Wednesday, February 02, 2005


The president's State of the Union address tonight was very good. Many pundits will disect the speech and I find no reason to go into it in detail.

The Democratic response is much more interesting to me. Even before the SOTU Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were criticizing it at the National Press club. But their "serious" response - the response of their party - was delivered on television immediately afterwards. I don't think I've ever seen a more limp and passionless performance by a major party leaders than this. Juxtaposed against Bush's confident and uplifting performance, the Nancy and Harry show demonstrated in bright contrast the reason why the Democrats find themselves unable to win the presidency and their numbers shrinking in both the House and the Senate.

What has possessed the Democrats to elect Pelosi and Reid as their leaders? When Pelosi tepidly criticizes Bush for failing to adequately address security issues both at home and abroad, who does she think she is convincing? Are citizens who failed to support John Kerry, who despite his despicable post-Vietnam behavior at least served in the military, really going to line up and march behind the Democratic flag urged onward by her passionless pleas? Anytime I suffer from insomnia I'll be sure to replay the undynamic duo's Mr. Rogers impression. Even nimrods like Ron Reagan are laughing at them during the post-mortems.

The only thing that could have been worse for Democrats is if Howard Dean had gotten on camera and yelled yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhhhrgggggggggggg!!! Fortunately for the two party system, most Americans switched channels as soon as Harry Reid's wimpy presentation started.

As for Social Security, Bush has an uphill battle but he just might have a chance to get it done. The talking heads are saying that this conversation about SS going bankrupt in 2042 just goes right over our heads out here in the hinterlands. Yeah, we're all so stupid outside the belway...we just can't count!! I haven't counted on Social Security being there for me at retirement since I started paying into it and most people I know feel the same way. So anything that takes some control out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and gives it back to the individual at least gives us a chance to fix the system.

A few thoughts about SS reform:

The retirement age has to be raised gradually to at least 70. People just live too long now and there aren't enough younger workers to support all of the people who will be retiring over the next few decades. It is stupid to believe that a system where people work from age 25 to 65 and then retire from 65 to 85 is sustainable at anything resembling a resonable cost.

Private accounts have to be a part of any reform. Perhaps the first $100,000 in each account would be required to be in US savings bonds or some other government issue. After all, the only difference between this and the current system is that in the current scheme the government writes these IOUs to itself. Is it really any riskier to have the IOU be written to the individual instead? Structuring it this way accomplishes one invaluable goal - it takes the money out of the budget and forces Congress to stop spending money that has been promised to future retirees on bridges in West Virginia named after ex-Klansman Robert Byrd.

If some increase in the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax so be it. I would actually advocate that as opposed to the president's position against any new taxes. I would subject all income to the tax but lower the rate on all income. This would be a tax break for lower income earners and an increase on wealthier Americans - but in return everyone gets the option of private accounts.

Bush could manuever the Democrats into a corner if he plays this right. And if you don't think he can do it then you haven't been paying much attention over the last five years.

And Ron Reagan is still an asshole. What gives him any particular expertise in government policy and politics. While his father was president he was off wearing pink tights and dancing in the ballet. Jerk.

Monday, January 03, 2005


Please consider a donation to World Vision a Christian relief organization to help those countries devastated by the tsunami last week. I decided on World Vision because of its Christian mission and because I didn't feel I could trust the Red Cross after their post 9/11 problems and the anti-American stance taken by the International Committee.

Keep all of our brothers and sisters in the Indian Ocean area in your daily prayers.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004


OK. Why is not pertinent to the issue of the alleged execution of a terrorist in Fallujah that the man behind the camera was "held captive for several hours by Iraqi Fedayeen who accused them of being spies. His hands were bound behind his back and an AK-47 round fired at his feet"? (thanks Hugh Hewitt)

What if we'd seen the same footage of a US soldier in the Korean War and were told that the reporter/photographer had been held and released by the North Koreans a few months earlier? Would that make you more skeptical about the report? Don't you at least think that it should have been disclosed considering the terrible impact that this report has for anti-American propagandists around the world? And what about that Marine...doesn't he deserve to have that kind of information disclosed about his video accuser?


Chrissy Matthews, when he isn't kissing his wife's butt on "Hardball" (sheesh...see last night's broadcast to become truly ill), opines that the bloodthirsty, cowardly, inhuman beasts that the Marines are fighting in Fallujah are "not bad guys especially, just people that disagree with us. They are, in fact, the insurgents fighting us in their country."

