is borrowing Michael Moore's tactics, using themes found in his movies. Sounds to me like it's actually Michael Moore who's offering "illegal in-kind contribution to the Kerry-Edwards campaign." Did Terry try and put a stop to Michael Moore?
This is the same Terry McAuliffe who watches his own party propose reinstating the draft and then tells college students that George W. Bush will reinstate draft if reelected.
Classic Democrat theory...freedom of speech only if you're a liberal.
A recent article in Investor's Business Daily highlights why the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal is more than a simple corruption of some foreign political body. IBD shows how the unravelling Oil For Food scandal lies directly at the heart of the battle over the Iraq war.
It shows that despite John Kerry's assertions that George W. Bush failed to build international coalitions because he's a cowboy or because he 'rushed to war', the real reason a coalition with the likes of France, Russia and China could've never been built (yes, even with a 'President Kerry') is because those so-called "allies" were working with Saddam Hussein and guaranteeing him they'd protect him against a U.S. invasion... to protect their business contracts.
That is right. The entire international rift over the Iraq war has to do with France, Russia and China's illegal dealings with Iraq - not some "unilateral" action by the U.S.
A great debate has raged over why so many of the world's major countries suddenly went all weak in the knees when the U.S. went after Saddam Hussein. A new CIA report makes the reason clear, and it isn't pretty.The report by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, sketches out in plain language what could be the biggest bribery scandal of the last century ˜ one that reaches into the highest political circles. It makes for shocking reading.
It shows how Saddam evaded U.N. sanctions from 1997 to 2003 by illicitly selling oil through other countries and bribing world leaders, up-and-coming politicians, journalists, businesses, even the U.N. itself. In the process he cleared $11 billion in illegal profits.
The report names names. Anyone who could help him regain weapons of mass destruction was a target. He settled on Russia, France and China ˜ three of the five U.N. Security Council members that, with the stroke of a veto pen, could stop the U.N. from going to war or end economic sanctions against his country.
Even more stunning than the fact of the bribery is its scope and depth. The list of those who helped Saddam cheat and got paid for it is long and depressing.
This thing went so deep and so wide that no American President could've built a coalition to stop Saddam. And as the Duelfer report showed, Saddam was working to end the sanctions so he could resume building WMDs. This means it wasn't an "if" so much as it was a "when" Saddam would have the weapons we all fear.
It shows that George W. Bush has the clarity, the vision and the determination to take the right action in the interests of the United States of America and that John Kerry's "global test" and desire to be popular in Europe would've led us to an Iraq with destructive WMDs. (Think "North Korea")
It includes Charles Pasqua, France's former interior minister; Megawati Sukarnoputri, president of Indonesia; and Benon Sevan, former head of the U.N.'s Iraq sanctions program. Also named are a large number of Russian government officials and fixers and the governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and China.And that's just a few. The list is hundreds of names long.
And John Kerry keeps demanding we should've played nice with these folks.
Saddam's strategy was simple: keep the U.S. off his back. American and British planes were buzzing over Iraq's "no-fly" zones since the 1991 end of the Gulf War, and Saddam was forced to suspend his WMD program due to U.N. inspections.To get his way, Saddam gave, in the words of the report, "preferential treatment to Russian and French companies hoping for Russian and French support on the UN Security Council."
That is, he bribed them. He wanted U.N. sanctions ended so he could go back to making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
And according to the Duelfer report, he was "eroding a lot of sanctions". Again, it was a matter of "when", not "if".
AND THEN, THE BOMBSHELL:
Still, a member of the French Parliament, according to a memo sent to Saddam in May 2002, "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq." That is, once bribed, France would stay bribed.
There you have it. France had assured Iraq they would use a veto against the U.S. resolution to attack Iraq. Essentially, because of bribery and illegal dealings with Saddam, France would never have supported an invasion....EVER.
So let's look back to 2003 and the actions of France and others in the U.N.
In an Wall Street Journal article from 2003:
...regardless of who runs Iraq today, tomorrow or next week, Iraq is still under sanctions until the U.N. Security Council lifts them. The oil-for-food program, unless extended by the said Council, also expires on June 3, 2003. A slight modification of this program was recently approved to allow the U.N. to supply a variety of previously restricted goods according to more flexible delivery schedules. This alone required much negotiating, "as France and Russia disputed language that could impute legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion and opposed provisions that might endanger contracts between Iraq and suppliers in those nations". And, in a now familiar pattern, "The French have been threatening to veto resolutions [on Iraqi reconstruction] before they've even been circulated," one council diplomat said."
No wonder France was threatening a veto supporting an invasion... even before the draft resolution had been circulated. They were not going to support ANY resolution... ever! And it wasn't because of anything George W. Bush did. It was plain and simply because France had been bribed by Iraq and they were going to fight like hell to save Iraq.... they were going to do what they'd been paid to do.
All in all, a scandal of epic proportions. But what can be made of it? Well, a number of things:For one, it's a devastating blow to John Kerry's much-ballyhooed "plan" to end the war in Iraq by holding an international conference of nations ˜ including France, Russia and China ˜ to decide Iraq's future. Given what we know of those nations' complicity with Saddam's murderous regime, that's no longer an option.
Kerry wants to deal with those paid by the enemy to oppose us? That says a lot.
Also shattered is Kerry's assertion that patient diplomacy might have disarmed Iraq and brought Saddam to heel. French, Russian and Chinese efforts to subvert U.S. actions against Iraq show they would have opposed us no matter what. They were merely providing the service they were paid for.
Kerry wants to pin this on Bush... he HAS to pin it on Bush. Otherwise, Kerry can't win with the truth, because the real truth is that the supposed "allies" John Kerry demands we work with, those 'judges of a global test' were on Saddam's payroll to oppose us. It would be like John Kerry saying we needed permission from Saddam to invade Iraq.
If Kerry acknowledges the truth, he's done. Essentially, he'll have to admit that George W. Bush had the resolve and determination to see through on of the largest international scandals known, to build a coalition of true allies and take decisive action against a gathering threat.
We commend the Duelfer report to your attention. It shows clearly we were right to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps more important, it shows just as clearly whom we can still call friends.
Now would someone please call John Kerry and let him know that we don't want to hear anymore about "Bush's failure to build a grand coalition" or how America must pass a "global test".
John Kerry has proven that he doesn't have the ability to lead our country... if he would rather coddle countries conspiring against us, than recognize the efforts of countries helping us keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists- then he doesn't have the judgment to be President of the United States.
If John Kerry would've had his way, we would've continued down a road of meaningless sanctions from a world body that was so corrupted by the very target of the sanctions that we would've awaken some time in the near future to the realization that Saddam was armed to the hilt and we'd been suckered by "allies" who were on the take.
Wrong war? Wrong time? Wrong, Kerry!
Thank God for George W. Bush.
An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff that during coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush they're not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."
Translation - if you want Kerry to win, don't hold back for journalistic purposes, go after Bush and justify it by claiming he "deserves it".
Here are some other noteworthy comments of Mark Halperin, ABCNews Political Director:
"The best speech I've ever seen John Kerry deliver by a mile." - referring to Kerry's nomination acceptance at the DNC Convention
"The polls haven't changed much either way, really, despite the avalanche of bad news for Bush and the record negative ad onslaught against Kerry." - comparing "Bush news" with "Kerry ads"
"We the media love John Edwards." - explaining who knows what
"This is now John Kerry's contest to lose" - August 11, 2004
I'll be anxious to see when ABCnews will find themselves a good ol' fashioned typewriter and start crankin' out the the National Guard memos....
Americans can be forgiven for being confused about what John Kerry's idea of what an ally is. Drudge reports:
French President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday of a "catastrophe" for global diversity if the United States' cultural hegemony goes unchallenged.Imagine the pure gall of allowing people to choose which movies they'd prefer watch. Chirac insists that people be taxed in order to subsidize "culture" that they apparently don't want, all in the interest of harming America. It is strange that Kerry sees an ally in this hysterical demonization of America, rooted in envy of our success and outrage that our free-market system produces better results than France's socialism-induced economic sclerosis. If this doesn't demonstrate that France is not a friend, perhaps taking Saddam's Oil-for-Food blood money will.Speaking at a French cultural center in Hanoi ahead of Friday's opening of a summit of European and Asian leaders, Chirac said France was right to stand up for cultural and linguistic diversity.
The outspoken French president warned that the world's different cultures could be "choked" by US values.
This, he said, would lead to a "general world sub-culture" based around the English language, which would be "a real ecological catastrophe".
Citing Hollywood's stranglehold over the film industry as an example, Chirac stressed that only with government assistance could countries maintain their cultural heritage.
We've all seen the reports of organized violence being carried out against Republicans of late. The most recent I've come across is this one:
(MILWAUKEE) – More than 50 demonstrators supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry stormed a Republican campaign office in West Allis at mid-day today, trespassing, creating a disturbance through the use of a bullhorn in the office and then refusing to leave when asked.The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) condemned the action by Kerry supporters, and asked the Kerry campaign and the Democrat Party of Wisconsin to do the same.
Our Democrats, I think, are going completely 'round the bend. Having been fed a steady diet of lies and fear-mongering by their leadership, they have become completely disconnected from reality.
When I'm not writing here at the Blog, I make my money as a credit underwriter for a large financial institution. Today we received a written request for a credit limit increase on a customer's credit card. I can't quote verbatim from the letter because the Privacy Act forbids me from having a copy of the letter outside of the workplace, but quoting as best I remember it, the letter went thusly:
I want a credit line increase. And not a piddly $50.00; I want a big credit line increase. $50 is an insult - much like the insult GW Bush gave when he passed a tax cut for the rich.
Can you believe this? Think on this for a moment - how many other complete idiots have you heard over the past year make equally nonsensical statements like this one? I've heard plenty - there's a poison working its way through the Democrats; out of touch with reality, they have spun a fantasy world where the forces of evil are not men who behead in Iraq, but center/right politicians who govern our nation here at home.
I don't know how all this will play out - certainly the unreasoning hatred and growing fanaticism of the Democratic core voters will make for an interesting election year but the real worry is how they will react to Kerry's coming defeat.
It scares me, boy and girls, it really does. They are already taking pot-shots at GOP buildings, sending in gangs to trash our offices, ripping up yard signs on private property - they keep going the way they are and things could get real ugly, real fast. Its time, Democrats, for you to step back from the abyss and realise that your political succcess or failure is not the measure of all things.
Back in February of 2002, John Edwards said on CNN's "Late Edition":
“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they – as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits. And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
The left is clearly out of control with their hatred....
An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning....
According to Knoxville Police Department officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am. One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.
There were no witnesses to the shooting. A customer at a nearby dry cleaning store noticed that shattered glass on the sidewalk in front of the headquarters and called police.
Volunteers and staffers at the campaign office say they have no clues as to who might have committed the crime. However, they add that the shooting makes them even more enthusiastic and energized about working for their candidates.
And John Edwards thinks Bush supporters have lost their minds??????????
John Kerry likes to talk tough while campaigning, but unfortunately he only does so to America's friends. He reserves his softer side for our enemies.
-First, John Kerry denigrated our allies by calling them bribed and bought (no word from the Senator on what he thinks of the UN vis-a-vis the Oil for Food scandal).If this is how Kerry presumes to build alliances, we don't need it. Neither do we need a president who will kick our true friends so that he can kowtow to nations that pretend to be our friends but are not (i.e. France).-Then he dispatched his sister to threaten Australians into ousting Prime Minister John Howard by saying that it is Australia's friendship with America that makes them a terrorist target.
-Then he insulted our new ally Iraq by not only skipping Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's historic speech to a joint session of Congress, but immediately dismissing him as a fantasist and presuming to know more about Iraq than Allawi does.
-Then he belittled our staunch ally Poland so absurdly that it prompted a sharp rebuke from the Polish president.
In contrast, he has no qualms about appeasing, placating and accomodating those nations that pose a threat to America.
-First, Kerry's foreign policy team (all Clinton re-treads) had an abject failure in ponying up to North Korea a billions in bribes while Kim Jong-Il was building nukes under their noses and now they want to repeat the mistake of rewarding Kim Jong-Il with goodies for breaking his promises; also Kerry wants to take the unilateral route by keeping China, Japan, Russia and South Korea out of the talks; China agrees with Bush, not Kerry, and North Korea certainly favors Kerry, knowing that they can play him just as they played ClintonAll in all, this is a mentality that shrinks from confrontation with threats, but relishes quibbling with genuine allies that stand up with America. This is not the kind of "leadership" we need. What kind of world would result if we lapsed back into the Carter policy of appeasement or the Clinton policy of ignoring threats until they are fully developed?-Then, not content with repeating the North Korean mistake on North Korea, Kerry wants to repeat the mistake with Iran as well, going so far as to claim that "our European friends will stand with us" if we take that soft approach (surely, Kerry's type of ally would favor going easy on Iran); meanwhile, Iran has already rejected the Kerry proposal
From today’s Boston Globe, here’s an ironic comment from John Kerry: “I welcome hard work, I like hard work.”
That’s interesting considering that after twenty years in the Senate, John Kerry has almost no significant legislation he can call his own:
An Associated Press study found that Kerry has been lead sponsor on eight bills that passed Congress: Five ceremonial bills, two related to fishing and marine research, and one offering grants to small businesses owned by women.And for the past two years, he’s been a ghost in the Senate chambers:
The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes.For the 2004 session of Congress, Kerry has represented his constituency only 17 times out of 194 potential floor votes, for a 91% missed vote rate.
