Sunday, October 31, 2004
Gov. Ed Rendell tried to use the last minute confusion in Pennsylvania over Ralph Nader's ballot status as a way to "legally" deny military absentee voters the right to vote for the remaining candidates. Now he has chad on his face for his shameless attempt to deny absentee voters a deadline extension. It took PA's other politicians, local radio talk shows and eventually national talk radio/TV to force him to rethink committing political suicide for John Kerry. But it was only after he was sued by military members that he finally caved in.
Ultimately, I've decided to take the advice of a friend's grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he'd change. "If you can't live with him exactly the way he is," she told me, "then don't marry him, because he'll say he's going to change, and he might even try to change, but it's one in a million that he actually will."
Kerry's record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy -- Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will -- and it's finally clear. For all the administration's screw -ups -- and there have been many -- I'm sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004.
The folks at Alarming News ask "Is it still 'disenfranchisement' when they vote 3-1 Republican?"
As Mr. Card noted, the liberal democrats think it's "OK" to deny someone their civil rights if the person in question isn't going to vote for them.
Here are some highlights of his column, The Death of Shame:
Then in the campaign of 2000, I became increasingly angry over the truly vicious lies that were being told to African-American groups about George W. Bush. The solemn warnings of a return to Jim Crow if Bush were elected made it sound as if Bush were Strom Thurmond of 1948, when they knew perfectly well that Bush was one of the few Republicans who actually deserved -- and, in Texas, got -- a higher than normal percentage of the black vote.
And the Leftist-dominated media, instead of exposing the racially charged language being used by Gore's supporters -- as they would certainly have done if a Republican had used identical, but racially reversed, language to all-white audiences -- let it go on and on virtually unmentioned.
Of course, after nearly four years of Bush's presidency, it should be obvious to black voters that the terrible warnings they were given in 2000 were completely false. But the race-baiting is already under way, albeit on a smaller scale, as the Democrats piously warn of "voter intimidation."
Then in Florida, during the so-called "recount," the Left shamelessly sprayed out accusations of how the Republicans had "disenfranchised" poor voters, though in fact all they ever showed was the normal error rate that had been accepted for many years in elections throughout America -- an error rate that was always assumed to apply equally to both sides.
In fact, that was the obvious basis of Richard Daley's selective recount effort on behalf of Gore in Florida. If you only recount the most Democrat-dominated voting precincts, then, by finding the normal number of errors, the resulting increase in correctly counted ballots will be tilted strongly for the Democratic candidate.
It was a scam -- which was exposed by Gore's attempt to block the counting of the absentee ballots of American servicemen from Florida, since it is well known that the people who volunteer for the military tend to vote two-to-one in favor of the Republican presidential candidate.
And yet the Democrats piously continue to this day to treat the whole vote-count affair, not as an obvious attempt to steal an election by manipulating selected groups of ballots, but as some noble attempt to block the evil Republicans from depriving poor helpless minorities from having their ballots fairly counted.
Meanwhile, the Democrats engage in wholesale, flat-out lying, ranging from Kerry's false charges against America's soldiers in Vietnam, his phony claims about Christmas in Cambodia and what it was he threw over the fence when he said they were his medals, to present charges that Bush has blocked stem-cell research and that if Kerry were president, paralytics would rise up and walk.
If a Republican had said these things, the media would throw him into the flames, never letting us forget these ridiculous and contemptible lies for a second. Instead, we get the ABC News memo that makes it clear that Republican distortions are to be trumpeted, while Democratic ones are "not central" and therefore can be ignored.
The Left fancies that it has a monopoly on intellectuals. When an online magazine invites published authors to tell whom they're voting for and why, out of dozens only four (including me) are voting for Bush. The most interesting thing is that the four pro-Bush authors offer clear reasons for their vote, but the pro-Kerry authors spew out invective against Bush or give cute or clever "reasons" that simply treat the question as being beneath serious discussion.
I get letters that are endless variations on the same theme: Mr. Card, I like your books and you seem so wise, but yet you're supporting Bush. Why don't you look at the evidence and realize that Bush is the devil and Kerry will save us from the disaster that Bush is leading us toward?
Yet when I choose to answer these letters and ask them to get specific, it becomes obvious that none -- no, not one -- of these people has actually examined the evidence at all.
So when the Left acts hypocritically, one can assume that they do feel shame, and for years I have made that mistake.
But I no longer believe it. Because the double standards of the Left today are not prompted by any sense that the lies and misbehavior they are concealing are wrong, but rather by the fact that the exposure of those lies and misbehavior would be politically inconvenient.
Indeed, the whole question of right or wrong is irrelevant to the thinking of the Left.
They speak the language of morality, declaring Bush to be evil (or variations on that theme), but in fact the Left lives in a moral universe in which there is only one moral virtue, and here it is:
It is good and right for power to be in the hands of the Left.
So when the Democrats lost Congress, they began to behave like big babies. When Republicans did to them what they had done to Republicans in Congress for forty years, suddenly it was unfair. The world had gone mad. The ruled-over were suddenly ruling. The Helots were in charge and the Spartans could not bear it.
Democrats had come to think of themselves as the ruling class.
That is the mindset that explains all the behavior of the Left since 1994. If they are not in power, then clearly something is deeply, disturbingly wrong with the world, and any means to restore the proper order of things is perfectly acceptable.
That's why it's OK to do selective recounts in Florida and try to disenfranchise American soldiers and sailors -- all the while claiming that it's the Republicans who are disenfranchising people.
That's why it's OK to filibuster in the Senate in order to block the president from appointing perfectly qualified judges -- and why it's OK to make ridiculously false attacks on those judicial appointees.
That's why it's fine for John Kerry to pretend that he'll be tough on defense even though everybody on the Left is counting on him doing just the opposite in office -- because any lie that restores the proper order of things is a good lie.
