Sunday, October 31, 2004
Blogs for Bush covers the whole Redskins deal, but I think they miss the influence of Curly's Curse.
Acutally, it wouldn't surprise me if he does think he can influence this election with mere words. To head an international terror network which has inflicted serious damage on the United States, one must have a great ego. On top of that, given his religous mindset, he must think he is a chosen one of Allah. If so, this guy might actually believe that he has the power to make John Kerry President with nothing but his words. I actually hope this is the case, because things could get very chaotic if this is a trigger for an attack. Kerry is no Thomas Dewey, and I fully expect him to use an attack to his political advantage if one were to occur. As heated as politics have become (Al Gore really did a disservice to this country's political process in 2000), that could make the next several months very, very ugly.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
So for now I'm watching Ohio today as Ahnold stumps. This election, as I can see it, can go three ways:
1 . A narrow Kerry win
2. A narrow Bush win
3. A large Bush win, if he captures, WI, IA, FL and OH
We'll know in a couple days. If Kerry captures his narrow victory by taking WI and OH, keep an eye on PN. Looks like a judge said absentee ballots can be counted through 11/10. There has been debate over whether or not military personnel in Iraq could get their ballots here on time. They'll now have a few more days to do so, which will secure their votes. Remember, 70% of military personnel are voting for Bush. And the absentee military vote is expected to potentiall make a difference in PN.
Isn't this fun?
Friday, October 29, 2004
After the Revolution, we had to somehow develop a national government that was acceptable to 13 very independent colonies. This raised numerous problems, not the least of which was equal representation of the colonies. You see, the smaller colonies were very aware that by joining this new venture, they risked having law and policy dictated to them by larger states. This was one sticking point in the formation of an American government. Several compromises were worked out to alleviate this. In order to ensure that each state had enough say in the process to avoid large states lording their will over small states, the Senate became an institution where all states were equal in power, with each having two Senators a piece. In the House, with its proportional representation, the larger states have their venue with which to start legislation favorable to their situations.
The Presidency presented another problem. First, the Founding Fathers did not have designs on the Presidency being chosen by popular consensus, but they did not desire that the political entities in Congress have a say over the selection of President, either. They feared that a President selected by Congressmen would be beholden to the political whims of those who chose them. The Electoral College was a solution for all of this. The Electoral College put the selection of the President back into the hands of the states instead of the professional politicians in the capitol. Since the states were free to choose electors as they saw fit, it also somewhat insulated the process against corruption. With each state having an electoral vote equal to its representation in the Senate plus the House of Representatives, it also assuaged fears of small states and large states by giving each state a weighted but proportional number of electoral votes. So while, say,
What has happened since that time? Well, we’ve stopped looking at the world from state perspective, and more from a Federal Government perspective. While this country was designed to work at the most local level possible, it has been natural for eyes to go first to the Federal Government as we have become more and more enmeshed in the outside world. While the argument can and should be made that we ought to look first to our most local branch of government, the plain fact of the matter is we’ve made this transition. The problem with this is that most people no longer understand that their interests can be best protected and furthered through their states. In addition, the President is now chosen by the popular will of citizens. Early in the history of this country, many states did not have popular elections for President. Instead their state legislatures selected electors. We rapidly turned over to popular elections, but that wasn’t how the system was designed. Finally, people just don’t worry much about big states dominating their states anymore, which is a testament to the system.
Okay, now you’re asking yourself, I thought he was going to make the case for why the Electoral College won’t be abolished. He seems to have done the opposite. Well, we need the context of the past to understand what will happen next. Eventually, there will be a big push to abolish the Electoral College and to make the selection of the President a function of the popular vote. There are little efforts towards this almost every year or two, but they go nowhere, but at some point, this issue will reach a critical mass, and there will be a serious effort towards abolition. Here’s what’s going to happen, though. It is going to require a 2/3 majority of states to pass that amendment. Suddenly, every state with electoral representation of less than 15 is going to start opening their eyes to the old fear of small state vs. big state. Abolishing the Electoral College is not in the best interest of any small state, and those small states are going to come to realize they have more to lose than to gain by moving forward with this.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
What do I mean by "natural barriers"? Well, a legitimate election is a pretty easy thing to pull off. Every eligible voter is entitled one vote. Of course, human nature being what it is, you need to verify that every voter is who they say they are, and live where they say they do. Seems pretty easy to me. You require that they have a picture ID with address, and you require some sort of proof of residency beyond that ID, and you fill out a little paperwork and sign your name to it. Then, when you vote, you carefully read your ballot and follow the instructions. Bing, bang, boom, you've got accuracy and legitimacy. Democrats have worked to break down those low barriers. You now have situations where people can register without showing ID, and without proving their residency. Instead of a sworn public official doing the registering of voters, partisan interest groups with no accountability are running around doing so. Absentee voting, which is particularly susceptible to fraud, can be done for any reason, because we can't disenfranchise those too lazy to take their civic privilege and right seriously on election day. We are trying to divine the intentions of stupid voters who don't take care to vote properly. It is getting ridiculous.