Between 1993 and 2001, Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee where he missed 76% of all meetings, including every single meeting in the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
John Kerry is fond of telling crowds that he’ll "fight for us." Question: what has he been doing for the past two decades?
The Washington Post reports that they received an e-mail from a voter in Yonkers, NY, saying the following,
Dear editor: This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction.
From this, you think that this voter had been undecided, perhaps even leaning slightly towards Bush, yet because of the debate on Thursday night she was now solidly backing Kerry.
The Washington Post continues about this letter:
Cogent, succinct, personal -- everything we look for in a letter. So why are we writing about it here, instead of publishing it in the columns to the right? Unfortunately, the letter, perfect in every other way, arrived in our electronic in-box Thursday afternoon, four hours and 14 minutes before debate moderator Jim Lehrer posed his first question. [emphasis added]
How sad...
The Washington Post realized that the person who submitted the letter had clearly received the e-mail sent by the DNC from Terry McAuliffe that we had revealed here on Blogs For Bush, which prompted recipients to participate in a Post-Debate Spin Assault, because, as Terry McAuliffe had told them,
We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.
Terry advised recipients to vote in online polls, write letters to the editor, and call talk radio. There also appeared to be a concerted effort to hit up popular right wing blogs as well.
The Washington Post was hardly amused. They wrote, "[O]ur goal is to present a sampling of genuine reader opinion, not to become one more battlefield in the spin wars raging all around. And we especially like to hear from readers who can think and write for themselves."
I agree. Terry McAuliffe orchestrated a propaganda campaign meant to influence the voters opinions about the outcome of the debate before any such review of Kerry's or Bush's performance could be made. It seems as if they expected to lose the debate (which I honestly feel they did), but attempt to win it afterwards in the media.
The Democrats obsession with post-debate spin is also seen on Kerry's campaign website, where a numbers posts in the campaign blog focus solely on the debate, declarations of victory, post-debate polls, even a post by Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill advising readers to participate in a similar propaganda campaign to "let the media know who won."
The DNC and the Kerry campaign think they can win the election by declaring victory in the first debate. Interestingly enough, the same Gallup poll the campaign points to that suggests Kerry won by 20 points, states that voters think he only won on presentation, and nothing more.
What does this tell us? The Democrats and the Kerry campaign think they can win the election on style, not substance. Why? Because they have no substance. Kerry was handed the opportunity to explain his plan for Iraq during the debate, and refused to say anything about it – because he couldn't.
When choosing a President, the American people want substance. Manicures and hundred dollar haircuts and do not make the candidate – a clear vision for America and steady leadership does.
That is why George W. Bush is going to win on November 2nd.
HAT TIP: The Forest For The Trees
Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats are getting increasingly desperate.
The DNC has sent out an e-mail to their suscribers in an attempt to influence the "post-debate spin."
Subscribers are being asked to writer letters to the editor, call talk radio, and vote in online polls.
You almost have to feel bad for them, but at the same time, we must recognize that they are serious and are trying to influence this election. We cannot let them succeed.
Check out the e-mail sent out by Terry McAuliffe, and be sure to counter the efforts being attempted by the DNC:
Dear,
Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight.
We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.
Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference.
Vote
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
And be sure to check the websites of your local newspapers and TV stations for online polls. It is crucial that you do this in the minutes immediately following the debate.
Write
Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level withvoters, put it in your letter.
With just a few clicks, you can write your letter at our online media center:
http://www.democrats.org/media/
Call
Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record.
Here are some national shows to get you started. (All times are Eastern.)
Find shows in your area on our media website:
http://www.democrats.org/media/find.php
Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry win on November 2. Make your voice heard!
Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after the debate for important information, including questions Bush must answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.
http://www.democrats.org/debates/
And after the debate, check your email for a very special message.
Thank you,
Terry McAuliffe
Terry McAuliffe Chairman
PS: Make sure to forward this email to at least 10 other people who will be watching the debate. Also, give printed out copies to your friends, family members, coworkers and neighbors and get them involved.
_____
Not a Subscriber?
To sign up for news and action alerts from the Democratic Party, enter your email address in the form below.
You can use this link to sign up.
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
I have seen a lot of people discuss the various "election trading" services (hey, I work on Wall Street so that stuff is of interest to me) and how the spread between George Bush and John Kerry is comically wide -- quantifying a Kerry downward spiral.
A couple of must-read posts have chronicled the nearly daily self-sabotage of the Kerry campaign in August and September.
When you get a chance to see the Kerry people live, it gets even worse. Two examples from today stood out to me.
First, Lynn Cheney had some playful fun at Kerry's expense (as did most everyone else, apparently) regarding his "sudden" and "natural" tan:
As a group of volunteers moved into the crowd with microphones for a question-and-answer period, the vice president told supporters to look for the people with dark orange shirts.Lighten up, Francis. They weren't making his face color an issue. It was a lighthearted joke and the Kerry campaign had a hissy fit. Rather sensitive these days, I guess.When Cheney paused as if searching to describe the shade of orange, Lynne Cheney said: "How about John Kerry's suntan?"
The remark drew a big laugh from the crowd and the vice president. The Kerry campaign responded quickly.
"Is Mrs. Cheney jealous considering how hard it is to get sun in the undisclosed location with her husband Dick? Or is she distracted over how red-in-the-face George Bush should be considering his failed presidency?" spokesman Bill Burton said.
Second, and even more disturbing (or laughable), was former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's appearance on Chris Matthews' "Hardball". He was asked reasonable, issue-oriented questions by Matthews and Nora O'Donnell, to which Holbrooke's reply was non-responsive, antagonistic, and insulting (transcript not up at the time of this post). His behavior made even H. Ross Perot at his WORST "Larry King Live" moments look downright diplomatic and solicitous! If that is the state of mind of a "short list" Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration on the eve of Kerry's last great chance to get in this race, the climate within that campaign must be insufferable.
If Kerry comes close to performing nearly as bad as Holbrooke did tonight, I may put the champagne on ice tomorrow!
Written by guest blogger Aaron Margolis of Pardon My English.
No pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. - Zell Miller (9/1/04)
Less than a week before the third anniversary of 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney made a statement that enraged the Democrats, especially John Kerry and John Edwards. The Vice President said, "it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again." Not only would be hit again, but we will "be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."
It was in no time that John Edwards went on the defense, accusing Cheney of using "scare tactics" and suggesting that he "crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs."
Where is John Edwards' outrage today, as my other Senator, Ted Kennedy, made the insinuation that President Bush has made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack.
In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ''nuclear 9/11.''"The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' he said in the remarks released late Sunday.
Why is it that Dick Cheney says that if people go to the polls in November and make the wrong choice that America will likely be hit again due the reversion to a pre-9/11 mindset, and the Kerry -Edwards team immediately denounces his remarks; but when the Senior Senator from Massachusetts says that the President of the United States has made America more vulnerable to a nuclear attack, and there is not a peep from the Democrats. It's quite clear that criticism from Democrats is only applied to Republicans and conservative Democrats like Zell Miller.
We could debate the fairness of either comment until election day, but there is something more important that is an issue. Senator Kennedy's remarks do one thing that Vice President Cheney's remarks do not: Kennedy's remarks embolden the enemy. While Kennedy openly invites nuclear attack on the United States at the will of cowardly terrorists, Cheney's remarks merely caution that we as nation need leadership that must remain steadfast and resolved in pursuit of terrorists, and never, ever, revert back to the days treating terrorist acts as paltry law enforcement cases, and not what they really are: acts of war. In short, Cheney is saying, "we need to stay strong and fight the good fight," while Kennedy is saying, "attack us with your nuclear weapons."
You will not hear the left criticize the brother of John F. Kennedy. They will, rather, repeat his words that will be the newest item on the Democrats talking points, once again, allowing themselves to do what they criticize Republicans of doing. To Democrats, Republicans use "scare tactics," but the same words, or harsher ones used by Democrats are legitimate talking points to remain unscathed.
John Kerry was rather bold and forceful on one point during his primary days when he looked square into the cameras and challenged George W. Bush to "Bring it on!"
Well, many people, including us at BlogsforBush were happy to meet his challenge. As the campaign season continued John Kerry's mantra changed from a challenge of "Bring it on!" to "Make it Stop!" as his very own "band of brothers" challenged him on dozens of points and alleged many improprieties neither the Kerry campaign nor mainstream media has been able to refute.
Well, now John Kerry's own tactics, statements and soundbites have called into question his own fitness as commander-in-chief and John Kerry wants it all to stop:
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry appealed for an end to the TV advertising war that has marked his election battle against President George W. Bush.You know, he is correct, these ads run by the Bush campaign ought to scare voters. Unfortunately when you watch the ads, all you see is John Kerry in action . . . flipping and flopping and flipping and Flopping . . .Kerry said the avalanche of negative television spots and attacks being shown on US screens was scaring off voters.
"I'm calling them 'misleadisments,'" Kerry said of the adverts. "It's all scare tactics ... because (Bush) has no record to run on."
The rest of the news item is equally laughable:
Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over ... [ed. -- BWAHAHAHA, giving money back to the people that earned it really made us suffer . . . BWAHAHAHAHA, I can't contain myself]No wonder the Bush campaign agreed to 3 debates. The more the public sees of John Kerry, the bigger George Bush's lead will grow."He doesn't care, he's out of touch," said Kerry. [ed. -- who says this guy isn't hilarious? He should do stand-up!]
Kerry also launched a new attack Bush's campaign in Iraq, a topic where Republicans have accused him of continually changing position.
"I've been right on Iraq all along," said Kerry. "I said yes, we ought to hold him (Saddam Hussein) accountable, but let's do it the right way, and I showed what it was, step by step. And step-by-step the president chose the wrong way." [ed. -- No wonder he wants to silence those scary ads of John Kerry taking every position possible on Iraq!]
The Man without a Message is already falling behind with women voters; now younger voters are turning away. From the NY Post “Kids Quit Kerry”:
Democrat John Kerry has lost his lead with under-30 voters because the iPod generation is getting more optimistic that the country is headed in the right direction, a new Newsweek poll found.President Bush and Kerry are now in a dead heat among the youngest voters with Kerry getting 45 percent and Bush 44 — a big switch from last month, when Kerry had a 9-point lead of 50 to 41 percent among under-30s, the GENext voter poll found. Its error margin is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
As we all know our elitist's and their mindless drones consider President Bush to be rather stupid and John Kerry to be very smart. They tell us endlessly that President Bush's blunt pronouncements are the work of a man too dumb to understand the subtleties of the situation while John Kerry's carefully nuanced statements reflect his deep intellectual understanding of the complexities of our times. I have a different theory:
A man who knows what is going on can describe it in short, easy to grasp statements while a man who hasn't a clue weaves a tangled verbal web mostly designed to deflect attention away from his startling ignorance. It works like this - if you bring your car to a mechanic and he says that that knocking noise is due to a bad motor mount and he'll have it replaced in a jiffy so you can go on your way, you'll feel pretty confident in his skill...if, on the other hand, he starts talking about how he'll have to take a close look at the engine and transmission which may require him charging you some hours of labor before he can even tell you what is wrong then you don't feel quite as confident, do you? Kinda wonder if you're being scammed - wonder if after he gets done the problem will really be solved, don't you? Thus it is between President Bush and John Kerry.
Stanley Fish, Dean Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago recently did an exercise with a class - asking them to go over speeches by both John Kerry and President Bush and, after laying aside their political opinions, determine which man got their point across the best. Here's what he found:
The analysis was devastating. President Bush, the students pointed out, begins with a perfect topic sentence - "Our strategy is succeeding"- that nicely sets up a first paragraph describing how conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia four years ago aided terrorists. This is followed by a paragraph explaining how the administration's policies have produced a turnaround in each country "because we acted." The paragraph's conclusion is concise, brisk and earned: "We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."......as many pointed out, when Mr. Kerry repeats the phrase "your tax dollars" it is because he has become lost in his own sentence and has to begin again.
When he finally extracts himself from that sentence, he makes two big mistakes in the next one: "That's bad enough, but you know there's something worse, don't you?" No, Senator Kerry, we don't know - because you haven't told us. He is asking people to respond to a point he hasn't yet made and, even worse, by saying "don't you?" he is implying they should know what this point is before he makes it. As a result, the audience is made to feel stupid.
And if that wasn't "bad enough,'' consider his next two sentences. Up until now Mr. Kerry's point (insofar as you could discern one) had been that current tax policies reward companies for moving their operations overseas. But he goes on to add, "it gets worse than that in terms of choices." The audience barely has time to wonder what and whose choices he's talking about before it is entirely disoriented by the declaration that "today the tax code actually does something that's right." Excuse us, but how can getting something "right" be "worse"? It turns out that there is an answer to that question later in the speech - Mr. Kerry says that while the tax code now rewards companies that export American products, Mr. Bush wants to eliminate that good incentive - but it comes far too late for an audience discombobulated by the sudden and unannounced change in the argument's direction.
Emphasis added, because its fun to note things like that about John Kerry. But it gets worse for Kerry according to the good professor:
doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose?Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are.
And as for that last hope of our Donks, the upcoming debates:
Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about.