That's why Kerry and Edwards can lie about Bush's record on stem cell research and make hilarious and offensive claims that if they are elected, the crippled will rise up and walk. A Republican making such a claim would become a complete laughingstock in the media; but if it might sway a single voter to restore the proper order of things, then the Leftist media dare not to discredit the claim.
That's why CBS throws journalistic ethics to the wind and runs with a story about Bush's National Guard service that is based on obviously fabricated documents. That's why ABC News has no problem with exposing only "distortions" by Bush and ignoring outright lies by Kerry
That's why lawyers and politicians are already gearing up to attempt to steal the election after the fact by making false claims about intimidation of minority voters by evil Republicans -- when they know perfectly well that it's the Left that is openly using tactics of intimidation.
Like when they sent mobs of union workers to "demonstrate" inside the small local offices of the Bush campaign in Florida, terrifying a handful of Bush campaign workers with a Brown-shirt tactic that, if it had been carried out by, say, NRA members against Kerry headquarters, would now be the biggest story of the campaign season.
That's why the intellectual Left feels perfectly justified in vilifying, slandering, scare-mongering, hating, intimidating, and cheating, all the while claiming a moral superiority.
The Left is firmly convinced that good is only possible in the world when they are in power; therefore they can do any number of unfair, indecent, or dishonest things in pursuit of that goal.
Without shame. Without guilt.
Because they don't believe there is such a thing as "sin." Only power. And whoever gets the power, makes the rules. To the Left, the only shameful act in 2004 is voting Republican.
And if we vote for candidates who show themselves to have no shame, then we deserve the government that they will give us.
There is more and it's worth your time to read the whole thing.
As the folks over at Occam's Toothbrush put it back in March:
We should get this guy, I mean September 11 was bad, but violating campaign-finance laws? that's just wrong
He nailed that one! The recent Osama tape script reads like it was written by Terry McAuliffe.
"Outsourcing'' is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies.'' (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource'' the problem to the "allies'' and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing what cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will'' -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.''
They he nails the "secret" of the Kerry's so-called "secret plans":
Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said "I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track.''
Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow The New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces.
A leftie college teacher kicks a student for wearing a GOP sweatshirt.
Now image the situation was reversed. If a conservative teacher had even had harsh words for a student's liberal shirt, CBS would have covered it on their nightly news.
The Vietnam Veteran who sent it to me is my father.
All across America, Viet Nam vets are smiling. At last, perhaps they can bury their demons. These angry vets are demanding that this man who sentenced them to being shunned as criminals, tell the world that he was wrong and that he is sorry for what he did to them. Kerry must admit that he lied about them.
For many, it would still not be enough. Satisfaction and hopefully peace will come when Viet Nam vets see and hear John F. Kerry give his concession speech the night of November 2, 2004 with the knowledge that it was their votes that helped defeat him. There are approximately 2.5 million Viet Nam veterans in America and they have not forgotten.
Kerry denied them their rightful place as heroes and they will deny him his dream of the presidency. Angry Viet Nam veterans, silent for so long, will finally have their say. Payment in full will be delivered to John Kerry on November 2, 2004. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Ramesh Ponnuru calls it Bush win, 296-242 in the Electoral College and a four seat net gain for the GOP in the Senate. In the House, Republicans up 3. And the Republicans net one governorship.
Kate O'Beirne predicts President Bush wins with 297 electoral votes (only loses New Hampshire from 2000 total and picks up New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin - Maine 1 gives him 297). A 3 seat pick-up for Republicans in the Senate. They sweep the seats in the south and unseat Daschle. Democrats win in Illinois and (maybe) Colorado. Republicans hold on in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Alaska. The GOP picks up 2 seats in the House.
Joseph Perkins, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune writes:
Richard Nixon would have captured the 1960 presidential election but for five states he lost by 5,000 votes or fewer – Missouri, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Hawaii.
Gerald Ford would have retained the presidency in 1976 but for two states he lost by no more than 5,600 votes – Ohio and Hawaii.
Though the 1960 and 1976 elections were close, though they turned on a few thousand votes in a handful of states, the outcomes were faithfully accepted by the American people, by Republicans and Democrats alike.
That's because neither Nixon or Ford demanded that the votes be recounted in the states in which they lost by narrow margins. And neither Nixon or Ford insisted they were denied election because of voting irregularities in some state or another.
Then there was the 2000 election.
[Al] Gore refused to accept that he lost Florida, that he lost the presidency, by so small a margin. He refused to put the national interest before his own selfish interest.
He dispatched his lawyers to the Sunshine State to contest the election. And his lawyers used every legal maneuver in their arsenal to overturn Gore's defeat – challenging the manner in which Florida conducted its balloting, claiming that certain voter blocs were disenfranchised.
The result is that a portion of the populace refuses to this day to accept the outcome of the 2000 election (despite a post-election ballot review by a consortium of media organizations that concluded, unequivocally, that Bush won Florida no matter how the votes were counted or recounted).
It is because of the Gore precedent, because he tried to win the 2000 election in the courts after losing at the ballot box, that this nation remains so bitterly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
And the nation is likely to remain bitterly divided following this year's presidential election. Because John Kerry is already gearing up to contest the outcome of the election even before voters go to the polls on Election Day.
In fact, lawyers for the Democrats already have filed some 35 lawsuits in some 17 states. And if Kerry goes down to defeat on Election Day, there almost certainly will be an avalanche of lawsuits claiming that the Democrat somehow was cheated out of the presidency.
[T]he reality is that the rash of election-related litigation precipitated by Kerry and the Democrats is doing lasting, perhaps irreparable, damage to the democratic process in this country.
Indeed, Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, a nonprofit organization, told the Associated Press this week that all the legal wrangling is "disastrous for fundamental faith in the system" by which presidents have been elected since this nation's founding.