Not "bad guys especially"? Matthews makes me sick...is this supposed to be American journalism? Hurrah for the brave Chrissy Matthews speaking truth to power! Right on Brotha!!!

What a pathetic excuse for a human being. How can anyone think that? It may be that the Marine that shot that piece of shit who was pretending to be dead in that mosque in Fallujah was wrong to do so (but we don't know that YET...and heaven knows if there had been cameras manned by weenie leftists on the front lines at Tarawa or Okinawa what horrible things we would have seen) but that doesn't mean the hooded butchers that we are fighting are VIRTUOUS.

How can you expect more, really, from someone who shilled for Jimmy Carter (who thinks Arafat was a "powerful human symbol and forceful advocate").

Kidnappers...assassins...mass murderers...not such bad guys after all.


One of the big issues that the Republicans need to tackle aggressively is border control. After discovering a way to monitor the mind-boggling number of shipping containers that enter US ports every day, the most important problem is sealing the southern border with Mexico.

The Mexican government has been pushing for the Administration to support a legally protected status for illegal immigrants. Before September 11, 2001 Bush appeared to be headed in that direction but prosecuting the war and protecting the borders became higher priorities.

That's fine except that we can't secure our borders given the amount of resources that we are devoting to it, the lack of Mexican government assistance and the determination of Mexicans to risk death to get into the States. Mind you, we are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to grant any of the rights of citizenship (healthcare, education, drivers licenses, etc.) to those who are in this country illegally. But given the fact that we have consistently refused to enforce our own laws resulting in millions of illegal residents, what is a realistic approach to the problem?

There is no way that we will ever deport even a fraction of the Latin American nationals that reside in this country illegally. Like it or not they are here to stay. And frankly their presence here isn't the problem - it isn't like unemployment is rampant and these immigrants are taking jobs that other Americans would ordinarily fill and most of the Latins are Catholics who share our values not Muslims who preach anti-Americanism from the pulpit. No, the problems are that we 1)ignore our own laws to let them stay, 2)don't collect taxes on the money they make in a largely pay-by-cash economy and, most importantly, 3)are overwhelmed by the human flood to the extent that it is unlikely that the government is providing proper safeguards against terrorist infiltration.

It seems to me that there is a solution that would satisfy the needs of all parties:

1) Create a new guest worker program for Latin American countries. This could be similar to an H Visa but more liberal. Applicants would need only an American sponsor (a citizen in good standing here) and pass a background check. All applicants would be fingerprinted and have their photographs taken for an FBI/INS database.
2) Guest workers would be subject to income and payroll taxes just like all other American citizens but would be eligible for public education and worker assistance programs. One difference I would propose would be a lifetime cap on unemployment benefits prior to naturalization - if a person can't stay employed here we don't want them to put a burden on our welfare system. GWs would be eligible for Social Security benefits only after becoming American citizens.
3)GWs would NOT be able to vote in US elections - this prohibition would apply to state and local governments also.
4)US born children of GWs would be automatically eligible for GW status upon application but would NOT become citizens by way of their birth in this country. GWs American born children would be eligible for naturalization at the age of 18 assuming that they had no felony convictions.
5) A felony conviction in the US would be grounds for automatic deportation.
6) Male GWs above the age of 18 will automatically be registered for the draft. GWs may decline to be drafted into the US military but by electing to do so they (and their dependents) must surrender their GW status and return to their native country.
7) All illegal Latin American immigrants will be eligible for GW registration so long as they have proof that they were in the United States prior to the announcement of the program, have no felony history and currently have adequate means of support.
8) The quota of Guest Worker Visas to be granted each year should be roughly equal to the average estimated Latin American immigration (legal and illegal) over the past ten years. The quota may be adjusted up or down in conjunction with fluxuations in the US unemployment rate.

In return for the enactment of this legislation, the Mexican government will agree to assist us in patrolling the border and permit American surveillance and law enforcement activities to be conducted on the Mexican side of the border (in coordination with Mexican police) in a zone to be determined.

A small tax increase on the "wealthiest" Americans (that John Kerry was so keen on punishing) would be used to purchase surveillance equipment, build barriers and hire thousands of military personnel to patrol the border. The tax would sunset after five years with the intent being to reduce it after the bulk of the capital expenditures had been made.