People have sometimes jumped on me because I've given out the opinion that President Bush is just the smarter man than John Kerry - I've pointed out endlessly that knowing French and what that little fork is used for doesn't make a person smart...think of it like this: in our movies, very often the villian is a man who has a foreign accent. Very often this super-smart super-villian has a British accent, though sometimes they use a French or other foreign accent. It sounds like the guy is smart, you see? I guess there's something about our American idiom which just doesn't convey intelligence...and, of course, the absolute dumbest sounding Americans are those with a southern accent. John Kerry acts like and talks like a foreigner - and he speaks French! He's just gotta be smart! Meanwhile, over to the right is President Bush mangling his pronunciation in a Texas drawl...to our ever more shallow and ignorant Democrats (becoming more shallow and more ignorant as Democrats with any depth and intellect switch over to being independents or Republicans), its no constest - the guy who speaks French just must be smarter than the guy with the Texas drawl...never mind that this dimwitted Texan has an MBA and was a fighter pilot.
Its all for the best, of course; they continue to misunderestimate President Bush, and that makes beating them all the more easy.
Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today
I now question their patriotism 100%, how could you not? These folks are putting their lust for power ahead of our national security.
Among those voting against the nomination, all Democrats, were Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Jon Corzine and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.
These are the most Liberals partisan Democrats in the Senate, but they are not as Liberal as John Kerry. The Democratic Party tries to get us to believe that they take national security seriously. I am not buying what they are trying to peddle.
How did John Kerry vote?
Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees, were absent and did not vote.
Big surprise there, same ole same ole.
In another pathetic effort at pandering (at least he got the local team right this time), John Kerry -- avid Red Sox fan (not!) -- visits New York and announces his support for the Jets, Giants and YANKEES???:
On Monday afternoon, Kerry and Bush circled each other in a three-block radius in midtown Manhattan. Kerry taped his appearance on the David Letterman show, one block from a hotel where Bush held a fundraiser. Kerry then held his own fundraiser one block over from Bush's hotel.He'll say anything to anyone at anytime. Just check his record.At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo opines that what John Kerry really needs is a good slogan. He's thinking that Kerry needs something equivalent to Ronald Reagans "are you better off than you were four years ago", and that this would really get things going because, as we all know, President Bush's administration has been an utter disaster from start to finish and the only thing which is preventing Kerry from winning in a landslide is a nifty slogan.
Best of the Web Today brings us some helpful suggestions from blogger David Burge. Kerry should try these on for size:
"I will keep our enemies guessing, too."
"Projecting American strength through intricately complex nuance."
"Fear not, America, I have deigned to lead you."
"The next time America is attacked, I promise to open up a carafe of whupass."
"I have three words for George Bush--bring it on."
"I have five more words for George Bush--call off your on-bringers."
"Restoring America's seat at the global popular table."
"Some look at things as they are and say, 'Why?' Others look at things as they are not and say, 'Why not?,' and I suppose a few might look at things as they are not, and say 'why?,' and vice-versa, and so forth, and one might be tempted to look at these people looking at things and ask 'Who?,' but this would not be constructive, because the important thing to realize is that some people like to look at things, and this is precisely my point."
Several years back, I recall seeing a home video of a small child, I think it was on the show America's Funniest Home Videos where folks would send a funny video's to, to try and win money. The child in this particular video was about two years old with chocolate all over his mouth and hands. The parent asked him if he had been in the chocolate, and of course the two year answered "no". That is what two year olds do, they fib when the evidence is all over their face.
Dan Rather and CBS have chocolate all over themselves and they expect the U.S. voters to believe them.
Well guess what, it wasn't chocolate they have all over them, it was ex-lax and since they are both so full of it, this should solve their problem.
Although this authentic memo written by Jerry Killian, on what he really thought about George Bush back then gets in their hands, then they are going to need a bigger piece of, ahh, "chocolate".
UPDATE : President Bush received an enthusiastic response to his address yesterday to the National Guard Association.
Capt. Campos said he has met both presidential candidates and has decided to support Mr. Bush. "To me, Bush is just more serious about fighting terrorism," Capt. Campos said. "I saw Bush in Iraq. I didn't see Kerry in Iraq."
Charles at Little Green Footballs shows how the memos was crumpled for age effect.
Best line:
I’ll bet that if the real printed originals of these documents ever turn up (say, in a dumpster behind MoveOn.org headquarters), they’ll find the idiot’s fingerprints on them
Would not surprise me one iota.
Drudge is reporting that that the DNC is going to launch a fresh attack on Bush's guard duty.
While this is not beneath the Democrats, I find this to be extraordinary hypocrisy of Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC. I caught him on tape at the Republican National Convention after an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt Show claiming that it is George W. Bush who "wants to talk about a war 35 years ago."
Well, it's plainly obvious who really wants to make this election about Vietnam.
Here is the audio of Terry McAuliffe (from August 31 at the Republican Convention) accusing George W. Bush of wanting to make this election "about a war 35 year ago":
And for the record (again), Terry also falls for the claim that Bush said the war on terror couldn't be won... As Michelle Malkin noted, Bush didn't say we couldn't win the war on terror, he said it couldn't be won in just four years....
UPDATE: You want proof that the Democrats are deeply involved in RatherGate? The upcoming offensive by the Democrats shockingly reveals the strategy the think they can win this election with. According to Drudge, John Kerry has flat out rejected to cease using Vietnam as a his campaign foundation.
The coordinated nationwide effort this week by the DNC has been code-named "Operation Fortunate Son.""George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," DNC Communications Director Jano Cabrera blasts in the new release. "From 1978 to the present day, George Bush has refused to tell voters the truth about his service. It's time for the President to come clean."
"Flyers distributed to Texas voters during Bush's failed Congressional race say 'he served in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard.' But according to Air Force officials, Air National Guardsmen are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force."
This appears to be Phase II of a planned offensive on Bush regarding his National Guard service. The memos were Phase I, and the Kerry campaign is definitely arm in arm with the DNC on this.
Powerline links to an LA Times story which retells the story of last Thursday.
Could this help blogs break new ground? I definitely think so.
"The Big Trunk" has his own thoughts of the events of the past few days:
Drawing the reasonable inferences implicit in these circumstances, the serious question that must be asked at this point is what happens when a media monolith acts as a front for Democratic operatives peddling forgeries calculated to smear a Republican president and presidential candidate?
I agree. Of course, another big question is who is responsible for these forged documents, and who knew about them? Dan Rather still says they're authentic, Democrats are calling on Bush to answer questions on the content of the memos, and accusing Republicans of planting these memos...
As Michelle Malkin asks, "Which is it?" Simply put, you can't have it both ways. Democrats are both standing behind the authenticity of the documents and blaming them on Republicans.
Dan Rather's career is in jeopardy if they are forged - he has to stand by their authenticity at this point. The Democrats think they can win on this regardless of whether they are forged or not, "If they're real, Bush has to answer to them," if they're fake, "Ask Karl Rove about the memos."
John Kerry made it clear that he wants to continue to make Vietnam the issue here. Maybe we should ask his campaign where the memos came from.
Powerline (you have to love these guys) are all on top of this forgery situation...
Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell said Friday that if documents aired by CBS newsman Dan Rather Wednesday night turn out to be forged, as alleged by experts, the presidential race "is over.""It would be the end of the race," Caddell told Fox News Live. "It would be the end of the race," he repeated.
"[Democratic officials are] so involved in this," the former Carter pollster worried. "they have gotten themselves so involved in this issue [in] the last 24 hours that somebody's going to, if they're not authentic, they're going to be blamed for it. It's incredible to me that they've gotten in this."
Ouch...
As Lt Smash asks, "Anti-war, or just on the other side?"
My first thought was and still is both. This is the same type of John Kerry supporters who will indeed support our troops.
But only when they shoot each other.
It may seem logical that, to have the right to vote for the government of a nation, one should be a citizen of that nation. However, much that is logical these days seems to be turned on its head. Since registering illegal aliens is not a good PR move, liberals have employed different methods to pad their vote. At first, liberals simply sought to enable non-citizens living in America to vote. But that is not good enough for them. In a remarkable piece of reporting work that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, the liberal press is touting a new poll showing that Kerry would win in a landslide if the world could cast a vote.
While it may seem absurd to the rational among us to even consider how non-Americans would vote, for Democrats the narcissism revealed by their incessant pining to cultivate popularity around the world is at least consistent with the vanity-inspired campaign of their candidate. To them, being liked is more important than having an effective foreign policy, one that best secures America. This sycophantic approach to global opinion is a recipe for disaster, and America paid the price on September 11, 2001 for Bill Clinton's 1990's feel-good, photo-op foreign policy, which simply put off tough decisions (terrorism) and made bad decisions when the right ones were too difficult (North Korea). Poll-driven policy is bad enough domestically, but wind-surfing the fleeting currents of worldwide opinion is catastrophic for it means a policy lacking an overarching strategy.
As Lord Palmerston stated, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The outpouring of goodwill America received in the wake of 9/11 reflected not just compassion for the victims, but wonderment that America could be a victim. Once we began to fight back, that compassion began to evaporate. What is clear is that America is the object of sympathy when weak and pliant. If that's the price of the global popularity contest, most Americans would probably not care to score highly.
Interestingly, Jimmy Carter's speech to the Democratic convention is not on the Kerry website. Perhaps because Carter's most telling declaration was one of weakness:
After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united.I don't know about you, but I was angry, not proud. Carter's mentality, however, is emblematic of the foreign opinion of America: they like us when we are weakened or bloodied, and they don't like us when we are strong and resolute. Remember, Carter's mentality was the one deposed by Ronald Reagan, whose strength was also denounced and ridiculed in its time by liberals and foreigners. That story ended so successfully that the USS Ronald Reagan's motto is the catchphrase that encapsulates Reagan's, and Bush's, foreign policy: Peace Through Strength. America will never sit passively to win the support of fairweathered "friends." Like President Reagan, President Bush is pursuing a long-term strategy that may not be popular abroad currently but serves America's long-term interests. And it is our interests that are paramount in this election, not polls of foreigners.
Former President Jimmy Carter has lashed out against fellow Democrat Zell Miller, accusing him of "unprecedented disloyalty" for his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Carter wrote:
"By now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth and the political technique of character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause," [emphasis added]
So, what Carter is saying here is exactly the point Zell Miller made in his speech. Carter identifies himself as a loyal Democrat.
Carter is basically saying that Zell Miller is a traitor. Why? Because Zell Miller isn't putting his party before the safety of his family.
Remember what Zell said last week?
...I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is
George Bush. [emphasis added]
Zell then told the story of Wendell Wilkie, Republican nominee in 1940, whom Zell told us "made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue."
"Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?" Zell asked.
Jimmy Carter has proven just how true Zell Miller's speech was. For the Democrats it's about partisan politics, not security.
What has happened to the party Zell Miller spent his life working in?
Jimmy Carter just answered that question.
We all recall how Democrats preached at us all that every vote should count, and rightfully so. Looks like those same concerned citizens have changed their minds.
Gee, what a big surprise.
Next thing you know we will have foreign observers watching over us like some Third World Country.
With President Bush up by 11 percentage points in two polls; with the economy adding 144,000 new jobs last month; with terrorists in Iraq and Chechnya showing us what is really at stake in this election; with John Kerry proving himself ever more inept on the campaign trail, it stands to reason that our Democrats will go to their ready stand-by: The politics of personal destruction.
Apparantly, CBS's 60 Minutes (motto: There's No BS Quite Like C BS) is to air an interview with a former Lt. Governor of Texas who will claim that he pulled strings to get President Bush into the Texas ANG, while other stories will relate that the Elder Bush pulled strings to get President Bush into the Alabama ANG in order to get then-wild partier George W. Bush out of Texas for a bit.
Yawn.
Its just more of the same for these Donk's; can't win on substance, so hope that a bit of slime will make the other guy so unpopular that even a miserable Democratic candidate can slip in (this, by the way, is precisely how they got California's Gray Davis elected to a 2nd term back in 2002...only it didn't work out in the long run for them). You'd think that after months and months of this sort of thing resulting in President Bush still managing to be ahead the Democrats would figure out that the American people want answers regarding the future - not hit-pieces about the past.
For four days this past week the Republican Party laid it out in bold terms both as to why President Bush should be re-elected and why Kerry's public record makes him unqualified to be President. I do believe that even if the Democrats matched the GOP on substance we'd still win - but if the Democrats keep down this path of "don't criticise Kerry and Bush is scum" campaigning, then the result this November will be a win by historic margins by the President.
While a new survey has President Bush's approval rating up to 53%, and varied news stories have Kerry's campaign starting to rip itself to shred in laying blame for their disasterous August, I think its time to stand back from it all and take a quiet look at the situation.
How many times a day, dear readers, do you use an obscenity? I'm a former sailor of the United States Navy, so my catalog of verbal filth is a rather thick volume; but I'm not a foul-mouthed person. I don't, to put it simply, rely upon vulgar language to make my point. But have you noticed how often those who oppose President Bush in particular and the GOP in general use them?
Our Democratic friends do like to harp upon the alleged use of the "F" word by Vice President Cheney in a private conversation a little while back - and I guess they consider Mr. Cheney's indiscretion to be their license to really let 'er rip on the foul language. The invaluable Best of the Web today gives us a fair sample of it, cleaned up for decent company:
People in line heckled back the potty-shirted heckler, and he responded by repeatedly shouting, "You're scum! You're the slime of the earth!" A guy behind us observed, "I love hearing that from someone wearing a shirt like that." Suddenly a group of perhaps a dozen materialized, chanting and carrying a banner that read "Free John Hinckley." Their slogan: "F--- Reagan! Go home!" They moved down the avenue at a very fast pace and were gone as quickly as they arrived......One featured performer, the comedian Lewis Black, had a message for GOP delegates who might hold other views.