"Pretty soon," he said, "You get people saying, 'Shoot, then why bother to vote?' There has been such a concerted effort to beat up on the system itself that people need to step back and understand that if you destroy the very process by which your candidate gets elected, then what have you gained?"
Hat tip to Powerline
...or is it the party of the canidate running for re-election that tilts the media coverage?
Consider the following from the Media Research Center:
When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was at 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Today, as Bush stands for re-election, unemployment is at 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent and economists’ consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent. Coverage of the Clinton economic data was overwhelmingly favorable (35 positive, 6 negative stories). Under Bush, it’s literally reversed to 6 positive, 38 negative. Numbers don’t lie. Bias is the only explanation.
Friday, October 29, 2004
If you review the pictures on the KSTP web site that has the ABC video everyone is using you can see a very clear picture of a seal with its number (#144322). The PDF document of the UN inspections available show the numbers of the seals and none of them have that number. Therefore, it is clear that the bunkers that ABC videoed were not the ones that held the HMX the UN inspected.
Ok, so now we have photographs of trucks, at the bunkers of the Al Qakaa weapons installation, prior start of the war.
If Mr. Kerry has any shred of integrity left, he will apologize to the American people for spreading lies and rumors about the President and the Americans serving in the Armed Forces.
Don't count on it though...
Thursday, October 28, 2004
...again, hardley surprising. Powerline Blog has details on the democrats plan to cast democracy and the principles of the Republic aside in their lust for power at any cost.
Damn! I shouldn't post after watching TOS episodes! (Space Seed in particular). It certainly came out dramatic, but it is however, on target.
Read the whole thing at Powerline.
This email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the "vouching" necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer "personally knows" the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
From the Indiana Gazette:
Rhonda Goodrich, a self-described stay-at-home mom from Indiana, was outraged when she heard "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker Michael Moore was coming to Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
"His movie is not a documentary," Goodrich said Monday. "It's a movie based on lies, rhetoric and propaganda."
Ann Coulter points out:
Kerry's supporters are reaching out to blacks by demanding that black cabdrivers in New York City who support Bush be fined and suspended. When taxi driver Etzer Jerome told his sensitive Upper West Side passenger he had voted for Bush, she demanded that he pull over and let her out, yelling at him: "How can a black man vote for Bush?" and "I'm going to f--- you!" She then filed a complaint against Jerome with the Taxi and Limousine Commission alleging that Jerome had "verbally harassed her." He was fined $500 and given a three-week suspension.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Hundreds of public schoolchildren, some as young as 11, are taking time out of regular classes to canvass neighborhoods in Milwaukee, Madison and Racine in a get-out-the-vote effort organized by Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund - a group whose umbrella organization has endorsed John Kerry for president.
From Investor's Business Daily:
"But once again, the big media have pushed a major story late in a campaign that discredits George W. Bush, only for us to discover it was made of whole cloth."
"Fortunately, as soon as the Times' story broke, NBC noted that its own reporters were embedded with the 101st Airborne troops who came upon the munitions site in question. And NBC's journalists said it was empty when they got there on April 10, 2003. Empty.
"There's no polite way to put it: This story was a lie, apparently cooked up to serve the Times' partisan ends. It's not the first time."
From the Washington Times:
"According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, Mr. Clinton believed with 'absolute certainty' that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. And it's not just Mr. Clinton. According to Mr. Kean, 'Top officials — Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and others — told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that's why we sent missiles.' "
Bitter Bitch tells it straight:
I saw the Bush "one finger victory salute" on Instapundit last night. I thought it was funny. Now it's on Drudge, but as a low level item. And personally, I'd rather have a president who knows how to give that salute than one who bends over ready to take it.
The NY Times/60 Minutes "October Surprise" is falling apart fast.
First, it seems that it was Russian special forces troops working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation. It seems the Russians were covering their involvement with Iraqi weapons programs.
Second, we have this report from ABC News, that states:
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
If Mr. Kerry has any shred of integrity left, he will apologize to the American people for spreading lies and rumors about the President and the Americans serving in the Armed Forces.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
...by Dennis Miller.
Initiatives banning same-sex marriages are on the ballots of 11 states, including such presidential battlegrounds as Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan and Oregon. By the way, how much do you have to love Arkansas to be gay and still want to live there?
Between leading questions, dishonest answers, partisan number crunching, and more unauthorized sampling than P. Diddy's recording studio, the average poll results have a margin of error larger than this morning's unemployment list in the Yankees' locker room.
A new educational cartoon features Daffy Duck setting his sights on the White House, making campaign promises such as a year-round rabbit hunting season. John Kerry immediately accused Daffy of making America less safe by going after rabbits instead of Osama bin Laden.
The election story you probably haven't heard, from last weekend: Five years after a massive bombing campaign led to five years of UN control, the future of Kosovo remains in doubt, at best. Riots and slaughter left 19 dead and 800 wounded as recently as last spring, gunfights break out between members of the UN contingent , and now a significant percentage of the population has boycotted the elections in fear for their safety.
This is the UN that John Kerry wants to give more control of US foreign policy to!
I freely admit I swiped CD Harris' title. It's that good. Hat tip and bow to Mr. Harris.
It's the title in the latest of three posts about the NYTrogate (a nifty term for the October Surprise the New York Times is trying to pull on President Bush, and damn the truth!
The other two posts are Sweet, Sweet Schadenfreude & Sold Their Souls For Wales.
Take the time read all three. It's worth it.
Here are some of the key points.
One Dr. ElBaradei, the Head of the IAEA, the United Nations' atomic watchdog agency, leaked the story about the missing explosives to both CBS News' 60 Minutes and the NY Times. It seems that Dr. ElBaradei, is up for re-appointment to his post, and is not well thought of by the current United States presidential administration. So, his selective leak could have political motivation.
The IAEA last saw and accounted for this 380 tons of HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives in January 2003.