Now this is just me brainstorming. I'm sure there are a lot of problems with what I've proposed not the least of which is the massive expenditures that will be necessary to realize a truly secure border. But think of the influx of cash into the treasury if only a small portion of the eligible income is taxed - and least you think this is unfair I ask you, why should the working poor have to pay SS taxes and small businesses have to pay when the guy who cuts your lawn doesn't?

It's a good deal all around - hell, even labor unions OUGHT to support it because it makes the playing field more equal. So let's get to it Republicans.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Why are the Democrats no longer capable of winning national elections?

That is what they are asking themselves these days. Can they find solace in the fact that they won a plurality of the vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000? Perhaps. But the last time a Democratic candidate for president won a majority of the vote was Jimmy Carter (ughh) in 1976. Twenty-eight years ago they were able to win a narrow majority against Gerald Ford. Not so comforting after all.

This election completed the realignment of national political allegiances - there are no more hawkish, socially conservative southern Democrats - they either retired (John Breaux, Zell Miller)or they switched parties a long time ago (John Connally, Phil Gramm). Ironically the inclusive party is now the Republican party - it is a center-right coalition that still includes a few northeastern liberals (Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter)- while the Democrats demands lock-step adherence to the party platform (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage) in order to have a voice at the table.

The Democrats are racking their brains now trying to figure out a winning strategy. But how can you win elections on the national level when your core constituency is far outside of the mainstream? Abortion rights groups, radical feminists, socialists, anarchists, pacifists, homosexual advocates, labor unions, environmental activists and the ACLU to varying degrees influence Democratic Party policies. It is not possible to simultaneously appeal to those groups (with the exception of labor unions and environmentalists) and the Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) who turned out in record numbers to turn the tide for President Bush.

I've commented on this before - Kerry's problem in this campaign and the Democrats' problem in general is that the core beliefs of the party cannot be openly espoused because to do so is political suicide. The far left in the country tolerates this strategy of deception because they had no viable alternative to center-right rule. But over time the electorate has caught on to the fact that the democratic Party has become the anti-religion, pro-tax and pacifism-at-all-cost party regardless of the presidential election year rhetoric.

Democrats in their pain over Kerry's loss have continued their strategy of insulting the intelligence of the "red state" voters while wondering aloud why they can't capture those votes. It is instructive to note that the Dems are more than happy to accept the help of vile mouthed rappers who can't resist the temptation to stab each other at an awards ceremony and yet attribute racist and homophobic motives to those who voted against their platform.

Isn't it possible that some of us just disagree with more taxes, more regulation, retreat in the face of Islamic fascism, abortion in the final trimester and the use of our tax dollars to push the acceptance of homosexual marriage in society? This doesn't seem reactionary or ignorant to me.

Some of us think that the education of our children is more important than the agenda of teachers unions. A lot of us think that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry with the blessing of the state. We don't think that the Boy Scouts should be attacked for denying homosexuals the access to young boys. The overwhelming majority of us believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan to take out the people who killed almost 3000 of us on 9/11. We don't like Michael Moore's anti-American screeds any more than we like Noam Chomsky's. But to those of us who believe these things there is only one political party that we can call home.

I think that it is more likely that the Democratic Party will fracture with its far left wing splintering off into irrelevant and sporadically violent protest than it will become a majority party again. The great success of the Conservatives over the past 40 years is that we have succeeded in shifting the political debate in the country from a left-wing agenda to a center-right agenda. Think of it, John F. Kerry, who won his party's nomination by posing as an anti-war candidate - who had been the ultimate anti-war protester after Vietnam, had to campaign as a "war hero". The Democratic nominee for president had to claim to be against homosexual marriage (although he'd voted against the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if Bush had lost the election he succeeded in pulling the debate far enough to the right that Kerry had pledged not to pull out the troops in Iraq until we had "won".

The Republicans have to guard against getting to prideful over their victory. We already have the progressive agenda on education, tax reform and social security but a more effective public relations effort has to be waged to win the day. And there isn't any reason why immigration, environmental and energy policies can't be crafted to both be consistent with conservative values and provide the practical solutions that people want to see.