"It is un-fu**ing-believable that since the time I was 15 we have been having to argue this sh**," Black said. "There comes a point where you say, f**k you, enough is enough. There is no argument. It's not your body, a**hole. Shut the f**k up."
This is the sort of discourse we get from people on the liberal/left side of the spectrum - the side of the spectrum the liberal/left elite advise us is far more intellectual than we, and more willing to entertain differing opinions. Yeah, right; whatever.
Its just words, of course; and they don't hurt. But they are symbolic - what they symbolise is the complete end of any attempt on the part of the liberal/left to defend itself. Their only real tactic is to try and use words to intimidate. It is hard to argue with someone who just told you to "F" off, isn't it? I mean, what do you really say to such a person? You can shout back the same sort of vulgarity, but what does that actually accomplish? Essentially, people who shout like that are left alone - and might appear to win in their little sandbox. We're not going to try and counter-demonstrate these people on the streets because we've got better things to do than try to outshout mindless, ill-mannered people who wont stop shouting for fear their brains might start to work.
They shout because they cannot think; and they also shout to keep their own flagging spirits up. They shout, also, because they are protected - protected in a cocoon surrounded by people they ostensibly hate but who stand between them and a punch in the mouth by the people they routinely offend. You'll note that these vulgar shouters don't normally take their show on the road outside of urban liberal enclaves - if they tried their stunts outside my house then they'd be lucky to be arrested before I and the neighbors gave them what for.
Shouting, banging, clanging insipid little mindless drones of the left - that is what we've got out in the streets of New York City while the adults of the world gather to discuss important matters inside.
We here at Blogs for Bush have been paying very close attention to John Kerry ever since he moved past Howard Dean in Iowa by dint of his background as a anti-war protestor during the early 70's (why have a ski-instructor as your Party's anti-war candidate when you can have the genuine article, went Democratic thinking...). It was right off the bat, as it were, that we detected the fragrent odor of rank hypocrisy in John Kerry's statements (ie, "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"), but lately we've had Kerry saying, to paraphrase a bit, "How dare the Republicans criticise a war veteran like me and how dare they not criticise those war veterans in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!". This would seem to be the epitome of where you can go with hypocrisy, but it turns out its not...
John Kerry is lately insisting that President Bush pick out of the forest of "527's" the rather small tree called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and condemn it - Kerry concentrates on this rather small group because it has the temerity to criticise John Kerry. There is this rule, demanded by John Kerry and insisted upon at length by every Donk in America, that there be no criticism levelled at Kerry on any subject whatsoever (to criticise John Kerry, in this line of thinking, is to question his patriotism - John Kerry, as we all know, being the sum total of all that is excellent with America, right?) - this rule is well known, and so we can understand Kerry and the Democrat's anger at these impertinent (and highly decorated for military valor) guys over at SBVT. The nerve of them. I mean, don't they know that highly decorated veterans must never be criticised! The cretins....
President Bush, who appears more and more to not understand the rules about John Kerry, pointed out in his mild way that perhaps we should condemn all "527" groups - people have this and that opinion about the President's stand on this, but it can't be denied that there is something unseemly about, say, a billionaire writing checks to un-accountable political groups who then launch smear campaigns against various political candidates. I mean, President Bush probably feels bad for John Kerry's hurt feelings - not everyone, after all, can be as mentally tough as, well, President Bush who has endured a hundred million dollar barrage of smear attacks at the hands of shadowy "527" groups. As long as the attacks were on President Bush, he was willing to put up with them - but when he saw the pain a $250,000 ad buy in three small States caused John Kerry, President Bush knew it was time to swing into action to protect John Kerry.
The funny thing, though, is that John Kerry isn't having any of this - in fact, he is downright outraged that anyone would want to condemn any other group besides Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...and the reason for this outrage? Well, according to Kerry, its because there is collusion between SBVT and President Bush, and this is what makes this tiny ad-buy such a major, major issue for John Kerry. And here's where we get to a level of hypocrisy which we pray even John Kerry wont be able to top at a later date - The New York Post in an editorial points out some interesting facts for our enlightenment:
Start with Robert Bauer. His Web site identifies him as national counsel to the Kerry-Edwards campaign (he's paid by the Democratic National Committee).But he also represents America Coming Together, which is spending millions on mobilizing pro-Kerry voters and has been described as "the major ground-war vehicle for the Democratic groups."
In fact, ACT's president, Ellen Malcolm, boasts that her group is "looking for effective ways to do the work of delivering the message and getting out the vote that used to be done by the party."
Or Joe Sandler, who advises Move-On.org and also works for the DNC, which works directly with Kerry's folks.
Or Harold Ickes, the former Clinton politico, who also advises both America Coming Together and the Democratic National Committee and is president of the Media Fund.
In fact, there's been a veritable revolving door between the Kerry campaign and these super-rich 527 groups.
Zach Exley, who used to be MoveOn's organizing director, now works for the Kerry campaign, running its Web site.
Bill Knapp, who used to make TV commercials for the Media Fund, now makes campaign spots for the Kerry campaign.
And Jim Jordan, who used to manage the Kerry campaign, now helps run both ACT and the Media Fund.
All of which suggests that these groups are "independent" in name only — and that illegal coordination between the Kerry camp and their allies is under way on a massive scale.
As ABC News reported, because pro-Kerry 527s have out-raised pro-Bush ones $145 million to $9 million, "no candidate in history has benefited more from these . . . groups than John Kerry."
Ok; so lets hope this is the end of it - because the only way Kerry could become more of a hypocrite than he is now would be to, oh I don't know, demand that each President Bush campaign ad actually call for the election of John Kerry...ridiculous, I know, but so far we haven't reached a limit on Kerry's ridiculousness...
* - I used "extraodinaire" because that's French and I wanted to say some thing in Kerry's native tongue. Pretty slick, huh?
With a new CBS poll showing that Kerry's support among veterans and independent voters collapsing, Kerry had a decision to make: He could either come clean, sit down with Russert and hash the whole matter out and let the American people decide who is telling the truth, or he could send out Clinton-era attack dogs to try and smear the Swifties into silence.
Anyone want to guess which tactic Kerry has chosen?
Both the LA Times and Boston Globe has stories on this, with this quote from the Times giving the flavor of the whole:
Kerry reversed course Wednesday night after arriving in Boston from a campaign trip to Cincinnati. As his motorcade pulled up to his Beacon Hill townhouse, he asked senior advisor David Morehouse, communications director Stephanie Cutter and press secretary David Wade to come inside.With campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill on the phone, Kerry told his aides, "I think it's time to go at this."...
...Meanwhile, the campaign has hired Joe Lockhart, a Clinton White House spokesman, and Joel Johnson, a lobbyist who also worked for President Clinton, to help respond to attacks.
Cutter said that if charges about Kerry's service continued, the candidate would "talk comparatively" about his military record and that of Bush, who has been shadowed by questions about whether he fulfilled his service while in the Texas Air National Guard.
Kerry has reversed himself several times on whether he thinks it's appropriate to go after Bush's military service record.
Its only now become clear to me that the Swifties basic accusations (that Kerry exaggerated his service in pursuit of medals and that he betrayed his fellow soldiers by his post-Vietnam activities) must be true. If they weren't true, then the mere release of Kerry's service records would dispose of the Swifties allegations. That, instead, Kerry has brought out attack dogs to try and smear the other side with lies and half-truths shows me that Kerry cannot release his records in full, because they do not sufficiently confirm Kerry's version of events.
Kerry's campaign is unravelling because a couple hundred mostly obscure guys with only a few hundred thousand dollars at their disposal made some accusations. Normally, this shouldn't matter. In fact, I bet that there are several similar groups of people out there in the anti-Bush camp trying to do the same thing - but it doesn't work, because President Bush is somebody; he's not an empty vessel in which Republicans place whatever seems nice at the time. Kerry is going to lose this election - he will lose because he doesn't have a worldview he can present to the American people and defend in open debate. The coming Democratic debacle will be traced directly to the senior Democrat's insistence upon form over substance - their absurd belief which stems from the Reagan era that it doesn't matter what you are, but only how you market yourself.
Hat Tip: NRO's Kerry Spot
The Kerry campaign yesterday released a statement signed by 8 retired senior military officers denouncing President Bush's plan to reconfigure the worldwide dispersion of American troops to conform with the post-Cold War world in which we live. This shift makes complete sense. For instance, there is no longer a Warsaw Pact to deter, which raises the question of why we should house so many troops in Germany. Also, reducing our Korean "tripwire" from 37,000 to 25,000 troops does not change the situation one iota. Neither number is sufficient to thwart a North Korean attack, but the deterrent effect is the same under each scenario: that's how a tripwire works.
Typically, the Kerry response is insipid pabulum:
Given today’s threats, we should be reaching out to the world, rebuilding our alliances and finding real solutions to relieve the strain on our overstretched military. John Kerry will keep faith with our troops and their families who are overburdened by the extended deployments of their loved ones.Perhaps somebody can explain what "reaching out" and "keeping faith" have to do with shifting troop deployments that were made to fight the last war. Oh, here it is:
In the past three years North Korea has reportedly made enough new bomb material for six to nine nuclear weapons. Unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from South Korea will weaken our negotiating position when we need to be strong. Instead of keeping U.S. personnel forward deployed and ready to go after Al Qaeda in more than sixty countries around the world, President Bush’s plan would take them further from the action.Let's leave aside the fact that it was Democrats who virtually invited Kim-Jong Il to build his atomic bombs through the Clinton administration's pure fecklessness. The Democrats, most of whom want to "bring the troops home," now want to keep them overseas. It is difficult to keep track of whether they want to employ America's military or not. Apparently, they simply want to keep our troops overseas where they are but not use them; perhaps to make it more difficult for them to vote.
The truly interesting thing about this letter, however, is the lead signatory, Admiral Stansfield Turner. He is best known as Jimmy Carter's CIA director and, as Edward Jay Epstein wrote 20 years ago, the man who emasculated the CIA's intelligence-gathering capabilities and induced it to rely excessively on technology at the expense of human intelligence:
In the summer of 1977, after setting in motion a plan to eliminate 820 positions in the espionage branch (and notifying the affected case officers by a computerized form letter), Turner reported to President Carter that "the espionage branch was [now] being run ethically and soundly." This was no doubt what the President wanted to hear from his Director of Central Intelligence. The problem was that ethical espionage is a contradiction in terms. There are of course forms of intelligence gathering which violate no laws or ethical standards. For example, "national technical means," which includes satellite photography and electronic interception of data, is sanctioned by the United States and the Soviet Union in the SALT agreements; embassy attaches are permitted to report on what they observe; and defectors and travelers can be debriefed. But espionage, by definition is illegal. It is the theft of secrets from a foreign state. It involves bribing, blackmailing, or otherwise persuading a foreign national, in contravention of the laws of his country, to supply secret material or to plant an eavesdropping device. In addition, it is almost invariably necessary to use false identities, lies, and other deceptions to bide the theft itself. The process of organizing lawbreaking, as well as deceit, may be justified on the grounds that it is necessary for the safety and survival of a state, or, as it is called, raisons d. etat, but it can hardly be elevated to an ethical plane.Of course, Kerry sings with the choir of nearly every American in lamenting the CIA's lack of human intelligence. So now the man responsible for putting America in our intelligence hole is denouncing a plan that would bring the posture of our military in line with the war on terror as opposed to fighting the non-existent USSR. In the 1970's he rendered America's intelligence capabilities ineffective for this war we are fighting, and now he believes we should not modernize the Pentagon's force structure to fight it. This is a twofer America does not need.
[As an aside, it is that same liberal do-gooder inclination combined with a total lack of foresight that has contributed to our energy problems (no gasoline refinery has been allowed to be built in 3 decades and no new drilling for oil in ANWR is allowed) and our impending Social Security and Medicare crises (no shift is allowed away from the pyramid scheme structure of both programs, despite clear demographic trends that render them unsustainable as currently constituted). We are paying the price now for the left-wing's stances on espionage and energy, and it will not be too long before we pay it for Social Security and Medicare - unless Americans vote for change in November by re-electing President George W. Bush.]
Best of the Web Today brings to our attention a new Pew poll done for the Council on Foreign relations. Among the interesting findings of this poll are that 41% say that war/terrorism/foreign policy are the most important problem facing the nation while only 26% say that economic issues are most important (this is the first time since 1972 that the poll has shown this - need I remind everyone the result of that year's election?). Additionally, the poll finds that 72% say the United States should follow moral principles - you know, fight for liberty and justice rather than cut deal with "allies" in order to set up new "stable" regimes who will cause us less overt trouble.
I recommend reading the whole poll, because its an interesting snapshot of American attitudes. But what struck me as most stunning was this:
51% of Democrats say that US "wrongdoing" might have motivated the 9/11 attacks.
Let that sink in, ladies and gentlemen. More than half of one of the two major American political parties think that we might be at fault for the 9/11 attacks. In contrast, only 17% of Republicans in the poll are this amazingly stupid.