This is well after the chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq in 1995, urged the United Nations' atomic watchdog agency (the IAEA) to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing! The IAEA refused to do so!
Remember that UN team saw these explosives in January 2003. Eight years after they were urged to remove or destroy them. According to NBC News, three months later, in April of 2003, a bridage of the 101st Airborne, with an NBC News embedded reporter stopped at the Al Qakaa weapons installation on their way to Bagdag. To quote their story:
But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon."
Now this is all known and verified.
Yet, the Kerry campaign is continuing to beat the drum of this story and present known lies as gospel truth!
Mr. Harris has a very plausable explaination:
John "Weeble" Kerry doesn't seem to care if NYTrogate is true or not, he's committed himself to a full court press on the issue. And I suppose he has nothing to lose. He must either figure out a way to pull ahead of Bush within the next 6 days or his political career will officially become a footnote to history.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
The Iraq Survey Group, headed by Duelfer, said Russia, Syria, Jordan and other arms suppliers were paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
A CIA report, authored by the Iraq Survey Group, identified Russia and Syria atop a list of 12 arms suppliers to Iraq until the U.S.-led war against Baghdad started in March 2003.
The report listed Russia and Syria above North Korea — regarded as the leading missile proliferator to the Middle East — as leading suppliers to Baghdad.
In breaking the story about the missing explosives a week before the election, the pro-Kerry, left wing New York Times left out an important fact that NBC News (and Matt Drudge) are making public.
CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED...
Mr. Drudge reports:
The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apprent October Surprise: The Iraqi interim government and the U.N. nuclear agency have warned the United States that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]
Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."
But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!
An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.
According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."
A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"
Here is a clip from last night's NBC's Nightly News (via Instapundit):
NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)
Here is CNN's coverage of the NYTime pro-Kerry October Surprise.
Update from the Best of the Web:
The New York Sun notes that the Times/CBS report was based on a letter from Mohamed ElBaradei, who is seeking a third term as head of the International Atomic Energy Commission. The Bush administration opposes ElBaradei's reappointment, so one suspects that this was a foreign effort to influence the outcome of America's presidential election, aided by our domestic partisan liberal media.
Monday, October 25, 2004
So, the long and the short of it is, Kerry has said multiple times that he met with all of the members of the Security Council before voting on the Use of Force resolution but he didn't. It seems unlikely that anyone who's paid attention to Senator Kerry over the past couple of years will be surprised at this newest example of his penchant for self-aggrandizing exaggerations.
But, still, there's some informational value here: It shows that that tendency has no boundaries; he will utter such lies not just about "secret" missions to Cambodia decades ago, but even about readily verifiable, fairly recent matters of the gravest possible importance.
The wife of Dem vice presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday there will be no riots around the election -- if Kerry/Edwards wins!
C-SPAN cameras captured spouse Elizabeth Edwards making the startling comments to a supporter during a Kerry Campaign Town Hall Meeting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Supporter: Kerry's going to take PA.
Liz Edwards: I know that.
Supporter: I'm just worried there's going to be riots afterwards.
Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win.
Given that it's been democrat operatives trashing Bush-Cheney campaign sites, perhaps Mrs. Edwards is privy to knowledge that the Kerry-Edwards team would rather keep under wraps.
Her is a an audio-clip.
The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC's 160,000. Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Oct 14, 224 - Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.
"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said.
Read the rest.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
As Mr. Harris points out: "John "Weeble" Kerry didn't hesitate for a moment to blame the flu vaccine shortage on President Bush, but if he really wants to know why the shortage occured "he need look no further than his own running mate, trial lawyer John Edwards:"
Vaccines are the one area of medicine where trial lawyers are almost completely responsible for the problem. No one can plausibly point a finger at insurance companies, drug companies, or doctors. Lawyers have won the vaccine game so completely that nobody wants to play....
why is it that 100 percent of our flu vaccines are now made by two companies in Europe? The answer is simple. Trial lawyers drove the American manufacturers out of the business.
In 1967 there were 26 companies making vaccines in the United States. Today there are only four that make any type of vaccine and none making flu vaccine.
Political motivations turned criminal Thursday night or early Friday when vandals smashed a large glass door with a section of cinder block at the Republican Party headquarters in downtown Flagstaff.
A pile of shattered glass joined egg shells filling the entryway to the GOP offices, located on Humphreys Street across from Wheeler Park. Fliers with information criticizing President Bush were staked up outside the door.
Need to go to range to check the sights on my Chinese semi-auto AKM.
Friday, October 22, 2004
You know, in the early evening of the Iowa caucus, I told you a long time ago that Kerry and Edwards were the winners before the night began. That got more than a few laughs from fellow panelists. I was judged as being harsh later on for saying that Dick Gephardt was politically a dead man walking, but that ended up being the truth.
Then I said in real time that Howard Dean‘s rant was one of those defining moments in American politics that would end his campaign and that we would remember forever. Sure enough, I was right. In Boston, I was booed by Democrats for saying John Kerry rushed his convention speech. History proved me right.
In Miami, I was slammed, attacked, vilified, crucified politically by Republicans for blasting the president‘s pathetic debate performance. GOP commentators ripped me a new one. They ripped me apart, while the president‘s own wife was telling him the same thing upstairs at the White House residence, that he stunk the joint up.
Now, during the last debate, I was bombarded with phone calls from Democrats telling me how John Kerry was mopping up the floor with George Bush. I could only laugh into the telephone and ask for the name of their crack dealer. That debate in Arizona wasn‘t even close.
Now, of course, part of the outcome had to do with God, and the other, well, it had to do with lesbians. But we will talk about that in a minute. That leads me, though, to my latest prophetic sign. And it says, the end is near. Barring a bizarre October surprise, George W. Bush is going to be the president of the United States for another four years. You know, Kerry had moments to stand before the president, and he closed the gap, in part because the president chose to let him do so by not showing up at the first debate in Miami.