And the Democrats have the gall to deflect the harsh spotlight for the consequences of such actions. They bring in international observers (which should be an insult to all Americans) because they say attempts by those of us who want an honest election are merely tries to disenfranchise and suppress the vote. NO, that's not it, you fools. Your efforts risk turning this country into a banana republic, where there is no confidence that there is one vote for one person. You've taken accountability out of the system. If observers do anything, it should be to observe your activities from the last 15 years.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can't put in a little extra effort to register, to stand in line to vote, and vote correctly on election, then you obviously do not respect the gift paid for by the blood of so many of our ancestors.
In Madison, John Kerry is holding a rally/concert that is expected to draw 50,000 to 60,000 people, many from Illinois. After the rally, there will be a march to the City Clerk's office for supporters of Kerry to cast absentee ballots. I see the MSM was not particularly concerned about the legality of the office staying open late for the rally after coordination between the office and the Kerry campaign, and I suspect they will not be very concerned about the fact that it is frighteningly easy to register and cast an absentee ballot in this state. Do not be surprised if Madison ends up with many new flatlander "residents" today who cast a vote in Wisconsin's election.
Bush and the Republicans have been working very hard to tip Wisconsin into the red column, and looks like their efforts in rural Wisconsin may very well do that for them. That is if absolute corruption in the state's two biggest cities doesn't steal away victory for John Kerry.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
For over forty years following World War II, the United States found itself facing possible nuclear annihilation. At the same time, the United States found itself with a solid block of devoted allies. It is this solid block of allies that we look to today as our historical allies, but is that really true? Have France, Germany, Japan, UK, Canada, etc., always been our allies? The answer is a decided no. What is more disturbing is how the left in this country ignore hundreds of years of study of geopolitics and expect alliances to be permanently frozen in time instead of what they really are-regularly shifting bonds of self interest.
What did we do to create a European state that loathes us? First, we zoomed past Europe in terms of economic strength and international power and prestige. There was a day when nations the size of Texas or California battled it out for world dominance. Today they look back on their past glory and look jealously at the nations who have assumed their mantle. This transition was inevitable, but the nations of Old Europe hastened their own slide by beginning two world wars in the 20th century. After the Second World War, Old Europe lay in ruins of its own making, and it became very clear that they would need the assistance of one of the two new behemoths, the United States or the USSR in order to ever recover. As the world was divvied up into spheres of influence, Old Europe came to realize that it was much better off under the wing of the Eagle than under the paw of the Bear. This created a false sense of brotherhood towards Western Europe in Americans. Western Europe did not extend friendship to the United States out of love; they did so out of fear of what lay directly to their East, a monster that they could not hope to repel on their own.
Under this false haze of friendship, we first rebuilt Europe, a dramatic break with a world history that required the loser to rebuild itself and simultaneously compensate the victors. Next, we rebuilt Europe’s defenses. Much like welfare can create a sense of entitlement, though, so too did our aid to Europe. Over the years, the United States bore a larger and larger share of the defense of Europe, and Europe felt it deserved it. They also began to take it for granted. By the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Soviet Union disintegrated, Western Europe had come to understand that it only needed to offer token support to its own defenses, and that the United States would ensure the rest. Throughout the 1990’s, as European states reaped the peace dividend, they also sliced and diced further at their defense budgets to the point that they refused to deal with genocide in their own backyards. Instead, they watched as the only nation with military capability came into their sphere of influence to cool off a boiling pot in the Balkans.
The United States learned a valuable lesson from the inter-war period 1919-1940. A nation cannot neglect its defenses, because eventually they won’t be available when inevitably needed. Europe has not learned that lesson, and that has put the continent in an uncomfortable position. As it coalesces into a sort of nation-state, it sees itself regaining the glory of the Europe of old. The continent, when united, has the economic potential (if not yet the reality) to go toe to toe with the United States and win. The states of Europe still have one major roadblock to overcome, however-their pathetic and inept militaries. Europe cannot project its power in the world because of this. With most states of Europe enslaved to their socialist systems, they cannot find a way to free up funds for even a third rate military. That leaves Europe with only one way to project its power and regain its glory: To hog tie American military power, and to somehow make American military power an agent of its own use.
What we saw with Iraq is an attempt at hog tying the American military. The major states of Europe, most notably France and Germany, need to be able to block the usage of American military force whenever they want, and their Iraq maneuvers were an attempt at this. Once Europe can effectively block any usage of American power, then they can also allow it to be used whenever it is beneficial to Europe. France and Germany are, in effect, trying to hijack the American military for their own use. By requiring the United States to resort to diplomacy without threat of force, Europe can insert itself as the broker of world power. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the mass death and destruction that comes when Europe is the broker of world power.