Let me make something completely clear - the only people who are at fault for the 9/11 attacks are those who planned, organised, supported and carried out the attacks. There is no justification whatsoever for such attacks upon clear non-combatants. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either evil or stupid.
We cannot afford Democrats into power under these circumstances - a vote for Democrats, with half the Democrats thinking we might be at fault, is a vote for surrender in the War on Terrorism, regardless of the particular views of any individual Democratic candidate. This is the result of 40 years of "blame America first" Democratic political rhetoric. Time for the Democrats to be beaten so resoundingly that they'll have the time completely out of power to rethink their views.
We know what Johns are usually full of, and our Two Johns are not much different.
Even at first glance, its a bit absurd that a billionaire and a multi-millionaire are playing up the "fighting for the little guy" theme; the only little guys these two know are the guys who mow their lawns and cook their meals. Truth be told, the Two Johns are the perfect Democratic ticket for the modern Democratic Party; wildly rich, never worked at a real job and absolutely convinced of their moral and intellectual excellence. Who else is like this? Hollywood types, thats who.
Daniel Henninger over at OpinionJournal.com lays it out for us in this article.
Hyper-politicized Hollywood is the new bed Bill Clinton made for the Democrats, and now the party is going to have to lie in it. At the level that matters most to party pros--raising money--there would appear to be no downside to the relationship. The L.A. donor base consists of people whose psychological profile draws them into weird quasi-religions like Scientology and est. The Democrats are pitching themselves and the election as a holy crusade against barbarian Republicans led by Genghis Bush and Cheney the Hun. But in politics the promised land is always on the horizon, the infidels are never defeated, and ever-more contributions are needed on the road to salvation. What better place to market politics as the apocalypse than Hollywood? To date, Mr. Kerry has raised $47.5 million in California. Al Gore raised only $5 million.Isn't it becoming harder by the day to take the Democrats seriously as the party of the common man and the left-out? Besides these people, the party's primary sources of support have become trial lawyers and Wall Street financiers. It is becoming a party run by a new class of elites who make fast money--$25 million for 30 days work on a movie, millions (even billions) winning lawsuits against doctors or asbestos users, millions to do arithmetic for a business merger. But they're all running against "Halliburton."
The days when in the same breath you said AFL-CIO, blue-collar and Democrats are gone.
I admit that I'm flabbergasted that Al Gore only got $5 mil from the Hollywood elite (I always figured it was much more than that), while John Kerry has walked off with money beyond the dreams of avarice (of course, its still chump change compared to what Teresa provides). Imagine, for a moment, if it was discovered that only one industry (say, oil) had donated $47 million to President Bush - our Donk's would be spinning conspiracy theories right, left and center while the media would be running a non-stop investigative report into how the President had been bought by Big Oil. Good people: John Kerry is bought and paid for by Hollywood - some amazingly rich people who do not work at all are financing the campaign of a man who claims to be battling for the working man.
Anyone see a disconnect here? Or is it just me?
Thomas Sowell, in my view one of the very smartest people alive today (just finished reading his Conquests and Culture; highly recommend it), has this excellent way of grasping the central issue. We've all been rather agog at the behaviour of the Kerry's for the past few months - from their inability to accept blame for their own mistakes, to their paranoid ravings about what is going on in the United states, we have been treated to two people who can't really take themselves at all seriously, but they do. Mr. Sowell explains it for us:
Despite clever and hard-working political handlers who have done a masterful job of concealing and distracting attention from John Kerry's voting record in his long Senate career, and the liberal vision behind that record, glimmers of reality still break through now and then.Senator Kerry himself has said that he was for spending more money on education with "no questions asked." The teachers' unions no doubt loved hearing that, but blank checks are precisely how our schools have produced the most expensive incompetence in the world.
Then there was another glimmer of reality breaking through recently, courtesy of wife Teresa Heinz Kerry. While her husband was addressing some midwestern farmers, Teresa passed a note to him, which led him to ask her to address the group.
Her message? Organic hog farming is "economical" and there is "a huge market" for it.
A hog farmer in the audience was immediately on his feet, objecting. That this sheltered rich woman from Boston would have the nerve to try to tell hog farmers how to raise hogs is a classic example of the liberal vision.
What is liberalism all about? Regardless of whether the particular issue is race, agriculture, housing, or a thousand other things, liberalism is about the government telling people what to do in their lives and work.
Most of the liberals who are for ordering other people around know as little as Teresa Heinz Kerry. But they don't have to know.
It has been said that knowledge is power but, politically, power trumps knowledge.
Here we have John Kerry and Teresa Kerry; with their Senatorial perks and with the rarified atmosphere which comes when you've got a billion dollars at your disposal - they feel themselves as people with power. After all, when a Senator calls, you pay attention - and when a billionaire comes into your store, you tremble. They are used to getting their way and not being contradicted; they are power-mad people, and this power has entirely trumped knowledge in their lives.
They don't care, you see, what you and I think - we're not powerful; we don't have a seat in the Senate, nor a billion dollars to throw around. Lacking power, whatever knowledge we have is not just unimportant, but downright offensive to the Kerry's. They look at us little proles who disagree and propose to vote for President Bush and they don't see people with different experiences who prefer an alternative political view but, instead, they see powerless scoundrels who don't know how to conduct themselves around their betters.
We'll give them their comeuppance on November 2nd - just as, long ago, we gave Jimmy Carter his walking papers. And just like Carter, I'll bet the Kerry's never, ever forgive us for not giving them what they feel is their due. I guess we'll just have to live with that. Won't we?
Well, the secret is out - John Kerry has told us what his plan is:
My plan is to:• Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.
• Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.
• Launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.
• Plan for Iraq's future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt and involve our allies in the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. At the same time, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's national affairs.
John Kerry, how do I ridicule thee? Let me count the ways...
1. Lead NATO to make Iraq one of its missions. How? This is the part of the plan which actually sounds the best, but then falls apart on even cursory examination. NATO has exceptionally limited military force to begin with; NATO has given no indication that even if Kerry were President that they'd be willing to send what small military forces they have available. What is Kerry going to do? Convince the NATO countries to increase their defense budgets, spend 5 years rebuilding their hollow militaries and then convince them to send these forces to Iraq?
2. Internationalize the reconstruction effort. Its already the largest coalition ever raised, but since France isn't in, its no great shakes for Kerry. I guess this means no more contracts for Haliburton, but plenty of contracts for France's Total/Elf/Fina oil conglomerate, which made big bucks from the Saddamite regime. I'm sure the Iraqi people will feel much less "occupied" when the paymaster of their former tyrant comes back to town.
3. Launch a massive and accelerated training effort for Iraqi forces. I guess Kerry didn't get the August 6th press release from Centcom stating that currently the Iraqi police and paramilitary forces stand at nearly 184,000 strong, and that by early 2005 the Iraqi Army is to be 29,000 strong. Know what he's doing here? If he does get elected, he's taking pre-emptive credit for things President Bush has done.
4. Forgiving debt for Iraq is a very good thing - and President Bush has secured promises of billions of dollars of debt forgiveness for Iraq; but the regional conference? Would that include Iran and Syria? Because we all know how interested they are in a free and prosperous Iraqi people, right?
As usual, no real details - no explanation of how John Kerry will get from point A to point B; just meaningless boilerplate designed to make is appear that Kerry knows what he's doing.
I think we should stick with our current plan which involves killing the enemy and helping our friends for as long as it takes to secure absolute victory.
What do you think?
John Kerry spent 8 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee prior to 9/11 and has not been identified with any effort to reform our intelligence services - yet Kerry had the nerve to claim that President Bush has been asleep at the switch for the past three years on the matter of intelligence reform. Yeah, Kerry, whatever you say - 'cept that you say some strange things:
On Sunday, Kerry told FNS that he could increase international cooperation in Iraq, but he refused to give any details on how he would make that arrangement."Of course, I'm not going to negotiate, publicly, the hand that I have as president before I'm president. I've been around too long, and I know how to do this. I've negotiated with other countries; I've worked on these issues through the years. I'm telling you that the climate can change dramatically. Leaders in other countries know this," he said.
Shades of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War back in 1968; essentially, the man who twiddled his thumbs on the Intelligence Committee while bin Laden plotted mass murder is asking us to trust him - he's just so smart and so connected that he's already worked out what he needs to do, but he can't tell us the details...because that would blow the whole deal, you see?
Kerry's absurd claim that President Bush has been negligent in matters of intelligence reform is of a piece with the overall Kerry effort. John Kerry's 8 years of doing nothing on Intelligence (other than advocate a large cut in intelligence spending) isn't Kerry's fault - but the lack of perfect intelligence in 2004 is entirely President Bush's fault.
This is just like the claim that someone sent out a bogus cookie recipe; like the claim that NASA intentionally leaked unflattering pictures of Kerry; like the claim that "overzealous speechwriters" were responsible for comments about "Benedict Arnold CEO's"; that a secret service agent caused the crash; that Kerry "held back" and thus threw a weak pitch at Fenway Park; that President Bush "misled" Kerry into supporting the liberation of Iraq....there is a complete inability on the part of Kerry to take any responsibility for anything that goes wrong around him. And he wants us to trust his ability to get the whole world working with us on the War on Terrorism?
Who will he blame when they don't?
Feel free to join this growing list of Pagans for Kerry:
This is a group for Pagans and Agnostic believers. George Bush has voilated our constitutional rights...Which right-winger brought this to you? Why Rob at DailyKos of course:George Bush has already attacked many minority groups. Targeting "gay marriage", womens rights, veterans benefits, elders care, children programs, HIV underfunding, removing "patriot" rights... how long do you think it will be, before George Bush goes after Pagans?
Vote God out of office in November!
A new Yahoo group KerryPagan has been started to organize the NeoPagan community for Kerry Edwards. The NeoPagan community (which includes Pagan, Wicca, Druid, and Asatru) is the fastest growing religious group in the United States with an estimated 1 to 5 million members. It is the 5th largest nationally behind Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism.You can't make this stuff up.
Gives back what he shouldn't have ever taken, that is:
Sen. John Edwards is returning $44,035 in contributions raised by a wealthy Los Angeles lawyer for his presidential primary campaign.The decision to return the money was made because the fund-raising activities of lawyer and longtime Edwards supporter Pierce O'Donnell are being investigated by federal and California elections officials, the Kerry-Edwards campaign said yesterday. Newsweek first reported the story.
Shades of Al Gore and "no controlling legal authority"! There will be more of this, boys and girls. There are a few bits of advice you should take to heart:
Never eat at a place called "Mom's"; never play cards with a guy named "Doc"; never take an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer on as your VP pick.
It should have been drilled into everyone's mind by now that the trial lawyer business is inherently dishonest: register this - you cannot be an honest man and also be a lawyer who sues people and businesses based upon junk science, populist demagoguery and personal greed. John Edwards is not an honest man; he can't be. Its impossible that an honest man could sue doctors for cases of cerebral palsy when there wasn't an iota of evidence that the doctors in question had anything to do with the actual cases of cerebral palsy. But this is precisely what Edwards did - its where he made his pile of cash: making false claims about medical science he was wholey ignorant of and then convincing bamboozled juries to go along with his absurd assertions. Honestly, I'd rather have a straight-forward bank-robber as VP than a trial lawyer.
Edwards was taking these sorts of illegal donations all along - this is just the tip of the iceberg, good people. Its a cinch, you see? After all, they are lawyers and probably sure that whatever laws they violate they'll be able to finagle their way around.
As Drudge would say..."developing". Just watch and wait for it.
I'm sure you've all heard that when royalty travels, they never carry cash and in most cases assume that the honor of serving them compensates the peasants in full. Either John Kerry considers himself royalty, or his campaign fundraising hasn't gone as well as he says:
When the biggest plane to ever land on the island touched down with U.S. Sen. John Kerry and his entourage, airport manager Al Peterson never imagined he would have trouble getting paid. ... But a caterer who bought food on the island for Kerry's campaign jet ducked one bill and haggled over another."Apparently they don't feel like he needs to pay fees to the airport," Peterson said. "I gather the senator objects to that because his aide quoted him as saying that he already pays taxes on the island."
Peterson is out $847 from the two visits Kerry has paid to the island since he became the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Really, how inept is the Kerry campaign, which obviously can't go a week without demonstrating a new angle for their tone-deafness? While Kerry didn't do the dine-and-dash himself, the people with which he's surrounded himself appear to be the most hopelessly inept staff, from his senior policy advisors all the way down to the bill-paying flunkies. After raising nearly $100 million for their campaign, they stiff a small businessman for $847.
It's been one hell of a week for Kerry aides. First Joe Wilson gets outed as a covert liar, then Kerry discovers that Sandy Berger has a double life, and that his good buddy Bill Clinton knew about it for months and neglected to inform him. (With friends like this ...) Now his accounts payable staff clumsily fumble a nickle-and-dime bill, first trying to pressure the man into dropping his price and then simply refusing to pay it altogether.
Perhaps instead of "Bring It On" as their campaign theme, it should be "I Haven't Got A Clue".
Check out this AP story opening:
As John Kerry winds his way across the country and ultimately to Boston to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, he'll be talking more about something he hasn't discussed much in his campaign — John Kerry.
I'm sorry, I just can't help laughing...and I don't know what is more funny, the actual concept of Kerry pretending he's just started to talk about himself or the fact that this AP reporter is clearly on the Kerry/Edwards payroll...