But now, after digesting John Kerry‘s robotic demeanor and his small-minded attempt to attack Dick Cheney‘s daughter, Americans decided, well, they had seen John Kerry, and they weren‘t so sure they wanted him sitting in the Oval Office. Now, I understand tonight that some of you that are watching this in Georgetown and on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and in West L.A. may not get it. But you usually don‘t.
But that‘s not the problem here, so don‘t feel bad about it. The relevant issue at hand is that Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill and others in John Kerry‘s campaign never really understood what made those of us who live in Middle America tick. If you want to have John Kerry talk about faith, don‘t tell us he was an altar boy. If you want to show us your compassion for the vice president‘s daughter, then don‘t accuse her parents of—quote—“being ashamed of her,” as Mrs. Edwards did, or by calling her sexuality—quote—“fair game,” as John Kerry‘s campaign manager did.
No, the end is near for John Kerry, not because of George W. Bush‘s gifted policies or debate skills, but because of John Kerry‘s uneven, confusing and bizarre campaign.
And, oh, yes, one final thought tonight. Most of us in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY hope like hell that our president gets down on his knees and prays to God almighty before sending young Americans off to die in a war. You may not get that, but we do.
Former President Jimmy Carter is (once again) working overtime to undermine the reputation he's built for himself as America's finest ex-President. Now he's arguing that the Revolutionary War is akin to the insurgency in Iraq because both were "un-necessary".
He's also somehow gotten the strange (especially for an 'historian') notion in his head that the Revolutionary War "until recently, [was] the most bloody war we've fought." One would think an 'historian' would know that the Revolutionary War cost about 5,000 colonials' lives, a figure fives times our casualties in Iraq but one which is nonetheless "dwarfed" (as Captain Ed so aptly put it) by the 407,000 Americans who died in World War II or the 600,000 American casualties in the War Between The States.
The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. . . .
He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.
Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
JUDY WOODRUFF: “Karen Hughes, just quickly, it's my understanding that today Teresa Heinz Kerry issued a statement saying that she had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a teacher and a librarian, and she said there's no more important job than teaching children. Do you accept—does your campaign accept this apology?”
KAREN HUGHES: “Well, I think it's very nice that she apologized, but in some ways the apology almost made the comment worse, because she seems to have forgotten that being a mother is a real job. Again, I think her comment threw an inappropriate wedge between women who choose to work at home and women who choose to work outside the home. I think most women--and most men--would be offended by that, because most women want to be able to choose to do what's right for them, whether it's to stay with their families and work at home or to work outside the home pursuing a career.”
For anyone who wants to quibble with the notion that the media favor Kerry, consider this: Since January 1, 2004, here are the number of morning and evening news stories and interview segments the networks have devoted to uncovering the growing United Nations Oil for Food program bribery scandal: four. NBC aired three: a January 15 report by Myers, a July 20 report from Andrea Mitchell, and a Myers story on October 6, when the Duelfer report came out detailing the scam. ABC aired only one this year: from investigative reporter Brian Ross on April 21, the day the UN announced its own internal probe into the scandal. But we found CBS has not aired a single story on the scandal, even when using a list of different search terms in the Nexis search engine trying to find one. Maybe they were hip-deep in phony documents. Why isn't this a major scandal for the major networks? Despite the nine ongoing probes, the networks would rather chase anti-Bush angles. ABC, CBS, and NBC have combined for more than 75 stories on George W. Bush's National Guard Service, more than 50 stories on "skyrocketing" gasoline prices, and hundreds on prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. All year, Kerry has touted a greater UN and European role in Iraq. Now, those players look like what liberals called "the coalition of the bribed." And the anchormen are keeping quiet. More on the media apathy here.
Score one for the pro-Kerry thugs trying to stifle free speech. "Stolen Honor," the controversial documentary in which former prisoners of war in Vietnam speak out about John Kerry's antiwar activities, was to have been screened at a theater in Jenkintown, Pa., last night. But "management of the Baederwood Theater cancelled the showing after threats of civil disturbances," reports Philadelphia's WPVI-TV.
Imagine the outcry we would have heard if Republicans had threatened "civil disturbances" at theaters showing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
I don't like the idea of Brownshirt tactics in the US, but Leslie Bates has found another example of Left-wing Brownshirts in action.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
From the Washington Times:
"John Kerry wasn't nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn't nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he's a fighter," New York Times columnist David Brooks writes.
"At the end of every campaign, he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush," Mr. Brooks said.
"So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.
"In so doing, he has managed to squelch any momentum he may have had coming out of the first two debates. Some polls have him stagnant against Bush. More polls show Bush recovering from the debate season and now pulling slightly ahead. The blunt truth is that Kerry is losing the final phase of this campaign."
Emphasis is mine. If he can't handle running for President, which he has prepared for his entire adult life, how can we expect him to handle the pressures of the office?
From the Washington Times:
Retired Gen. Tommy Franks said yesterday that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was distorting history with the often-repeated assertion that the United States allowed Osama bin Laden to escape.
"On more than one occasion, Sen. Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America," Gen. Franks said in an op-ed piece in the New York Times.
"He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we 'outsourced' the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality."
Gen. Franks said that, contrary to what Mr. Kerry has said, "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir."
Although the U.S. military did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew the region and its tunnels and caves, special forces from the United States and other countries were "providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes," Gen. Franks said, while as many as 100,000 Pakistani troops sealed the border and rounded up the enemy.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.
"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid," he said.
Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.
In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.
"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."
Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. . . . Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.
HT to Mr. Reynolds for this.
By now you have probably seen the John "Silky Pony" Edwards hair video.
As Michelle Malkin points out, this is what men go through when appearing on TV.
Although with Edwards "Pretty Boy" reputation, it's damn spot on target.
This does raise another important issue.