Life moves quickly, but history trods along slowly. The events leading up to the Iraq war were at least 60 years in the making. We erred in our generosity to the Old World. The Marshall Plan was right, but as the economies of Europe began to revive, we should have required they take on greater and greater burdens of their own self defense. As it was, we created in Europe a disregard for its responsibilities for itself. As Europe has fully blossomed over the past 15 years, that has created a continent which is indulgently in love with itself, but which cannot project its influence without admitting that parts of its very being do not work well. Rather than face that reality, it has chosen instead to acquire the power projection it wants by taking it from somebody else-us. What George W. Bush experienced in the lead up to Iraq would have been experienced by any American President at that time, be it John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Truman, or FDR. What separates Bush from Kerry, Clinton, and maybe FDR is that he chose not to let Europe make our national defense decisions for us. For those on the left who love Truman, perhaps a little inspection of his Presidency is necessary for you, because George W. Bush may be the most Truman-esque President we’ve had since old Give ‘em Hell Harry himself.
A Wisconsin Republican Party spokesman has criticized a decision by city election officials to keep open the clerk's office late Thursday after a downtown rally for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
"I'm sure they have reasons that will sound well and good," state GOP communications director Chris Lato said Tuesday. "But when you look at it, the act is accommodating presumable John Kerry voters who will be attending a large John Kerry rally a couple of blocks away.
"(It) is tantamount to a contribution to a political campaign only they are using taxpayer money to do it."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rep. Steve Nass (608) 266-5715
NASS: This isn't about absentee voting; the city is offering early voting.
Representative Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) is asking both the staff of the State Elections Board and the Wisconsin Attorney General to immediately review the decision of the Madison City Clerk to offer extended office hours on October 28, 2004, for voting on the same day as a John Kerry rally just blocks from the city hall. The decision of the city clerk to offer extended office hours that day was the direct result of a request from the Kerry campaign to accommodate their efforts to allow rally participants to vote early.
"This is an outrageous perversion of Wisconsin's Absentee Voting Law. The City of Madison is basically allowing early voting by request of one campaign. Wisconsin law doesn't permit early voting; it permits voters that can't be at the polls on Election Day to still cast their votes," Nass said.
Nass noted these facts:
1.) The Deputy City Clerk confirmed to my staff that the Kerry campaign notified their office in advance of the rally and requested consideration of their efforts to assist rally participants to vote early that day.
2.) The City Clerk's Office orchestrated a meeting involving representatives of the Dane County Clerk's Office and the Mayor's Office to determine their response to the request of the Kerry campaign. Note: The Mayor of Madison has publicly endorsed John Kerry.
3.) The City Clerk's Office confirmed to my staff that they didn't seek advice from either the City Attorney's Office or the State Election Board regarding the request from the Kerry campaign or their decision to offer extended office hours for voting purposes on October 28, 2004.
4.) The City Clerk's Office hasn't offered extended weekday office hours to assist absentee voters on any other day during this election.
5.) Wisconsin's Absentee Voting Law specifically states that officials must "prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors" and "prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate," (Wisconsin Statute 6.84 (1)).
"The Madison City Clerk has a legal and ethical obligation to avoid taking an action that knowingly assists or benefits one candidate. The fact that the clerk's office would consult with the Mayor's Office, but not the State Election Board or the City Attorney frankly raises serious questions on the reason for the extended office hours," Nass said.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Here we are .. less than a week from the presidential election and it’s going down to the wire once again. As it stands right now, President Bush leads John Kerry 222-207 in electoral votes, with another 109 still up for grabs. One of those nine or so "battleground" states is Wisconsin. Compared to the 2000 election, it looks like several states could change color this year: Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and, you guessed it, Wisconsin. If the election comes down to your vote, are you prepared to make the right choice for president of the United States?
John Kerry, as any good challenger would do, has painted as bleak a picture for Americans as possible. It hasn’t been hard to do. We’re at war, and war is never pretty. We’re still in the infancy stages of an economic recovery. Things could be better, but they could also be much worse. One thing’s for sure: We’re headed in the right direction. And John Kerry has offered nothing to make me believe that he’ll help us more rapidly reach our destination. Has he convinced you?
The fact is, things just aren’t as bad, especially here in Wisconsin, as John Kerry and the democrats say. But don’t take my word for it, take our governor’s, who happens to be a democrat. The following is an excerpt from a recent Associated Press article: "... Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle said, ‘I’m proud that Wisconsin continues to have the best job growth numbers in the Midwest. It’s clear our strategy of focusing on upgrading our industries and competing at the high end is working. We still have a lot of work to do, especially in our manufacturing industry, but Wisconsin is headed in the right direction.’"