Didn't we just go through a $30 million dollar ad buy of Kerry introducing himself on a personal level to the American people? Haven't we been through an endless series of stories about John Kerry - heck, I know more about his personal life than I do George Bush's. From what I've learned from Kerry and his flacks, he was born in Colorado (quick like a bunny, where was GW born?), went to elite boarding schools, met the real JFK as a youth, was a ringleader for varied college shennanigans, joined the Navy to fight in Vietnam (have ad-nauseum info about his Vietnam service, but lets just leave it at that), testified before Congress about the Vietnam war after he got hom, has been married twice, has two daughters - one of which recently graduated and another which attended Cannes in a see-through outfit, met Teresa Heinz the day before he first husband was killed in a plane crash, he likes to sailboard, snowboard, bike ride and hunt, he own's a house in Idaho as well as other houses, has a yacht named "Scaramouche", likes scallops....I'm sure that everyone else who reads this can come up with a half-dozen other bits of info on Kerry's life different from those I've listed....what in hell is he supposed to talk about now? His shoe size?
Guys and gals, this is a Presidential campaign in the process of imploding...the guy's been in the limelight for months and he figures he needs to introduce himself to people a week before he accepts the nomination he won ages ago...
Pathetic!
As someone living in New York City, I had passively followed the comical conflict over the protest efforts of those who oppose the liberation of millions and thereby end up siding with genocidal dictators. These people are more laughable since now that they have permits to march past the convention and down the west-side of Manhattan, they are complaining that the city isn’t FUNDING their protests by providing the “protesters with water and toilets; commit to not using metal barricades; give the group about $150,000 for a sound system; and provide free subway passes, as well as a shuttle from nearby stations”! Are you kidding me???
I was alerted to a couple of unique posts regarding the designs of protesters at the Republican National Convention of groups like Not In Our Name and Counter Convention. Well, the post that really inspired me was Greg.org’s post:
How I Would Protest At The Republican ConventionGreg's protest idea is brilliant. If they could actually pull that off, I would support their efforts for water, funding speakers, whatever. And I am a tax-cutting, free market, pro-Bush, pro-liberation Republican.Due to a work-related trip out of the country, I will miss the Republican Convention when it comes to town. If I were here, I would protest. I would not use signs, or puppets, or chants; I would protest by reenacting the shocked, dusty exodus from lower Manhattan on the morning of September 11th.
Here's how I would do it:- start downtown, maybe even below Canal street
- wear expendable business attire.
- set up a step ladder on the street and,
- using a mesh tray like they use for goldpanning or a handsifter, even, I would have a friend cover me with dust.
- It would be chalk dust, or line chalk from a football field, rosin, baby powder, or some other fine, whitish, grayish non-toxic dust.
- I would cover my mouth with a handkerchief while doing this, snd keep it with me to wipe my sweaty, dusty face.
- I would offer to cover as many thousands of my fellow protestors in the same manner.
- Then, I would start walking north.
- Or I would start walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, en masse.
- I would let verisimilitude and photogenics dictate my route more than proximity to Madison Square Garden.
- I would be eerily, even unsettlingly, quiet and orderly.
I would take seriously my responsibility as a New Yorker who lived through that horrible day, and take its symbolism back from the politicians who ignored the warnings, did nothing to prepare, sat or flailed wildly when it happened, sowed fear with it ever since, used it to falsely justify a war of misplaced vengeance, put us all in even greater danger than we were before, and who are now coming to town to usurp the most widely shared monument to their failure.But maybe that's just me.
Please, please, please remind EVERYONE what happened that day. Please, please, please remind everyone that this was a conflict STARTED BY THE JIHADISTS but will be finished by us. Please, please, please never forget that day. I pray the protestors are "smart" enough to pull Greg's idea off.
But maybe that is just me.
Teresa Kerry got into a bit of trouble the other day: NRO's Kerry Spot reports the following:
These can't be the opening paragraphs to a New York Times article that the Kerry team hoped for:The crowd was cheering wildly as John Kerry, John Edwards and their spouses danced around one another on the open-air stage at the National Hispanic Cultural Center. Then Teresa Heinz Kerry took her turn at the microphone and said, "I am an immigrant, too," clearly making a bid for the many Hispanics in the audience.
This time the applause was lukewarm and there was some head-shaking; many Hispanic families have been in New Mexico for generations and some take a dim view of immigrants.
You see, in the Democrat's Alternate Universe all Americans of hispanic extraction are immigrants and all of them are in favor of unlimited immigration from hispanic nations, thus Teresa made an ass of herself.
Let me clue ya in, Donks: Especially in New Mexico, the people with last names like Sanchez and Munoz are like as not the descendents of Spanish settlers who arrived in New Mexico a century before it became part of the United States...to them, its Anglos who are the immigrants. Additionally, you might want to latch on to the concept that people who took the time and effort to immigrate to the United States legally might not be too keen on people who make them look bad by coming across the border illegally.
Keep it up, though; each time a Donk opens his or her mouth, things get better for us.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 241-166 to not give U.S. Taxpayer dollars to any country that would hand over Americans to the war crime courts in the Netherlands. 166 Democrats voted to give other countries sovereignty over the rest of us. That just gives us 166 more reasons to make sure President Bush is reelected in November.
Of course the Democrats, by their votes, think that it is perfectly fine to hand an American citizen over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations International Criminal Court. Our enemies will be able to use the courts to go after our military men and women defending us and 166 Democrat Representatives have no problem with it.
This is the same court that has attempted to render Israel defenseless against Arab terrorism.
What makes the travesty complete is that this denial of Israel's right to defend itself because doing so might violate ``humanitarian" rights was read in open court by the chief judge representing China, a government that massacred hundreds of its own citizens demonstrating peacefully in Tiananmen Square.
Well with the Democrats, that figures.
Singer Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino
The Aladdin hotel-casino just earned not only my respect, but also my business.
It is encouraging to see that the American public is not putting up with the Bush & country bashing by the hate/blame America first crowd.
We really can't fault Kerry too much: after all, when you've spent a huge amount of time in Martha's Vinyard, DC and Beverly Hills, you might be forgiven for forgetting that while you're flying from swank locale to swank locale, you're actually flying over the places where average Americans work and live. Senator Byrd had this bit of advice for Senator Kerry:
"I've talked with him. I've told him he should go to West Virginia. He should shake hands with the people. He should be at their level and get a little coal dust on his hands. Get some of that dirty dust on his hands and on his face and live in spirit with the working people of this country, the coal miners. And always, always remember that sovereignty rests, John Kerry, sovereignty rests with the people of this country."
Shake hands with grimey coal miners? What will they say in Manhattan!
I can't help but laugh - this is the Democratic candidate for President; the guy who, with his multi-millionaire trial-lawyer buddy, is supposed to be the Man of the People. Perhaps Kerry should have thought about this before running for President - you know, this necessity for being around and being comfortable with people who maybe don't know what temperature the wine is supposed to be chilled to. President Bush comes from a background at least as privileged as Kerry, but I'll be dollars to donuts President Bush could go into any sports bar in American and be instantly at ease with the people there.
If Kerry had bestired himself to get to know the great nation he aspires to lead he might not have gotten a 100% approval rating from a group dedicated to banning all hunting; he might not have supported a bill to restrict access to America's wild lands; he might not have gotten a 100% rating from the anti-gun Brady Campaign - and had he done these and other things, he might not be headed for defeat this November 2nd.
When John Edward's looked for financial backers for this quixotic run for the White House, he must have been putting out chum, because he sure got a large following of sharks. As we all know, John Edwards is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trial Lawyers, Inc.; but what sort of legal sharks make up our trial lawyer ranks? The Wall Street Journal helpfully points out some of the peculiarities of those who back Little John Edwards:
Tab Turner. Probably the best-known player in suits attempting to blame car crashes on automotive defects, the Little Rock-based Mr. Turner arouses unconcealed loathing from Detroit: In 2000, top Ford spokesman Jason Vines called him "one of those sharks out there who think they've found the keys to the ATM"--the sort of language one almost never hears from company PR operatives. Mr. Turner, whom a future Kerry-Edwards administration would do well to consult before picking a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration head, has been closely identified with keeping alive the widely scoffed-at theory that subtle design flaws, especially in cruise control systems, cause "unintended acceleration" in cars. Coupled with the controversies over breast implants and the origins of cerebral palsy, this may keep life interesting for Kerry staffers who've been developing the theme that serious scientists prefer their candidate.Mr. Turner's firm was responsible for one of the chief embarrassments to hit the Edwards campaign, when a law clerk stated publicly that firm higher-ups had assured staffers that they'd be reimbursed if they donated to the senator's White House run; the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section opened a criminal probe. Mr. Turner himself, puzzlingly, spoke to reporters as if he hadn't realized that the practice was unlawful. The Edwards campaign promptly announced that it was returning $10,000 in donations, which still leaves Turner & Associates as Mr. Edwards's No. 5 donor in the Center for Public Integrity's tally. Reporters have found a nationwide pattern of paralegals and office administrators at other law firms maxing out, even though some weren't registered to vote and others had lately suffered bankruptcies and other financial reverses. (All sides deny wrongdoing.)
And thats just one sample of many, and not the one currently under indictment. Go read the whole article.
Whatever you do, no matter what you hear, understand that the trial lawyers of the United States are not interested in truth and justice. They are only interested in picking up huge fees for themselves and if they have to lie, make up bogus science or bully an accused to get the cash, they'll do it. Turn what you've read over in your mind for a bit and then ask yourself this:
Is John Edwards the sort of man you want a heartbeat away from the Presidency?
Remember how John Kerry was just amazed with Joe Wilson? When Joe Wilson was the flavor of the month in the BUSH LIED!!! meme, John Kerry couldn't get enough of Joe Wilson...in fact, John Kerry's campaign paid for a website called RestoreHonesty.com, a website dedicated to Joe Wilson and his theories about President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq. At the bottom of the website, you can see this:
Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.
Funny thing, though, is that several links on the Joe Wilson website no longer lead anywhere. Such entries as
Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry
Kerry Calls for Special Counsel in Wilson Investigation
What I Didn't Find in Africa - By Joe Wilson (The New York Times)
Now bring you to a web page which states this:
You have requested a page that has a broken link or is not on the site...Return to John Kerry Home Page
When did John Kerry stop calling for a Special Counsel for the Plame/Wilson investigation? Did anyone get the press release from Kerry stating that he's decided to drop his call for such in light of new information showing Joe Wilson and his wife to be bald-faced liars? Guess not - I guess that John Kerry is just hoping that Joe Wilson will quietly go away and no one will be rude enough to ask him about the guy.
This is the sort of cretinous behaviour we're getting from Kerry and the rest of the Donk's these days...making oh, so serious statements that whatever the BUSH LIED!!!! meme-of-the-week is must be investigated fully, then dropping the whole matter like a bad habit when the BUSH LIED!!! crap turns out to be a lie itself...contemptible, thats what they are.
Thank God we've got a President and a Party which doesn't engage in such egregiously dishonest behaviour. Remember that on November 2nd.
Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today
Below is the actual Slim-fast ad featuring "former" (hehe) Slim-fast spokesman, Whoopi Goldberg:
The Donk's are having a crisis; HRH, Senator Hillary Clinton isn't scheduled to speak at their convention. What are we to make of this?
Well, initially, as much fun as we can of Democrats in general.
Here's the lay of the land - Hillary Clinton is the superstar of the Democratic Party (Bill would be, but he can't be elected President again - Hillary is the only Clinton who can until Chelsea turns 35); she's in the Senate (where she actually shows up to vote and tries to move Democratic legislation, unlike certain other Democratic Sentors I could name), she's a huge fundraiser and the Democratic rank and file would literally jump off a cliff for her.
So, you'd think this is a no-brainer (you know, perfect for Democrats): Have Hillary speak in prime time, perhaps intro'ing John Kerry. Nothing doing, it would seem. She's not scheduled to speak, just to show up for a photo-op with the other female Donk Senators and then off she goes. This is not sitting well with the Clintonistas:
Top Democratic officials enraged some of their most loyal supporters by keeping Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — the party's top fund-raiser and most popular figure — from any significant role at their convention later this month."I think it's a total slap in the face," said voter Bob Kunst, a longtime Democrat from Florida. "Here's a woman who raised $17 million for the party, and they're putting her in a second-class position."
Here's the problem - John Kerry is not only a zero of a pol who got shoved into the nomination because smarter pols (Hillary, eg) didn't want to lose to President Bush in 2004, he knows he's a zero. Come what may, this is John Kerry's moment - and he knows that if Hillary is anywhere near it then he'll look so small and ridiculous that he might suffer the indignity of having the Donk convention spontaneously nominate Hillary instead.
Some are theorizing that this is all a set-up; you know, gin up some interest in a convention which is bound to be a deathly bore..."will she speak? We go now to our correspondent for the latest rumor". Problem with that theory is that a big build-up to a "surprise" Hillary speech would just do more damage to Kerry's relative stature.
The Donk's are all on and on and on about how unified they are - don't buy it for a moment; they're not even unified in their desire to oust President Bush...what seems more important is pre-positioning for 2008.
Fun, fun, fun - a great time to be a Republican.