Why is John Edwards hiding his wife? You see Laura Bush, Teresa H-K, and Lynn Cheney in front of the cameras stumping. Why no Mrs. Edwards? Hell! I'm a serious political junkie and I don't even know her first name.
I don't think it's a "privacy" issue. I think John Edwards is deliberately keeping her away from cameras because she is overweight and unattractive. She doesn't fit the "Pretty Boy" image of the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
You can tell it's getting close to Election Day, because the senior scare campaign is back. John Kerry got things going over the weekend with an accusation that President Bush is planning a "January surprise" to "privatize" Social Security. And, right on time, his campaign is rolling out an ad that claims Mr. Bush "has a plan that cuts Social Security benefits by 30% to 45%."
We are supposed to believe that the peg for this accusation is a story in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, by Bush antagonist Ron Suskind, that the President told a group of donors he was going to push hard for tort reform, tax reform and private Social Security accounts in January if he wins re-election. Please. If this is a scoop, journalistic standards are slipping more than we thought.
The "surprise" that Mr. Bush wants to reform Social Security was merely disclosed last month before, oh, the 28 million people and thousands of journalists who watched his Republican Convention speech.
"We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers," Mr. Bush said in New York. "With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account--a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away." If the Bush donors thought they were being let in on some top secret agenda, they should demand their money back.
No, what's really going on here is another late-innings attempt to scare seniors into believing that Mr. Bush wants to take their benefits away. Trailing late in the 2000 race, Al Gore tried this and it almost won him the White House. Mr. Gore narrowly lost in Pennsylvania among voters younger than age 65, according to the exit polls, but he won 60% to 38% among seniors. Now Bob Shrum, who advised Mr. Gore, is attempting the same gambit with his new boss, John Kerry.
Monday, October 18, 2004
I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring. . . .
This muddled foolishness reflects Kerry's sense of politics as desperate theater. . . . Kerry seems to have nostalgia for the peacemaking ways of Clinton. But what Clinton actually bequeathed to George W., says Benn, was "an Israeli-Palestinian war and a total collapse of the hopes that flourished in the 1990s…. The height of the peace process during the Clinton era, the Camp David summit in July 2000, was a classic example of inept diplomacy, an arrogant and rash move whose initiators failed to take into account the realpolitik, misunderstood Arafat and brought upon both Israelis and Palestinians the disaster of the intifada."
HT to Mr. Reynolds.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Controversialist Michael Moore yanked C-SPAN cameras during a speech last week at the University of California.
Moore addressed students and faculty in Los Angeles as part of his "Slacker Uprising Tour" -- a 60 city tour primarily to swing states with the hope of wooing young people to vote for Kerry in November presidential election.
Although C-SPAN cameras were approved to shoot the event in its entirety Moore abruptly had the camera removed after 15 minutes.
What is Moore hiding? What doesn't he want the general American public to see?
From a post made on 9/26/04.
Beldar puts for the following challenge:Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?
The commander of the UN peacekeepers in Haiti has linked a recent upsurge in violence there to comments made by the US presidential candidate, John Kerry.
Earlier this year Mr Kerry said that as president he would have sent American troops to protect Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was ousted from power in February.
The Brazilian UN general, Augusto Heleno, said Mr Kerry's comments had offered "hope" to Aristide supporters. Much of the recent unrest has centred on areas loyal to Mr Aristide.
More than 50 people have died over the past fortnight...
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for this. She has more on the subject.
TONIGHT I WATCHED FAHRENHYPE 9/11, the Michael Moore expose. It's quite striking, particularly in the way they followed up with people who were featured in Fahrenheit 911, and show those people, one after another, saying that Moore misrepresented them and that they don't agree with the movie. This should be on network TV.
I have to check to see if my local video store has one of their two copies back. They are tucked in the middle of an entire shelf of Moore's Crockumentary.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Best of the Web Today:
Columnist Charles Krauthammer is outraged by John Edwards's comment earlier this week that "if we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again":
In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable. . . .
Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.
There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.
Krauthammer speaks with considerable authority here. He is trained as a physician, and he is also paralyzed, the result of an accident he suffered while a medical student
Friday, October 15, 2004
uite aside from Kerry's attempts to scare people into voting for him with a trumped-up threat that Bush will revive the draft, this statement refuels my mistrust for Kerry. His argument about the draft implicitly asserts that he plans to withdraw from Iraq without adequately providing for a successful resolution of the conflict.
By the way, this morning as I was getting ready for work, I had the TV on, and within the space of 15 minutes I heard two different commercials, each with dark, pounding music and an ominous-sounding voiceover warning me of some dire consequence of Bush remaining in office. When I heard the first commercial, I thought, oh, some extreme group is trying to help Kerry but is only making him sound like a fearmonger with no real substantive issues. I started to feel sorry for Kerry, because he cannot control these groups, and then I heard, "I'm John Kerry, and I approved of this message." When I heard the second commercial, I thought, well, this one is really awful, and once again I was again surprised to hear, "I'm John Kerry, and I approved of this message."
Bold and italtics are hers.
She has more on the subject. Read the whole post.
I have a few posts on the subject. Here, here, here, here, here, and here.
A few examples of the work over at the Stop the Bleating Blog.
DEMOCRATIC HATE AND DIRTY TRICKS
The "sensitive" party isn't so sensitive when an election is on the line. It:
--Uses a candidate's child in a tawdry appeal to bigotry for the sake of political advantage.* (And see here. And here.)
--Mocks the disabled for political gain.
--Carries out a campaign of violence, intimidation, theft and destruction of property against the other major party.
--Engages in a systematic campaign of vote fraud -- or, at least, inchoate vote fraud.
--Encourages local party leaders to complain about non-existent voter intimidation in order to call the legitimacy of the election into question, if it turns out badly.
Yeah, that's a record to be proud of.
Read the rest.