"Wisconsin is headed in the right direction." That’s not George Bush or Dick Cheney saying that. That’s a quote from the governor of Wisconsin. Are you willing to potentially reverse that direction by voting for John Kerry just because he’s done a superb job of complaining and criticizing?
Ask yourself this question before you make your selection on November 2: What can John Kerry do to speed the economic recovery and expedite the war on terror? Anyone with any common sense will unequivocally answer, "nothing."
When it comes to Iraq, Kerry’s plan is exactly the same as Bush’s. Kerry says, however, that he will execute the plan better than Bush has. Kerry wants to bring more allies in. Well, France and German already said "no way." So, if Kerry wants allies he’s going to have to make do with the allies we currently have. But Kerry has a big a problem here, because he’s offended every single member of the coalition, including the U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Maybe he can get Russia to send troops. Actually, Vladamir Putin has already said Russia cannot commit troops. Coincidentally, Putin, along with Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi, have publicly endorsed Bush for re-election. Maybe you can get Canada to lend a helping hand, Senator Kerry. I’m sure the Canadian Army would be very effective in Fallujah.
Kerry also says he wants to train Iraqi troops faster. But, once those troops are trained, how will Kerry prevent them from being slaughtered, like nearly 50 were over the weekend after graduating from training? Will Kerry invite Abu Musab al-Zarqawi over for tea in an effort to pass a global test and persuade Zarqawi’s Unification and Jihad movement to ease up on terrorist activity? Get real. Kerry says he’s going to hunt terrorists and kill them, while, at the same time, win the war on terror by fighting a more sensitive war. Which is it, Senator Kerry?
Now to the domestic front. When it comes to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, Kerry admits that there’s no way to stop it. When it comes to tax cuts and the national deficit, Kerry says he’s going to roll back the tax cuts for the top-2% bracket. But how will that help the average American Kerry claims he’s fighting for?
If you’re going to vote for John Kerry simply because he’s not George W. Bush, you might as well vote for Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik or Bozo the Clown. If you’re going to vote for John Kerry, do so because he’s convinced you that his leadership skills and policies will make America better.
When you go to the polls November 2, make the right choice. The economy is moving in the right direction. Jobs are being created (1.9 million since August 2003). Afghanistan just held elections and elections are on the way in Iraq. Nearly 70% of all military families plan to vote for President Bush, proving that’s he’s a strong commander in chief who’s respected by our brave fighting forces. John Kerry’s constant criticisms, negativity and indecisiveness send the wrong message to the world during this critical time in history. On November 2, make the right choice—vote to re-elect President George W. Bush.
They said Cheney was profiteering for Halliburton with the no bid contracts. Halliburton lost $44 million last quarter.
They said you can't spread democracy at the point of a gun. Afghanistan just held their first elections.
The say we are a unilateral hegemony. We have over 30 allies in Iraq.
They said that fighting Muslims would only create many more terrorists. There hasn't been an attack on the homeland since 2001.
They say John Kerry will wage a better, smarter, more sympathetic War on Terror. Why do you still believe them?
I've reached the breaking point. If I had a time machine, and I could only use it one time, I'd blow it by going forward to next Wednesday, just so this is all over. Both candidates have reached the saturation point. It would really take a break out story to have any impact now. I worry that this saturation will lead to a backlash against the incumbent, but we shall soo find out. Just not soon enough.
Now, the State Journal is not as communist as its sister newspaper the Capital Times. It would be a stretch to call it a conservative paper, though. The Wisconsin State Journal has distribution through out the state, and is received more warmly in the Northwoods than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is more liberal than the State Journal. This endorsement should help Bush in the state, even if it is a small amount. A small amount is all he needs, really.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Friday, October 22, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Next, would Kerry want this? Think about it. The guy has waited for his chance at the White House, watching Bill soak in all the glory of the office for 8 years. If he were to be elected, he suddenly has a shadow cast over his White House by a former occupant of it. Kerry firmly believes in a deference to the UN, but would that change if it meant that Bill Clinton had an influence over policy in the United States again. Politicians have huge egos; I can't imagine the sight of Clinton as Secretary-General would be very appealing to Kerry. Worse for Kerry, he'd be almost politically impotent to stop it.
Finally, if Clinton ascended to his throne as King of the World, could it be that the Republicans of the 1990's were right: Bill Clinton truly is the anti-Christ? Hahahaha. Sorry, the whole concept amuses me, because it stands to make a lot of Democrats very uncomfortable.
"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
No man who has ever said that dying under the flag of the United States of America in service to the nation is not worth it deserves to be Commander in Chief.