The danger for Republicans is that they push too hard and lose the center. It will be interesting....but my money has the Democrats shifting to the left and leaving centrists with no choice but to align with the right.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004


When the dust settles and the pundits look back at what swayed this election towards the president I think that the turn-out of Christians for Bush will be seen as the offsetting factor to anti-war fervor of the Dems. It was a double-edged sword for them - Kerry played to the Michael Moore/Howard Dean wing of the party and it upped the turn-out numbers but... it also energized all us in the country who want to throw something at the television every time Moore appears spewing his outrageous lies.

And you can't give enough credit for the stealth organization of Karl Rove and the Republican Party and their ground campaign. They went into Republican areas and pumped up the turn-out and they went into swing areas and pumped-up the turn-out...and they increased their percentages among African-Americans (!), women, and Hispanics. If you had predicted this a couple of days ago people would have called you nuts.

Hats off.

Juan Williams is desperately trying to put some lipstick on this Democratic pig. Go Juan...knock yourself out.

Bush lead is 123,000 votes with 96% reporting. This is going to be outside the margin of theft.

28,000 votes in NM with 93% in - NM goes to Bush for a 274 EV official win. Bush leads by 3.5 million votes nationally.

Kerry had better concede before dawn...if he wants to preserve any shred of dignity for the Democratic Party (wait - dignity...Democrats...forget it). Hume is bringing Nixon up now which is appropriate....Nixon was a hell of a lot closer to winning the Presidency in 1960 than Kerry is now. Less than 200,000 votes separated the two candidates then. 15 times that margin separates Kerry and Bush. Kennedy beat Nixon nationally by about the margin that Bush is leading Kerry in Ohio.


4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!

And the best part of this is how absolutely ridiculous Susan Estrich looks with her idiotic "I'm an insider and I believe the polls" bullshit earlier in the night.

Looks like Bush is going to take Iowa too.

128K lead for Bush in Ohio with 97% reporting.

My prediction: Kerry will not concede and there will be lawsuits in Ohio. Accusations will fly...outrage that DEMOCRATS CAN LOSE???!!! Juan Williams of course thinks that will happen and thinks it would be OK. In the words of our president...bring it ON. If you want to destroy yourselves as a national party in the eyes of the public then throw this temper tantrum over your loss. Democrats tried to registered every felon, vagrant, illegal alien, and deceased person in each battleground state and STILL LOST. GIVE IT UP.

Bumper sticker for tonight: "Cheaters never prosper". Smoke that.


The unbelievable bullshit continues: John Edwards is announced at what should be a concession speech as "the next Vice President of the United States". Usual expected classlessness. Assholes.

OK...how long did you work on your hair weenie?

Oh, and by the way....John-John is still FIGHTING FOR YOU!!!!

Boy am I glad that the Secretary of State in Ohio is a Republican. At least someone was watching today to prevent a Lyndon Johnson/Richard Daley style ballot stuffing party on Cleveland.

Keep debasing yourselves boys.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004


Florida is in Bush's column. It appears that his lead is too much for even the Democratic machine to steal.

Susan Estrich is trying to spin the disaster for Kerry - she is saying that Ohio is still a possibility at this point. But I just saw Michael Barone talking about what counties haven't reported and said that it looks like there are larger reservoirs of Republican votes out there than Democratic votes. She also intimated that there are electoral problems in Florida (gasp!) that could give the Democrats hope (highly unlikely that they can turn a 300,000 vote lead with that much of the vote counted).

Estrich needs to lay off the speed. I don't think she blinked during the entire segment. Definitely the most partisan commentator I've seen tonight (although I've not watched much of CBS coverage).

Although nobody is willing to hang out there right now, I think that this election is very close to over. If Bush wins Ohio it IS over.

Monday, November 01, 2004


Bush loses Ohio but wins in Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida - and Hawaii. Bush picks up one electoral vote in Maine. Bush wins in the Electoral College 281 to 257. The popular vote will go for Bush 49.8% to 49.1%.

I voted for Bush last week. The lines at early polling places in Houston were long. At church this weekend the pastor asked how many had already voted - about 75% of the congregation raised their hands....at a very large Baptist church.

Turn out is going to be heavy on both sides.

Wanted to get this in because I will be travelling the next couple of days but I'll try to blog from the West Coast on election night.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Thursday, October 28, 2004


Now Matthews is interviewing James Hoffa...well interview is not the right work - he's tossing up softballs (isn't this HARDBALL as he always screams out?). What a fluff piece, I expected Hoffa to drop his pants for Chrissy...now at least that would have been interesting news.