I'LL SAY IT ONCE MORE: IF YOU ARE A HUNTER, JOHN KERRY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND
If you believe any of the following mindless, baseless, loony-tune ideas, you are a kook. If you have liberal kook friends who do not know they are kooks, use this to quiz them. You have my permission to print out ten copies. This page is watermarked. If you exceed ten copies…we will know. (If you believe this, you are a kook.)
You are a kook if you "fee" that:
George Bush is about to institute The Draft
The government is monitoring what you read in the public library
Karl Rove planted forged documents so Dan rather would broadcast them on "60 Minutes II."
Osama bin Laden has been captured, and is being held in a secret location until close to the November elections.
George Bush has a secret deal with the Saudis to manipulate oil prices near the election.
The Patriot Act was created to oppress American dissidents and suppress free speech.
American cities are closing firehouses because the money is being spent opening firehouses in Iraq.
The recent hurricanes were a result of global warming, which is caused by America's automobile usage, especially SUVs.
All we need to guarantee our national security is a global Marshall Plan to eliminate world hunger, poverty, and inadequate health care.
Terrorists can be transformed into peace-loving citizens by engaging them in meaningful dialogue at the U.N.
The world was more "stable" when Saddam Hussein was in power.
The only reason American troops were sent to Afghanistan so a pipeline could be built, enriching multinational oil conglomerates.
More terrorists were "created" when the United States "invaded" Iraq.
Diplomacy is the answer to all Middle East conflict. Terrorists will return to their peaceful, productive lives once we leave the region.
Bush knew in advance 9-11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it.
Al Qaeda are really "freedom fighters."
The looting in Iraq was caused by American troops not being "pro-active."
There are two Americas by design: "rich America" purposefully keeps "poor America" down.
The rich get richer on "the backs" of the poor.
One million African-Americans, who vote in Democrat wards and precincts, under Democrat cities, had their votes disenfranchised by Republicans operating from Texas.
Al Gore won Florida.
John Kerry was really on a secret mission to Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968.
Richard Clarke was telling the truth.
Dan Rather didn't realize the documents were fake.
Kitty Kelley is a reliable, world-class biographer with "unimpeachable" sources.
The New York Times is "the paper of record"-and covers all the news that is fit to print.
Ted Kennedy is a wise and honorable elder statesman, whose only interest is public service.
Robert Byrd is a wise and honorable elder statesman, the "Conscience of the Senate." Those who harp on his KKK past are just mean-spirited.
Jimmy Carter is a world statesman.
Dennis Kucinich may never be President, but he really had something with his proposal to eliminate the Defense Department and replace it with a Peace Department.
The Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and Bechtel represent a greater threat to the world than Saddam did.
Campaign finance reform will keep the rich from exerting undue influence on the political process.
Republicans are in bed with polluters, drug companies, Big Business, and-of course-Big Oil.
The Religious Right are the true terrorists.
This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
We have no allies in Iraq and acted unilaterally.
The French will send troops to Iraq if John Kerry is elected.
Teresa Heinz Kerry was on target when, after Hurricane Ivan hit, she said people in the Caribbean should "go naked."
Forged documents can lead to a "larger truth."
Terrorism is caused by the West imposing its materialist, imperialist, corporate selfishness on the rest of the world.
Human society would be at one if the United States would only learn an ethos of generosity, tolerance, and caring for the environment.
Kerry knows why he's running for President.
Overweight America can be fired by lawsuits.
Poverty and homelessness in America are caused by Republicans.
SUVs are evil.
The $60 million spent on political ads by pro-Kerry groups is healthy expression of free speech, but the $3 million spent by the Swift Vets is an illegal Bush Administration conspiracy to undermine campaign finance reform laws.
The war in Iraq was caused by the Neocons.
It's Bush's fault.
...you should be glad he's only down another 3 points in the latest Zogby poll.
Kerry was only down one point after his loyal Kool-Aid drinkers claimed victory in the second debate.
Jeff over at Protein Wisdom has a good review of the third debate.
Japan is in the Bush camp, for multiple reasons as the Captain points out.
The Captain's Quarters shows how their sloppy wet kiss story about Kerry doesn't even match what in his own autobiography.
Didn't they learn anything from Rathergate?
Don Feder has some damn good ones that you should read.
Here are some highlights:
For the left, civility is a one-way street, running toward them – but never in the opposite direction.
The blonde buzz-saw also noted that nobody was calling for civility in 1964, when Democrats we’re telling the nation that Barry Goldwater wanted to drop the big one and precipitate a nuclear holocaust.
Now that conservatives can fight back – via the Internet, cable TV and talk radio – liberals whine about civility, Coulter charged.
Despite their carefully timed civility campaigns, liberals are smear artists who can never resist hitting below the belt – with brass knuckles.
Their modus operandi is calling conservatives: racists, bigots, hate-mongers, warmongers, Nazis, trigger-happy cowboys, gun nuts, psychos, despoilers of the environment and political Ebenezer Scrooges rubbing their bony hands together in greedy glee as widows and orphans starve in the streets simply to boost the profits of their junk bonds.
Speaking of civility, have you ever heard of College Republicans trashing liberal campus newspapers, or members of the local ROTC unit shouting down leftist speakers? Both regularly happen to collegiate conservatives – whose publications are incinerated and speakers attacked.
Still, when it suits them, liberals run their civility scam – usually, when they’re cornered and seek to stifle a frank discussion.
What the Left finds really rude and uncalled for is a candid discussion of Kerry’s war record -- which he cites as his chief qualification for the White House. Thus, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (with their ads questioning Kerry’s medals and exposing his involvement in the anti-American/anti-War movement) make the civility-mongers positively apoplectic.
They can lie about us; we can’t tell the truth about them. They can name-call; we can’t discuss their record or describe the natural consequences of their policies.
Calls for civility in the political debate have become the last refuge of liberal con men, and should be treated with the scorn reserved for shameless hypocrites.