But a President Kerry would be only 1/3 of the problem. It seems the Supreme Court is looking to expand its power beyond it's constitutional limitations yet again by weighing international opinion into it's decisions. According to the Christian Science Monitor, 6 of the 9 justices support consulting international law in making their decisions. Justice Kennedy even apparently examined in the capital punishment for minors case whether cruel and unusual punishment needs to be looked at in an international sense instead of the American sense. This is dangerous ground because the American people have no recourse against Supreme Court Justices, and the Justices are now trying to go beyond the limits placed on them by the constitution, and there is literally nothing we can do about it.
I find it odd and disturbing when people who oppose the war in Iraq on isolationist grounds also support John Kerry and the activist activities of the Supreme Court, because Kerry and the Court would do more to harm this countries independence from foreign influence than any foreign war.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
We were screwed in 1976. Ford v. Carter. Gerald Ford was never going to be a Ronald Reagan for this country, but how in the hell could the American people elect Jimmy Carter. The guy is nuttier than his peanut farms.
With a hat tip to The Corner and Little Green Footballs, we come to find that Jimmy told Chris Matthews that the Revolutionary War was an unnecessary war. He also chalked it up as our bloodiest war until recent times. He also, get this, calls himself a historian now. I’m not sure which is more absurd. The offending quote in question:
Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War more than any other war until recently has been the most bloody war we’ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely and of course now we would have been a free country now as is
Canadaand Indiaand , having gotten our independence in a non-violent way. I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against Australia and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time. America
#1-Revolutionary War-bloody. Civil War, bloodier. World War I, more horrifying, if not bloodier. WWII, bloodier. All three, not recent.
#2-The Revolutionary War could be avoided. This, more than anything, exemplifies Carter’s world view, which is that authoritarian government and subjugation is okay by Jimmy. As long as no one gets hurt actually fighting for freedom, the hope of freedom is enough for the hearts of men. He sees the world through pacifist eyes, and he has no sense of historical perspective to go with that.
Carter wasn’t done there, though. No, he had more.
Well, I think almost any reasonable person who knew history would say that you can’t go into an alien environment and force by rule of arms by forcing the people to adopt a strange concept and also when we were so destructive in going into
Carter calls himself a historian, but I don’t know what kind of historian he is. Certainly not a good one. History is full of examples of nations going into alien environments and using arms to force the people to adopt strange concepts. What is new is a nation that goes in and does this, but doesn’t do it in order to rule the invaded nation and strip it of its wealth, but rather to rid the invaded nation of its evil doers, rebuild it, install freedom, and then to let it be its own nation. Unfortunately, the likes of Jimmy Carter make this task difficult to impossible by siding with insurgencies that are only interested in brutal, heavy handed rule, and in raping their own nations. He also makes it difficult by boosting the morale of these horrible human beings by comparing them to true freedom fighters. I respect Carter’s faith, and I know how much it plays into his pacifism, but it is a cold, hard fact that if the guy across a negotiation table knows that you will not use any show of force, he will not negotiate with you. Even Christ showed his anger and, dare I say, a little violence, to the money changers in the temple. Christ also had the ultimate show of force in his corner-the threat of an eternity in hell.
I feel sorry for Carter sometimes. I wonder if he has spun himself this alternate reality because his Presidency was such a failure that it was the only way he could march forward. In the interview, he also discusses his
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
In an interview with Cinemax today, Kerry campaign official Tad Devine announced a new initiative to get out the slut vote on November. According to Devine, the slut vote was dominated by Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but they stayed in bed in droves in 2000, costing Al Gore the election.
"We want everyones vote to count in this election, and this is a voter group that is traditionally overlooked by the candidates. They really shouldnt be. It was these women that blew Bill Clinton into power in 1992," Devine told Cinemax interviewer Misty Munday, star of the hit movie Playmate of the Apes.
"The buzz in 1996 was all about the Soccer Moms. We used the term Soccer Moms that year because it was politically incorrect to call them by the more accurate term of Desperate Housewives, and MILF wasnt in the American lexicon yet. Today, thats not a problem. We dont want to just stop at the married sex mongering women, though. We want all of the sluts."
Today John Kerry made his first push to excite sluts by playing center in a touch football game for four hours. John Edwards pitched in by playing quarterback and taking all snaps from under center. Tomorrow Kerry plans to solicit oral sex from a campaign worker during a televised press conference.
According to Devine, Democrats did not do a good enough job chasing sluts in 2000.
"Look, Gore took a stab at the slut vote. He laid that big smooch on Tipper. He tried to manipulate the press so that whenever women heard Gore they thought wood and Love Canal. It all backfired on him horribly, though.
"We are going to go back to the tried and true Clinton Method. 12 sexual harassment lawsuits will be filed against Kerry between now and election day. This will show the slut voters that Kerry really is a sexual dynamo with unbridled passions."