I'm suffering from election burn out before the election but a few notes here:

Interesting buzz among the pols in the last few days. I hear extreme confidence among the Bush campaign operatives which seems to be justified to an extent as Kerry appears to be abandoning Colorado and Florida. National Review's Kerry Spot is reporting that the Bush campaign's internal polling is showing momentum toward Bush. All of the polls seem to support them - Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Hawaii all appear to be toss-ups at this point. The latest polls show Kerry pulling ahead in Ohio but I'd be surprised if Bush ends up losing there. Note that all of those toss-up states went to Gore in 2000.

The trend in the last week has been easy to see for anyone who looks - it's towards Bush.

What is the response from the MSM? The New York Times releases information that just blows the lid off of what? A front page story sourced from the UN implies that almost 400 tons of high explosives were stolen from underneath our noses. Only it turns out that the last time the IAEA checked there were only 3 tons there....oops!

And now we get a new Halliburton investigation! Wow...way to go MEDIA! All our faith is in YOU!

Meanwhile ABC News thinks that a new terrorist video, where the maniac specifically threatens bloody attacks on America should Bush be elected, shouldn't be aired in its entirety right now because it might influence the election. Hmmm...I wonder if they will be equally hesitant to report the beheading of an American in Iraq because of fears that the Iraqi terrorists are trying to influence the election? Somehow I doubt they'd hesitate for a second.

A concerted campaign from the media....but are people listening - or rather, are they buying the bullshit?

I had an interesting conversation in the elevator at work yesterday. A black guy, who was apparently a courier, looked up at the video new screen ("Captivate") and cleared his throat. I was expecting an anti-Bush harangue but I was surprised when he started..."I wonder what lies that John Kerry is gonna be tellin' today?" He was referring to the bogus explosives story. I laughed and said "Yeah, it seemed like a serious deal until I realized that it all happened 18 months ago." He laughed and went on: "And that wife of his has a really big mouth too." Then the elevator doors opened and we left.

It is anecdotal but I think it supports the polling is showing a shocking increase (from 9 to 18%) in support for President Bush among black voters.

Scanning TV....Chris Matthews is blowing the lid off of the "Bunny" Greenhouse - Halliburton deal! Bunny was (is?) in charge of minority contracting goals in the Corps of Engineers. She was objecting to the length of the Halliburton contract. Can we question the timing???? Chrissy wasn't nearly as brutal as he normally is with someone on the other end of the political spectrum (or regardless of affiliation just a Kerry attacker like John O'Neill). He has become a partisan hack. This is another coordinated hit job.

I think there is a current in the body politic that Bush's pollsters are picking up and others are either seeing and denying for spin purposes or missing completely. My feeling is that Bush is going to win with 51% to 47% but it could still be bigger. Bush will win Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa and he'll pick up one of the follwoing three: Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I think he'll break 300 electoral votes.

I will be in San Diego on Tuesday and I think I'll be celebrating a Bush victory before retiring early to bed....say 10 PM Pacific/1 AM Eastern...OK I might stay up later but this thing is going to be over at least by that time.

Saturday, October 09, 2004


President Bush gets a small edge in the debate last night. His message was more direct, confident and consistent than Kerry.

Although Kerry is performing much better in the debates than I would have expected from a strictly technical perspective - he doesn't have quite the self-important and effeminate air of Al Gore - he still got a little too preachy last night. I thought that Kerry went a little too far in his lecturing of the president (he did'nt have to turn to the president, step toward him and gesture at him when he was making a criticism). More damaging to Kerry though was the fact that he was ineffective in rebutting Bush's claim that you can't believe Kerry on taxes or the war because his twenty year record is in direct opposition to his current positions.

Bush's performance was still lacking on a couple of points that could devastate his opponent:

On North Korea and Iran - Bush still failed to point out that Kerry suggested, in the first debate, that we give nuclear materials to Iran to "test their intentions". Karl Rove is falling down on the job if he doesn't have Bush say this in the next debate: "My opponent has suggested that we supply Iran with nuclear material to test their intention, so that they can prove that they really want reactors for power generation. Why would a country sitting on that much oil need to develop nuclear power? His policy is the same one that the Clinton administration tried with North Korea and it failed miserably. My opponent apparently thinks that more proof is needed before we can determine that the Iranians are trying to develop nuclear weapons...I don't...their intentions are clear and anyone who doesn't understand that already doesn't exhibit the appropriate judgement to president."