The New York Times reports this morning that the Democrats have left Hillary Clinton off the speaker list for their nominating convention, even though she plans on being in Boston:
The Democratic National Committee released on Tuesday its lineup of the big-name politicians speaking at the convention this month, and it included every major Democratic star except one.There were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, near the top of the list. Al Gore was there, too, and so was Edward M. Kennedy. Even the wife of the Iowa governor made the cut. But Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York and one of the most prominent names in the party, was nowhere to be found. ...
"She never asked," said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign. "Obviously, Hillary Clinton is a leader in the party and is working hard to elect John Kerry." But Ms. Cutter said she did not know whether each speaker, including Ms. Clinton's husband, had formally requested time.
"She never asked"? It seems to me that using one of your most recognized and (unfortunately, these days) moderate faces on the podium would have so much value that the Democrats could have picked up the phone and asked her. According to conventional wisdom, supposedly the Bush/Cheney ticket is vulnerable with women, even though recent polling shows surprising strength among suburban women for the Republicans. How better to exploit that vulnerability than to have your most well-known female politico on the stump for national TV?
Apparently not. The plan for Mrs. Clinton, former First Lady and Senator of the nation's second-largest state by population, will be as a chorus girl for Barbara Mikulski, the senior female Senator from Maryland, and only on opening night. After that, the men take over -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and even Ragin' Al Gore.
Raymond Hernandez and John Files report that, privately, Democrats are just as puzzled:
Some wondered if the Kerry-Edwards campaign was worried about being upstaged by a woman who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, most likely in 2008. Others speculated that the campaign was worried that Mrs. Clinton may be too polarizing a political figure to showcase during an event intended to appeal to the broadest political audience.The speculation about Mrs. Clinton's political future has heated up since Mr. Kerry's announcement last week that his running mate would be John Edwards, the youthful and charismatic senator from North Carolina. Many Democrats say the decision means Mr. Edwards could present an alternative to Ms. Clinton in 2008, if President Bush is re-elected this year.
Some Democrats wondered whether this potential rivalry was behind the decision to keep Mrs. Clinton off the list of convention speakers.
Hillary lovers need not despair entirely. As Hernandez and Files report, the conventions are long affairs, with plenty of spots for fill-in speakers:
Lina Garcia, a spokeswoman for the convention, said there was still a chance that Mrs. Clinton could land a role as a speaker. "There's a possibility she could," she said. "There's a possibility she couldn't." Ms. Garcia indicated that there would be a need to fill up some air time during the heavily choreographed four-day event. "There are obviously going to be other speakers to fill up the day," she said.
In other words, don't call us -- we'll call you. And we'll use your silence as an excuse to treat you like a consolation prize.
Far left wing Democrats are wanting to disrupt the 2004 Republican convention by trying to fool bomb-sniffing dogs on trains bound for Penn Station. They also plan to throw marbles under the hooves of police horses and use slingshots to hurl the marbles at the Police Horses.
They are deliberately sabotaging security for the Republican National Convention at a time when Homeland Security is warning about additional attacks.
These Democrats are not only anti-war, they are on our enemy’s side and need to be dealt with as harshly as the law allows. You and I both know that fellow American's are going to get hurt if these anarchists follow through with their plans.
Its a truism of politics that the selection of a challenger's VP gives the ticket a boost in the polls...this is generally because a new face always seems good on first examination and, also, the press coverage of the new VP nominee is usually pretty positive (Dan Quayle's selection in 1988 being a stark exception to this rule). Real Clear Politics points out today, however, that even with overwhelmingly positive coverage of the Edwards pick, the Kerry/Edwards ticket hasn't picked up all that much:
John Edwards is giving the Kerry campaign a bounce, but it sure isn't that big. I suspect both the Dems and the GOP were expecting something a bit larger.In the six polls taken since Kerry announced his VP choice on Tuesday, Kerry/Edwards has moved ahead of Bush/Cheney by 5.4% in the head-to-head race. Compared to the average of the last 6 polls conducted prior to Kerry's announcement, that represents a net gain of 4.3%.
It's about the same in the three way race. In the five surveys last week that included Nader/Camejo in the mix, Kerry/Edwards is averaging a 2.2% lead over Bush/Cheney. Compare this to the last five polls leading up to Kerry's announcement and you see a net gain of only 3.6%.
There's still the Democratic National Convention rapidly upcoming, of course. I don't think, however, that this year will be all that good a "convention bounce" for the Democrats...press coverage will be minimal in prime-time; and there's also the fact that at the end of it all, John Kerry is front and center...never a good thing for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Lets still work as if we're 10 points down in mid-October, but lets also look forward to the future with confidence.
I was watching a bit of news this morning before I went to work and I came across this talking-head program on which there was a Democratic and a Republican analyst expressing their views about the election. The Republican strategist was no great shakes, a bit inarticulate - or, perhaps, just flabbergasted. You see, the Democratic analyst said that the world is a better place because Saddam is removed but given the intelligence failures pre-liberation, the whole liberation was proved un-necessary. I had a hard time trying to square that. Its either, on balance, a good thing, or a bad thing - it can't be both....
The particular analyst who gave the opinion is unimportant, and for the life of me I can't even recall which Sunday-morning talk show it was (other than that it was on Fox); what is important is this complete disconnect, this unreality of the Democrat's statement - and, additionally, how this was just the most articulate expression of the amazingly incoherent message the Democrats are peddling this year.
Victor Davis Hanson in a recent article captured a bit of this for us:
Do the trivialists want Saddam and the Taliban back in power? Does a Mr. Allawi repulse them? Do they wish 10,000 American troops back in Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they want Libya to resume its work on nukes? Do they care whether Dr. Khan returns to his lab? Or do they think it is child's play to hike back through the Dark Ages into the Pakistani borderlands looking for bin Laden? And is it all that easy to have prevented another 9/11 attack for almost three years now of constant vigilance? Perhaps they would like to deal with the corrupt, duplicitous, and tottering Saudi Royal family, which just happens to sit on 25 percent of the world's oil reserves — without whose daily production the economies of Japan, Korea, and China would almost immediately grind to a halt.
Carefully sifting through the Democratic rhetoric, we end up not knowing what the heck they actually want - even such an anti-Bush polemicist like Michael Moore doesn't, in the end, tell us what he wants...the only thing we get out of our Democrats is that they just don't like what is going on. They've got their litany of complaints, but no alternatives - its hard to even call them anti-war, because they wont just come out opposed to the war (Kerry managed to short-circuit an attempt to lard up the Democratic Party Platform with just such a bold, anti-war assertion).
After thinking it over this past day (it wasn't a particularly busy day at work), its come clear to me that these Democrats just cannot be taken seriously. For a moment there, they seemed fierce opponents - now they just seem spoiled, petulant children who had their toy (political power) taken away from them. Just like a spoiled, petulant child they can cause a bit of havoc and no end of pain for the adults of the world but in the final analysis, people do not turn authority over to children.
They wont be able to square the circle - they had a choice on September 12th, 2001; either go whole-hog into the war effort, or become the anti-war Party. In the end, they've done neither - they condemn the effort in Iraq, but say they'll carry it through to victory; they condemn the Patriot Act, and say they wont repeal it; they condemn the detainment center at Gitmo, but don't pledge to close it down....this schizophrenic attempt to have it both ways just doesn't wash - eventually the commercial comes out showing the Democrat taking both sides of the issue and he loses.
Off the wires today is a story on bloggers receiving credentials to the Democrat National Convention Quagmire in Boston at the end of this month. Amongst other problems the DNC has been facing, it appears even the giving of credentials to lib-bloggers had some hitches.
More than 30 independent Web journalists have been accredited to cover the Democratic convention, and the Republicans said Friday they'll also credential so-called bloggers.It's the first time bloggers will be joining the thousands of newspaper, magazine and broadcast journalists at the quadrennial presidential-nomination events.
The Democrats initially invited an additional 20 bloggers to their July 26-29 party in Boston, but later rescinded those approvals and blamed a computer gaffe. That prompted complaints of unprofessionalism and favoritism.
Ouch. That has to hurt. Will the DNC get anything right?
Anticipating criticisms that decisions were ideologically based, Wilhide said only two of the 20 credentials rescinded were for "right-leaning" blogs. She pointed to the approval of at least one "right-leaning" blog, Oxblog, though the co-founder who applied, Patrick Belton, is a registered Democrat who considers himself centrist.
Blogs For Bush, on the other hand, will not be in attendance at the DNC, for I received my rejection letter in the mail earlier this week. Certainly no computer glitch. One could only assume the DNC wasn't going to bend over backwards to allow a blogger from "Blogs For Bush" to receive coveted credentials to their convention.
No worries – I have other plans for the convention in Boston.
One blogger, Bill Ardolino, received an approval letter in the mail Tuesday, only to be disinvited via e-mail the next day, and is now out nearly $1,000 for hotel and travel he arranged after receiving the first letter.
Ardolino, 28, runs INDC Journal from Washington, D.C., and acknowledges he's an "outspoken critic" of Democratic nominee John Kerry."I certainly have the suspicion that it's because of the nature of my site," Ardolino said. "The whole thing is unprofessional. They've really messed up what could have generated a lot of good will in the blogosphere."
Wilhide would not release a full list of the approved bloggers, but said they included the Democratic-leaning Burnt Orange Report, Daily Kos, Pandagon.net and TalkLeft. Jerome Armstrong of MyDD.com also confirmed to The Associated Press that he had been accepted.
Bloggers will have the same access as traditional journalists within the FleetCenter convention hall, Wilhide said. And bloggers will join radio journalists with workspace in the FleetCenter itself, while other media will be in nearby buildings, she said.
Democrats also will host a breakfast for bloggers on opening day.
I wouldn't have wanted to spend a breakfast with Markos Moulitsas ("Kos") anyways.
UPDATE: John Tabin of The American Spectator was one of the bloggers who got a letter saying he was to be given credentials and then got denied. Curiously enough the "unauthorized" letter he received was personally signed... as was my rejection letter...
Edwards has this to say about John Kerry:
"He will keep our military strong, protect the American people, and create strong alliances around the world so that no young American ever goes to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone."
This is a clear implication that we went in to liberate Iraq needlessly - part of the Donk mantra about Iraq which was reinforced today by Senator Jay Rockefeller who absurdly claimed that had the Congress known about the pre-liberation intelligence failures, the liberation of Iraq would not have been authorized (he seems to forget that liberating Iraq was part of US law since 1998). Edwards, however, didn't always feel that we were going to war needlessly...
I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. - John Edwards, on CNN Late Edition, Febuary 24, 2002
Thats more than a year before the liberation of Iraq began...its a very long time before the President started to turn our full effort to the Iraq situation (at that time we were wrapping up Afganistan). John Edwards was, on February 24, 2004, a United States Senator talking only a bit more than 5 months after the 9/11 attacks upon the United States...and he was saying something that no Administration official was saying then, or ever said at any time since then - that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.
People like Edwards and Kerry claim they were duped into supporting the liberation of Iraq - but such claims of 2004 just do not square with statements of 2003 and 2002 (and 2001, and 2000, and 1999, etc ad infinitum). What are we to make of this?
First off, that beating President Bush is more important for the Democrats than being truthful. A lie is ok, as long as it serves the most important need of modern times - beating President Bush. Additionally, and far more importantly, it shows that our Democrats (or, at least, the senior leadership of the Democratic Party) simply will not put country in front of party. I believe that its a certainty that had President Bush not ordered the liberation of Iraq, then the mantra of the Democrats would be about how we're letting Saddam continue to build his WMD programs, which are known to be a clear and imminent threat to the United States - they will say whatever seems to immediately cast themselves in a good light and President Bush in a bad light. This is not important coming from people without power - but its horrendous for people in power.
If John Kerry and John Edwards were guiding the destiny of our nation, then we must understand that only political calculation will be taken into consideration - this political calculation may, at times, impell them to make the correct decision, but we cannot rely upon it. If Kerry/Edwards felt that their political survival (and, remember, Kerry would be looking for re-election in 2008, and Edwards would want to keep himself viable for 2012) dictated a surrender or a retreat in the War on Terrorism, we may rest assured they would make the surrender, or carry out the retreat - there is no other conclusion which may be drawn from their past actions and statements.
As we go into the voting booths on November 2nd, this is what must be uppermost in our minds: Do we want a President who will do what he thinks right regardless of consequences, or do we want a President who will do whatever seems most politically expedient?
Ted Rall is one of the lowest forms of human beings I can imagine. His utter contempt for others is beyond belief. We have seen his disgusting behavior before, but as usual no amount shame will stop his brand of hate speech. The latest attack is calling up the memory of racist remarks by Harry Bellafonte and other cartoonists:
What is scary is many more of the Left are lockstep with Ted Rall than you could ever imagine.
Actually quite appropriate for me to do, as I'm in the process of remodelling my bathroom and the next thing on the list is to get rid of the John. Anyways...
As we noted back on January 12th, John Edwards is:
...a pretty conventional "tax and spend and regulate" Democrat. He wants expanded Earned Income Tax credits (ie, tax 'refunds' to people who didn't pay taxes), more money for teachers (ie, more money for teacher's union bosses), government-paid healthcare for the poor and middle class (nothing like middle class entitlements to build electoral majorities), increase the minimum wage, regulation on lending practices (ie, make it easier to deadbeats to not pay their debts - a nifty way to buy votes) - while on matters of abortion, affirmative action, immigration and such, you might was well just check with the editorial board of the New York Times, wherein Democrats have deposited their brains for safe-keeping.