The Bush campaign will reportedly counter by going after the haggard old bitch vote.
The above was satire, and you probably did not like it. Blame Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their movies made me do it.
Potential voter fraud is splashed all over our news lately, and accusations are flying in both directions, although hard evidence seems to be on the side of Republicans, and conspiracy the favored cry of the Democrats. In 1876, a Presidential race was stolen unethically, if not illegally. Many want to compare 2000 to 1876, but 2004 holds much more potential to reach the nastiness of 1876.
When did Matt Damon join the knucklehead caucus? He gets the worst treatment by the writers.
Hmm. Seems to me it was around when he did those MoveOn.org ads.
By the way, I recommend Team America if you have a strong stomach, a parent who taught you to swear like a sailor, and if you have a general disdain for know-nothing celebrities.
I have one simple statement on the issue. If the accusations of sexual harassment prove true, FOX should can him. If he is exonerated, the producer should also held accountable, as should anyone who helped her with this. If it ends up being somewhere in between, we can discuss it more then.
“I don’t care what happens between now and when I die - except for one thing. I am going to stay alive long enough to vote, dammit. If you think for one moment that I’m going to let John Kerry hijack our nation’s military, you’re nuts. I’m not going to let that happen without knowing that at least I voted for the right man, George W. Bush.”
Touching little story, even if you aren't a Bush supporter.
If Stewart ends up with any of the network late night shows, I hope it is Craig Kilbourne's sloppy seconds again.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, said at the Oct. 6 hearing 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."
While I will not actively push the weapons to Syria angle, I still do hold out the possibility of it. It would seem more likely that Iraq transferred the means to produce weapons to Syria than actual weapons, but I don't rule it out yet.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
Too many people have been complaining about the situation here without realizing that all of us are volunteers in this war. Stop loss is nothing more than your inactive reserve commitment being fulfilled.Read his blog Candle in the Dark if you really want to see Iraq through a soldier's eyes. His post Battle Stress or We Are not as Scared as You Think is particularly good. Another quote:
All soldiers have to give a total of 8 years in a combination of active duty and reserve time. That reserve time can be inactive or active reserve, or National Guard. Where does this lie of soldiers being "involuntarily" extended come from. The fact is that most of the soldiers complaining aren't up to par with the game anyway. Many of the ones [complaining] I personally know are not the kind of guy you want around you in combat but the fact is that they are trained for this job and are needed now.
Good stuff. Check him out now.
Here's what I'd like from the readership of Jiblog. I'm open to the fact that I'm just plain wrong. Please provide me with studies and hard data that proves that I am wrong, and I will change my opinion. I think there is a certain woman in my life who would like very much for me to admit that I'm wrong on this, to say that there is gender discrimination which accounts for that entire 26 cent gap. Until I see proof though, I'm going to continue in my belief that Kerry quoted politically biased stats
Thursday, October 14, 2004
"Democrats are now on the record: 60 countries harbor al-Qa'ida.
But apparently the one nation that had managed to entirely purge
itself of all al-Qa'ida members was Iraq -- under the great
statesman Saddam Hussein! Iraq is the only country in the world
liberals believe was hermetically sealed from al-Qa'ida."
"It's a shame we can't have them both working together."Linda, you can. Vote for Bush, and Senator Kerry and President Bush can both still be in leadership positions for this country. A vote for Kerry means you only get one of them.
George W. Bush also is in total command of his policies. He spoke with conviction about his vision for an ownership society on Wednesday night. He has a vision for how the educational system should evolve. He has a vision for bringing moral values back into the forefront in an effort to strengthen the fabric of our society. Agree or disagree, love him or hate him, you cannot dispute the fact that George W. Bush is in total command of his presidency. He has a vision and he sticks to it, regardless of what polls and public opinion say. And remember liberals, half the country agrees with him so he's not a failure. He's a president in total command of his presidency. While more than half of likely voters who plan to vote for Kerry say they're voting for him out of spite for Bush, nearly 90% of those who say they plan to vote for Bush plan to do so because they respect and admire him, agree with his policies, and want him to continue leading our country.
Bush also proved he is in total command of his grammar, which is contrary to popular belief. Some of this perception has been fostered by Bush himself. His slip-ups, after all, have been his own fault. However, contrary to what the donks like to say, Bush is not an idiot with the speaking skills of a drunk monkey. I believe he is a victim of "thinking ahead." He is so very eloquent on the stump when he's relaxed and enjoying himself. He was strong in the second and third debates when Rove and Hughes turned him loose. And last night, in the third debate, he made a statement that really stunned me: "We will (hunt) the enemy wherever it hides." That really got my attention. Enemy in this context is a singular noun. Thus, "it" hides, as opposed to "they" hide. Bush got it right ... a very common grammatical error you see time and time again, even in print media.