Oh, how uncivil of me.
From the Washington Times:
"In more than 2,000 years, only one man who walked the Earth has done what John Edwards says John Kerry will do if elected. And His name isn't on the ballot," Investor's Business Daily said in an editorial on stem-cell research.
"In perhaps the most egregious example of political pandering in American political history, Edwards, in a 30-minute speech before 1,300 supporters jammed into a Newton, Iowa, high school gymnasium for a Monday-morning campaign rally, promised the crowd: 'We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. ... When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.'
"Like a frontier charlatan peddling a magic elixir, Edwards has cynically exploited the countless number of people suffering from disease and infirmity, desperately clinging to their faith and hope, for political gain. If such a claim had come out of the mouth of Dick Cheney about President Bush, the outrage would be seismic in scale," the newspaper said.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Let's be perfectly clear on why this is happening. The two candidates on the Dem ticket didn't simply happen to bring up Mary Cheney ex nihilo -- they did so as part of a calculated effort to peel some small portion of Bush's base away from him. That portion being, presumably, the gay-hating ignorants who also watch televised 90-minute campaign events. This is surely a vanishingly small demographic. The sub rosa message? "Look, this Bush guy's running mate -- he has a lesbian daughter. You gonna vote for that?" Appalling in itself, and a stark reminder of the hypocrisy at the core of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. They're against the war, but they'll win it; they'll mock allies, but they're for alliances; and they're for tolerance, except when they can subtly appeal to bigotry to squeeze out a few more votes. A sterling example for America -- John Kerry's dying mother, rasping out a final exhortation to "integrity," would doubtless be proud.
From the Junkyardblog interview with Alan Peterson, director of the film FahrenHYPE 9-11:
JYB: The day four American civilian contractors were killed by terrorists in Fallujah, Iraq, Michael Moore wrote that the killers weren’t terrorists, but rather they were “the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen…and they will win.” What is your reaction to a statement like that?
AP: I often wonder if Michael Moore ever thinks about what he is saying. He is either profoundly ignorant, or a genius at “militant marketing”. He knows exactly what to say and do to make people crazy. I don’t know how you compare foreign mercenaries who terrorize the Iraqi citizens with the Minutemen of the American Revolution. The radicals who want to build an anti-democratic, anti-individual rights, anti-women’s rights jihadist regime who are killing our soldiers, don’t need Americans giving them verbal refuge. They aren’t the revolution. The only reason they have lasted this long is because of the restraint demonstrated by the US Military. Ask the terrorists in Samarra. Ask al-Sadar why the sudden interest in politics. They won’t win.
Read the rest.
According to the New York Times (about as far as you can get from "right of center"):
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 is the title of a very good post by Stephen Green of Vodkapundit.
It's his response to the democrats planning to cry "voter fraud" with no evidence, long before the election.
Here are some highlights:
To these guys [democrats], winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.
I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?
The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.
I don't mean to say that Republicans haven't used dirty tricks, or won't in the future. But I have yet to see them pull anything as crass as replacing a losing candidate with a more-popular one just weeks before election day, and in violation of state law. I have yet to see Republicans calling on the world's most corrupt international organization, run largely by apparatchiks from the world's most brutal dictatorships, to pass judgment on how we run our elections. I have yet to see the Republicans encouraging their own to commit fraud by shouting "Fraud!" where none yet exists, putting at risk everything we've built here in the last 228 years.
Because, in the end, that's what the national Democrats are doing: They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to
Read the rest. It's good and right on target.
Drudge has found out that:
The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"
One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity...
It's time to remember Hugh Hewitt's warning about democrats, "If it's not close, they can't cheat."
This debate won't put the race away, it's till going to be close for a while. But Kerry needed a kill to take a decisive lead he could then hope to ride into the White House. He didn't get it.
Powerline blog chimes in. Here are some highlights, starting the the Big Trunk:
I was struck by Kerry's two overriding themes last night: 1.6 million jobs have been lost under President Bush, and the Bush tax cuts unfairly reduced taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners. Kerry's point on job loss ignores every relevant fact, including job growth since the Bush tax cuts became effective. Preeminently (to my mind), Kerry's point on job loss under the Bush administration ignores the devastating economic impact of 9/11. In that sense Kerry's point is of a piece with Kerry's critique of the Bush foreign policy and avowed goal of defeating terrorism -- 9/10 all the way.
Kerry's point on the Bush tax cuts ignores the fact that the top 1 percent of income earners pay approximately 30 percent of all income taxes. It would be nice to know what Kerry thinks the fair share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent should be. In any event, Kerry's refrain regarding the top 1 percent hit the traditional Democratic theme of class envy. Is it a winner? I hope not.
Compared to President Bush's relative ease and spontaneity, Kerry seemed almost Nixonian in his gesticulations and oddly robotic. I can't reconcile what I saw and heard with the poll results that judge Kerry to have prevailed last night.
The Decon joins in:
On the whole I thought that Kerry did somewhat better than Bush on the ordinary domestic policy issues. He was almost always on the attack and was better able to back up his arguments with (often misleading) data. On the other hand, Bush did better than Kerry on the "social" or "values" issues. As usual, Kerry seemed much less comfortable than Bush in this area, probably with good reason. Moreover, Bush had a significantly better closing statement. He was able to articulate something approaching a vision, while Kerry was on the defensive, trying to reassure voters that he would defend the country and not give foreign powers a veto over our use of force. This isn't a good place to be three weeks before the election. On balance, then, I think the debate was probably a draw on substance. If I had to pick a winner, in pure debate terms, it would be Kerry, since most of the debate was dedicated to discussing non-social issues.
If one analyzes the debate in the context of election politics, however, one can argue that Bush won. He probably came off as more human and likeable. He looked fresher than Kerry. And he certainly came across as more optimistic and forward-thinking.