On Kyoto: "My opponent had an opportunity to vote for Kyoto. He didn't...and he wasn't alone - not a single senator voted for Kyoto when the issue was addressed during the Clinton administration. Sensing a pattern here? Senator Kerry has had a lot of opportunities to vote the convictions that he has claimed to hold during this campaign, but time after time when you look at his record it doesn't support what he's saying now. Words are cheap...look at the record if you want to judge the man."

Bush had better take every opportunity to point out Kerry's hypocrisy. I have changed my thinking about how close the race will be. Based on Bush's poor first debate performance I think his lead is down to about 2%- close enough for him to be defeated if he has a poor performance in the third debate or if some disruption happens in Iraq. I still think he wins with close to 300 electoral votes but not as comfortably as he could have.

Thursday, October 07, 2004


There seems to be an organized union campaign to attack Bush-Cheney offices in Florida along with random acts of violence against Republican political offices around the country in recent days (Professor Bainbridge via Instapundit).

And then there is this champion of tolerance in Gainseville, Florida.

Those Democrats sure have the claim to the moral high ground don't they?

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


Read about these acts of vandalism and violence against Bush campaign offices and then tell me again how Republicans are the new Brownshirts?

Tuesday, October 05, 2004


While he missed a few opportunities to take Edwards down, I thought Cheney did a really nice job tonight of elaborating on the points that Bush failed to last Thursday. He scored well on shaming Edwards about the John-john campaign of denigrating the role of our most important allies, the Iraqis, and made good political hay with his attacks on the senate records of the twins.

I thought he could have answered the Halliburton attacks...well he could have answered them period. Their internal polling must be telling the Republicans that the Halliburton smear tactic isn't going to cost them any votes that they have a chance of winning.

He also missed the opportunity to slam J-J for the midnight in America theme. Is anyone besides me getting sick of having the country described as though we're in the midst of another Great Depression?

The closing statements, if anyone was still watching, highlighted the intense gravity of Cheney (somewhat akin to a black hole) vs. the lightweight status of the trial lawyer from Carolina (some gray hair would help).

Verdict: upper hand to Cheney; no knockdowns but the bleeding from Bush's poor showing last week has been stopped.


In response to the continuing obfuscation of the Kerry campaign I offer some thoughts from a post from August 2003 on the war in Iraq vs. US actions in Kosovo:

"We should note that General Clark's resistance to the use of force did not extend to the people of Yugoslavia when he presided over a NATO bombing campaign that didn't sit well with fellow moonbat Ramsey Clark ("Indictment accusing Bill Clinton, General Wesley Clark and others for war crimes against Yugoslavia"). The last time I checked, the Serbs hadn't lobbed any missles into Tel Aviv, tried to consolidate control of the world oil supply, attempt the execution of an ex-US President or threatened Europe with poison gas or nuclear weapons. Where was the "imminent threat" there General?"

This post was directed as Weasley Clark but it applies to Kerry who supported the bombing campaign in Kosovo - which, by the way, never gained the support of the UN. Apparently President Clinton was just did not offer enough bribes to the Russians to get them to change their mind. John-John could do better!

So Kerry's record is that he was against authorizing Bush I to use force against Iraq in 1990 even though the UN approved that action and then he was for bombing the bejezus out of Kosovo to stop the Serbs even though there was no UN vote on the matter...and then he was for authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq if necessary (who exactly thought at the time that vote meant anything but war?)...and then he voted against the appropriations bill to fund supplies for our troops to gain political points in the Democratic primaries...and then he says he would have voted the same way on authorizing the president to use force even knowing, as he knows now, that we haven't found any WMD's...but again, he thinks that this is "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time...", but he's going to kill the terrorists wherever they are....except if it doesn't pass the "global test"....but...wait...Iraq I did pass...global test....FFF!...JFK!....does not compute....does not compute....