Bush is not a victim of idiocy. Maybe he's a victim of his own commanding, visionary nature. He thinks faster than he talks. Kerry on the other hand, talks as fast as the polls change.
Enough about me. First let me congratulate John Kerry. One of you fine folks who came here from Salon must be part of his campaign, because I see he finally took my advice of poking a little fun at himself. Self deprecating humor softens a hard image, and he needed it. Unfortunately for him, he lost this debate.
I will concede this-both men gave their supporters (largely) what they wanted to hear tonight. Polls will probably break out to a 50-50 split on who won because of this. Bush was stylistically and substantively better than Kerry tonight, though. Kerry blubbered through almost the first half of the debate. Bush had the crooked grin and twinkle in the eye tonight. He brought his A game. I think most of the debate was a wash because both played heavily to their base, but I think a couple of things ultimately tip the scale in Bush's favor. First, one group that is still spongy and which was available to be swayed tonight was the independent white male. Kerry may have swayed them to Bush himself with his strong support of affirmative action. Affirmative action is not popular with this group because they feel that the cards are now being stacked against them, not that the playing field is being leveled. Like it or not, that's a fact, and while Kerry tried to shore up his support with minorities, he was much better off ducking that question. The second thing that probably swayed this debate to Bush was his style. Republican insiders thought that his support amongst security moms may have loosened a bit with his aggressive style at the town hall debate. Tonight he was at about his most charming. In addition, he came across as being deeply in love with Laura, and respectful to the point of being in awe of her with his answer to his last question. Kerry seemed to avoid talking glowingly about Teresa. He talked about his late mother, he complimented the Bush women, and then he tossed in remarks about Teresa almost as an afterthought. That may hurt him amongst women as well.
I would go into greater detailed analysis of the debate, but frankly, I need to sooth my nerves a bit more with an MGD. Col. Ollie made some great points during the debate that I hope he will elaborate on more tomorrow. I'll be back tomorrow as well more thoughts as we come down the stretch in this election.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
"The president took his eye off the ball, Osama bin Laden, while health care costs have risen by 60%, 2 millions jobs have been lost, and we've alienated our allies across the globe in a style reminiscent of Ghengis Khan," Kerry said while drooling all over himself in Tempe. "More importantly, John Edwards' father has only achieved an 8th-grade reading level because he couldn't pay last month's cable bill because President Bush has failed the middle class. Rather, he's given tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of America, which includes my homely wife, Teresa. Mark my words, I will not raise taxes on the middle class until I'm elected and my drunken uncle Ted tells me to."
I think the Sun is looking for the reason for his discharge in his anti-war activities, but that probably is not where it is at. If memory serves, Kerry had asked for early discharge from the Navy. He had to settle for reserve duty. The problem is, there are no records he ever showed up to fulfill his reserve duty requirements. If anything, I suspect that may be what earned Kerry a dishonorable discharge. If so, that may be the most damning of the ways he could have received a dishonorable discharge. If he was dishonorably discharged, and if it had been because of his anti-war activities, he would be able to dance away from the issue very easily by invoking the name Nixon and “enemy list”. If it were because he failed to fulfill his reserve duty obligations, he becomes a blazing hypocrite after spending a good portion of the summer concerned about Bush’s Guard Duty.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Angry Ramadi residents accused the Americans of breaking down doors and violating the sanctity of mosques. "This cowboy behavior cannot be accepted," said cleric Abdullah Abu Omar. "The Americans seem to have lost their senses and have gone out of control."
Cowboy behavior? Lost their senses? Out of control? How, then, do you define the insurgents and Zarqawi-led terrorists who decided it was a grand idea to burrow into the mosque and fire from inside? What kind of behavior is that?
When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.
Edwards, obviously, was referring to Kerry's support of embryonic stem cell research. Reeve, who supported embryonic stem cell research, had this to say about what that research would do for those such as himself.
I advocate it because I think scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue. It appears though, at the moment, that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating acute injuries and are not able to do much about chronic injuries.
Now, in the out takes section, Reeve makes some viable arguments for embryonic stem cell research. That's not the issue here. The issue here is the two Johns willingness to cash in on Christopher Reeve's name right now. The proof is in the fact that Reeve himself didn't believe embryonic stem cell research would help him, but Edwards sure wants you to believe it will. In Kerry terms, it's just a bit outside-the boundaries of good taste.
Coach Sherman is not going to be able to retain both the GM and Head Coaching job after this season. I'm not sure he should be allowed to keep either job. He's lost this football team, sin number one. His drafts have not been good, and I'm being generous with that. At the end of last season, he fired the wrong coordinator. The offensive coordinator was much more deserving of the axe. This is a terrible way for a great quarterback to go out.
Monday, October 11, 2004
When it comes to developing a real energy policy, George Bush has run out of gas.