And thats all well and good and gives us more ammunition to fire at him than we'll ever really need - but lets concentrate on the most important part of John Edwards: he's a trial lawyer. More than that, he's a trial lawyer who specialised in medical malpractice. Once upon a time, malpractice might have been a good way to keep good doctors on their toes, but the over-abundance of lawyers in the United States has turned it into another "lawsuit lottery" - in this case, a place where lawyers entirely ignorant of matters medical do some Monday morning quarterbacking upon well-trained doctors, looking for anything which can fairly or unfairly be called a mistake and then suing. This has caused medical malpractice insurance rates to skyrocket and has had a deletrious effect on healthcare in varied parts of the country.
One of those places is my hometown of Las Vegas; where Ob/Gyn's are moving out and lawyers are moving in. Can't tell you how delighted we are to have a lawyer around when a woman goes into labor. But Las Vegas isn't the only place to have this problem. Frank P. points out that Pennsylvania is also afflicted:
As anyone who lives in Pennsylvania knows, Medical Malpractice is an important issue in the state. The cost of Medical malpractice insurance has risen to such a level that some doctors in certain areas of practice forced to leave the state. Furthermore, as Doctor's premiums rise, they are forced to pass on their costs on to the Health insurance providers, mostly HMO's. As HMO's and Health insurance providers' costs rise, they are forced to pass on their costs on to the consumer, average working class people.At the heart of this exodus of surgeons and practitioners from the State and the ever increasing cost of Health insurance in PA is the vast number of lawsuits and the escalating amount jury awards.
John Edwards talks a great Donk game about "two America's". What he wants you to believe is that he's fighting for the America of the little guy - amazingly, he actually has the gall to point to his ambulance-chasing as proof that he helps out the little guy. The plain fact of the matter is, however, that John Edwards has mostly helped out John Edwards...not by producing a good or service in vital need, but by placing a "Trial Laywer Tax" on the healthcare system of the United States...all in order to buy John some swell digs, a Senate seat and a potential Vice Presidency as a spring-board to the White House. Each time you pay a medical bill, keep in mind that a percentage of the proceeds goes to trial lawyers living in the lap of luxury on your dime - also keep in mind that part of the reason you're waiting so long to see a doctor is because trial lawyers have forced so many doctors out of practice by their shakedowns.
This is what we need to hit Edwards on - a pretty boy who doesn't know anything, and who has never done anything of note, using our medical payments as a means of advancing his own selfish interests.
Q. Which one called President George W. Bush a criminal?
A. Both.
I know that that Michael Moore is getting to be old news to most of us, myself included. We can either lay here and hope it goes away or fight back against the out right distortions that this Anti-American makes. I for one am not going to hope it goes away.
Newsweek writers Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball just released their newest article and it details what an outright fraud Moore is.
There must be quite a bit of interest in Moore's manipulating of facts and his spinning of statistics as Hardy and Clarke's book Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man is now up to #3 on Amazon!!!!
John Kerry has made George Bush's supposedly failed diplomacy his major campaign theme this election cycle. Kerry's has trumpeted his long involvement in foreign relations as his main qualification for the Presidency. Now comes word that Kerry's personal diplomacy couldn't resolve a simple contract dispute between two of his own supporters, forcing him to cancel a campaign appearance:
Caught in a labor dispute between his hometown mayor and the city's police and firefighters' unions, Senator John Kerry sided Sunday with the unions. Mr. Kerry had planned to give a speech here on Monday morning to the United States Conference of Mayors.But members of the city's largest police union, who have been working without a contract for two years, along with the firefighters, who are also in contract talks, have been picketing Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the host of the conference, wherever he goes, and were set to do so Monday at the hotel where Mr. Kerry was scheduled to speak.
With each side hoping to press Mr. Kerry to embarrass the other, his schedule remained up in the air for more than 24 hours as he debated whether to antagonize a crucial Democratic supporter or a union local and its - not to mention his - allies in organized labor, a core Democratic constituency.
By 8 p.m. Sunday, despite what one participant described as "tedious" efforts to broker a solution, Mr. Kerry's aides gave up hope that a deal could be reached to get the unions to suspend their picketing long enough for Mr. Kerry to attend the conference without having to cross the line.
This is but a preview, of course, of what will happen at the convention if the union action isn't stopped by then, but that's not really the story here. For one thing, the union has indicated that it will probably refrain from picketing the convention, as the union's legislative agent, James Barry, said in response to the question: "If John Kerry respects our picket line tomorrow, I think we respect John Kerry." The temptation may be too much to resist, though, as the police have been working for two years without a contract and will never have such leverage over the mayor again.
Speaking of the mayor, Thomas Menino serves as John Kerry's co-chair for his Massachussetts re-election campaign, and he did not sound very happy about his leader's decision yesterday. Earlier, he told reporters that leadership was about making decisions, and it looks like Menino may have hinted that Republican descriptions of Kerry as weak and vacillating may not be far off the mark:
For an ally, though, Mr. Menino also had some pointed words for Mr. Kerry, whose Republican opponents portray him as vacillating and indecisive, when he seemed to dare Mr. Kerry to rebuff a labor union."As a candidate, it's about making decisions," Mr. Menino said of Mr. Kerry, repeating a line he used often this weekend. "He has to make that decision. I'm not going to make that decision for him. There's 250 mayors who walked through the lines. Mayors make those decisions every day of the year."
Kerry's inability to negotiate a temporary truce between two of his own supporters, as I said earlier, belies his self-promoted reputation for diplomacy. If Kerry can't find common ground between a Democratic mayor serving on his campaign and a police union which endorsed him for President, how can anyone expect him to negotiate agreements between, say, France and the US on security matters? Pakistan and India? Hell, what about Nancy Pelosi and Denny Hastert?
It appears that Kerry's talent for negotiation has been greatly exaggerated, which makes sense when you look at his legislative record. As has been noted before, Kerry has initiated a relatively paltry number of bills during his nineteen-year tenure in the Senate. This poor track record either shows a lack of interest in the actual work of legislation, or it demonstrates an inability to contruct the necessary coalitions across party lines to push legislation through.
Kerry may continue to vaunt his diplomacy, but for the moment, he's not even fooling Thomas Menino. Why should he be able to fool anyone else?
UPDATE: The association of mayors didn't go without trenchant political commentary -- Governor Mitt Romney subbed for John Kerry, in a last-minute upgrade replacement.
"They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever,"
"So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding 'no credible evidence' of an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, it should not have come as a surprise. It should not have caught the White House off guard."
Maybe he needs a history lesson...
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden....
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
I wonder if Al Gore was "caught off guard" about this.
I'm guessing he won't talk about the Al Qaeda/Iraq connections that were claimed by the Clinton Administration in his next speech.
Written by guest blogger Michael of The Common Virtue.
________________________
John Kerry seems to be having some problems in Washington:
Democrat John Kerry, angry he was denied a chance to cast a Senate vote on veterans' benefits, lashed out at Republicans on Wednesday and condemned President Bush as the most divisive president in modern history.Kerry had interrupted a Western campaign swing for an expected vote on Tuesday on a proposal to increase health care funding for veterans, one of his signature issues, but Republican Senate leaders refused to hold the vote while Kerry was in town.
Republicans had poisoned the political atmosphere in Washington, Kerry said, and he ridiculed Bush's promises during the 2000 campaign to be a "uniter, not a divider."
"He's been the greatest divider as a president in the modern history of this country," the Democratic presidential candidate said.
Republicans openly derided Kerry's attempt on Tuesday to jet back to Washington for the vote. Kerry has missed most of the Senate's business this year while running for president.
"Senator Kerry, who hadn't been here all year, who's missed 80 percent of all votes this year, parachutes in for a day and then will be taking off once again," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters.
For some reason, John Kerry thinks he deserves special treatment. The man has missed 80% of the votes so far, which means he is not doing his job. Remember, John Kerry was elected by the people of Massachusetts to do a specific job, which he refuses to do. Kerry somehow believes he is entitled to consciously not do his job, except when he decides to vote on a few bills that will scores him the most points, such as voting for this veterans' benefits bill.
No, John Kerry is not entitled to special treatment. If he cannot do his job and actually vote on the majority of bills that go through Congress, then he should not expect to be able to vote on choice bills when they become politically convenient. He either does his job and votes on all or most bills or he should not accept the benefits of voting for just measures.
I am also tired of hearing Democrats claim President Bush is the most divisive president in history. In every election Democrats whine and complain about Republicans and how they are dividing the nation. I hate to break the news to them, but politics as a rule is very divisive. It requires people to take principled stands on issues. I know this is hard for John Kerry because he has no principles, but he needs to get a clue and realize politics has always been divisive.
Do John Kerry and the other Democrats even hear what they are saying? Do they realize how absurd they are? All of the things they are saying now come straight out of the Democrat political playbook from the 1980's. Ronald Reagan faced all of the same accusations President Bush now faces. Democrats called Ronald Reagan the "most divisive" President of all time. Democrats called Ronald Reagan a "cowboy" and derided him for "unilateral action." These Democrats never learn.
Democrats can claim President Bush is the "most divisive President in history" all they want, and it rings hollow. To these people, being divisive means you do not concede to liberal positions. If they do not want Republicans to play politics and stand up for their principles, calling them divisive, why do Democrats refuse to concede to Republicans? The fact is all politicians are divisive. That is the nature of the beast, and any politicians who is not divisive has no principles. I suppose that is why Democrats like John Kerry, a man with no principles, morals or beliefs. He is so indicisive, in an attempt to be indivisive, that he appeals to almost nobody.
I've been saying for a while now that our Democratic friends are living in an alternate universe - a universe where everything is pretty much opposite to what we actually experience here in the real world.
Its a universe in which 4.4% GDP growth is the worst economy since Hoove, 800 military deaths in more than a year of fighting is as bad as the 6,000 military deaths in Vietnam 1966, where a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay holding some thousands of terrorists is the same as a Soviet Gulag holding millions of innocents, where the mild abuse of some prisoners is the same as Saddam having his thugs cut the hands off his opponents.
Well, Bret Stephens over at Opinion Journal has a different take on it: our Democratic friends are actually just barking mad:
What makes these arguments insane--I use the word advisedly--isn't that they don't contain some possible germ of truth. One can argue that Mr. Clinton was a reasonably good president. And one can argue that Bush economic policy has not been a success. But you have to be insane to argue that Mr. Clinton was FDR incarnate, and you have to be insane to argue Mr. Bush has brought the U.S. to its lowest economic point since 1932. This style of hyperbole is a symptom of madness, because it displays such palpable disconnect from observable reality.
This might be a better way to actually go about describing our Democrats these days: Insane.
What, after all, would we call a man who said that water isn't wet? Well, our Democrats are essentially making this claim - they are boldly stating what is easily observable as palpable nonsense. When a Sid Blumenthal calls the phase of the war we are currently in "a Stalingrad-like phase of urban siege and house-to-house combat", this is making the claim that black is white. Its either that or the word "Stalingrad" is just a word that Blumenthal heard once upon a time and he's been looking for a chance to work it into a sentence - no one who is actually familiar with Stalingrad would possibly compare it to our current circumstances, unless he was insane.
So, have a care, fellow GOPers - remember when you debate our Democratic friends that they are laboring under a severe mental defect. Be kind to them; treat them with kid gloves because there but for the grace of God, go you - we should always be sympathetic to the mentally challenged.
Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't whack them from pillar to post on November 2nd....
Looks like the Clinton's illegal fundraising from Asian Americans is part of the John Kerry playbook for this election campaign. As you read this you will see that until the press revealed this the Kerry campaign was fine with the money. Also, this guy was a known Democrat fundraiser from a famous family:
John Kerry's campaign collected a maximum $2,000 check from the recently arrested son of South Korea's disgraced former president, and some of its fund-raisers met several times with a South Korean government official who was trying to organize a Korean-American political group.The Kerry campaign said it did not know about the $2,000 donation from Chun Jae-yong or his background until informed by The Associated Press and has decided to return the money to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
"We are sending the check back," spokesman Michael Meehan said.
South Korean government officials told the AP that a top official in its Los Angeles consulate office returned home last month amid "speculation" he had engaged in Democratic politics, but they do not believe any laws were broken.
Chun Jae-yong was arrested in February by South Korean authorities on charges of evading taxes on $14 million in inheritance money. His father, former president Chun Dooh-hwan, was convicted in 1997 on bribery charges.
Chun Jae-yong was business partners last year with Rick Yi, one of Kerry's major fund-raisers in the Asian-American community. Yi acknowledged soliciting the donation from Chun last summer before learning of his legal problems.
"I didn't think anything wrong of it," said Yi, who has raised more than $500,000 for Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, and Democratic causes. Yi is listed as one of the campaign's fund-raising vice chairmen. "If I had known who he was at the time I probably would not have taken the money," he said.
Yi, a former military attache in the Clinton White House, said he was business partners with Chun for about six months last year in a Duluth, Ga., company called OR Solutions Inc. When making his donation Aug. 11, Chun listed himself as the company's president and chief operating officer.
...
Kerry has been forced on several occasions to answer questions or return donations after media reports that he accepted money from donors with unsavory backgrounds.
For instance, Kerry received $10,000 in donations in the 1990s through controversial Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung after his Senate office arranged a tour for Chung at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Johnny Chung later pleaded guilty to making illegal straw donations, including some to Kerry.
How far ar