Here I am in the state of New Mexico. George Bush is still in the state of denial.
Ugh, Senator. Really, time for a new joke writer. Please. You could probably stand to poke fun at yourself once in a while instead of at your opponent all of the time. Self deprecating humor in small doses endears people. Of course, what could be funny about you?
Sunday, October 10, 2004
A high ranking official in the Kerry campaign tells Jiblog that the Senator likes to eat peanut butter and KY jelly sandwiches.
Ya can't dispute me, and it sounds funny.
That was Jimmy Carter's America, circa 1980. That too would be John Kerry's America, if we choose to elect him.
Michels is also differentiating himself by highlighting his military service, and using that to say he knows better what America needs to protect itself than Feingold, who votes against nearly everything used to defend the country. This has put Feingold on the defensive. Feingold is known for his funny, common man ads that he runs in his Senate races. This year, Feingold comes off a little bit like a prick, and very much on the defensive. One ad, which he uses to portray himself as the guy who asks tough questions, has him asking obnoxious questions of common people. In another ad, he tries to use a foosball table to defend himself against charges that he wasted his time on his campaign finance bill, and the ad falls flat.
Michels is beginning to get Feingold on his heals. The ads and the debates are getting tough and heated. If Bush can carry Wisconsin by enough margin, Michels just may be able to ride his coat tails into the Senate.
The plan backfired, however, when Yoda, I mean Carville, attacked Rove backstage and took over the controls. Carville proceeded to feed Bush ridiculous, repetitive statements, which lead to Bush's worst debate performance ever.
Karen Hughes, Bush's other key political advisor, has taken over debate preparations for the third and final debate this coming Wednesday in Tempe, Arizona, while Rove recovers from minor injuries suffered as a result of the Carville attack. Hughes said Team Bush will not take any chances this time. "We've had a chip placed inside the president's cerebral cortex," Hughes said. "I will be safe and sound at the Bush ranch in Crawford, transmitting messages to the president via computer. There is no chance for another backstage confrontation. This plan is fool-proof."
We've all heard Kerry/Edwards bloviating about Iran of late. I'd like to offer all of you diplomacy lovers a geography lesson. Look at what we've done to Iran in the last three years. We have nearly surrounded her. Now I already know the tact you fools take-by surrounding Iran we have forced them to develop nuclear weapons. That's not so. The mullahs have been talking about using nuclear weapons against infidels for some time now. They would be developing them whether we surrounded Iran or not. What we have done is put ourselves in the strongest diplomatic position possible. Diplomacy without the threat of a big stick is worthless. The other guy knows that he has nothing to lose. Iran has a lot to lose right now. If Iran is the threat you all have been harping it to be the last few weeks, then the Bush administration has fortified out position against a nation that would have been a nightmare to engage militarily without allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Special thank you to Mapzones for the graphic ( http://atlas.mapzones.com/iran/iran.php )
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Through the use of ruthless violence, Islamic terrorists influenced a national election in Spain this past March. Islamic terrorists promised to do the same around the world, including Australia. It didn't happen. John Howard, a key supporter of the war on terror, including the Iraq component of that broader war, is staying in office. This is a major victory for the coalition; terrorists will not influence the democratic process in countries like Australia.
Furthermore, the people of Australia have sent a clear message. While the majority of Australians do not support the Iraq war, they have re-elected a prime minister who IS a staunch supporter. Why? Maybe because Australia has suffered few (if any) casualties in Iraq. So the brutality of the war hasn't really "hit home," so to speak.
Actually, the citizens of Australia re-elected John Howard because of economic issues. Things are pretty good in Australia, and its citizens did not want to risk losing their economic prosperity by unseating a strong domestic leader. That's a strong endorsement for freedom. While war is brutal and undesirable, freedom and economic prosperity are worth fighting for.
Col. Ollie signing off on an even more historic day in the "real" war on terror.
Afghanistan even has its own "hanging chad" scandal going on. Opponents of President Bush who do not see the powers of liberty will view this "missing ink" scandal in Afghanistan as a political disaster. I see it as another shining example of how freedom is on the march in Afghanistan. The citizens of Afghanistan want to be free. They cherish their right to vote. They want free, fair elections. Freedom is on the march.
And it's also on the march in Iraq, despite the ongoing violence from desperate terrorists/insurgents we continue to witness. Muqtada al-Sadr has signed an agreement with the Alawai government, calling for the Mehdi Army to hand over weapons. In exchange, al-Sadr is allowed to join the political process and run for office. He has seen a means to acheive his goals that does not require the use of barbaric violence. I guess you could say "hope is on the way" for al-Sadr and the people of Iraq. It's a long, messy process. But freedom is indeed on the march.
Col. Ollie signing off on a historic day in the "real" war on terror.