Please, somebody please make an argument that John F. Kerry, self-professed war criminal, should be leading the armed forces of the United States into battle against the reactionary forces of Islamic fascism when he didn't think letting an additional 25% of the world's proven oil reserves (260 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia) fall into the hands of a WMD developing sadist who had already conquered Kuwait and its 99 billion barrels of proven reserves (8%) to add to Iraq's 115 billion barrels of proven reserves is a problem! He was apparently unbothered by the rapes and brutal murders of Kuwaitis (and the consolodation into Hussein's hands of 40% of the world's oil reserves) and poison gassing of the Kurds but was supportive of removing Milosevic from power for atrocities against the Kosovars.

What is the consistent policy of John Kerry with regards to the use of the US military? Nobody knows because he doesn't have one. But he has been consistent about one thing...he's been consistently wrong in his votes about deploying our forces.

Geez, my head is spinning from just following his positions all over the internet.

UPDATE: Well, Kerry, just as a broken clock is right twice a day, did get the vote right on the authorization of force against Iraq in Gulf War II...but...he's renounced his vote....well, kind of...uhhh, he said that he would have voted for the authorization to use force knowing in 2002 what he knows now. But he would have voted for authorizing the president to use force to enforce UN resolutions that all the evidence said (again in hindsight - with 2004 knowledge)weren't being violated?

Kerry has lied in so many different ways at so many different venues that I am afraid even he isn't sure what he believes anymore.

If Kerry isn't consistent at least he's predictable - stick your finger to the wind and you'll be able to forecast his next about-face.

Monday, October 04, 2004


Bill Richardson just said, on Fox this morning, that the way to get France and Germany to participate with us in Iraq (after changing presidents of course) is to "give them something". He suggested oil contracts and maybe getting Germany a permanent seat on the Security Council.

I thought that this was one of the things that Bush failed to hammer Kerry on during the debate. Kerry said that we needed to ask other nations what we could do to get their help - "what do you want?". So the candidate that calls Great Britain, Austrailia, Poland, Italy, Japan, etc. the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" thinks the failure of the Administration's foreign policy is really that they failed to bribe enough.

In this argument there is a tacit acknowledgement of our real problem with the French, German, Chinese and Russians on the issue of Iraq - they were breaking the UN sanctions on Iraq with UN officials looking the other way. Kerry's response is to continue to ignore the problem and just bribe them.

That's what he means when he says he would "do" Iraq better. New Kerry campaign slogan; KEEPING AMERICA SAFER, ONE BRIBE AT A TIME.

Saturday, October 02, 2004


Captain Ed is reporting on suspicions that recently freed Japanese and Italian hostages in Iraq were actually cooperating with the terrorists willingly to scam their governments out of the ransom money. After Rachel Corrie why am I not surprised?

If this is true it should land the individuals in question in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Anyone cooperating with the "insurgents" in Iraq is an accessory to mass-murder; the blood of all of the innocent people killed in suicide attacks on public gatherings and police stations is on their hands too.

The news media needs to get off its collective lazy ass and get in the middle of stories like these. The MSM relentlessly gives publicity to the terrorists to get their message out around the globe as they attempt to blackmail governments and influence public opinion - the least they can do is give us an accurate picture of the facts on the ground.

Do a little investigative reporting for a change - hey, this is one story where no one would mind if CBS fabricated a few documents to round out a hatchet-piece on Zarqawi! Go Dan...GO!

Friday, October 01, 2004


Guess which cranky old cracker wrote this:

"Kerry is a very good public speaker as long as you don't actually THINK about the shit flying out of his neck. That technique plays well with the True Believers and the Kool-Ade drinkers, but it won't change many minds, not with Kerry's track record of lies and fence-straddling."

Wouldn't want to spoil the surprise.


There is good news in the Gallup poll after debate numbers:

Viewers leaned toward Bush on which candidate agreed with them on issues, who was more believable, and who was more likable. And by 54% to 37%, viewers said Bush better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

These results are based on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted Thursday night immediately after the end of the presidential debate, which ended at 10:30 p.m. Eastern time. Respondents in the sample were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, when they indicated they expected to watch the debate and that they were willing to be called when the debate finished.

In that pre-debate survey, 52% of the viewers who were included in Thursday night's sample said they supported Bush and 44% supported Kerry, similar to the vote preference measured among likely voters in the Sept. 24-26 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

And the respondents were equally split, at 41% each, on which candidate had a better grasp of the issues.

The bottom line is that honest viewers recognized that Kerry performed better as a public speaker but at the same time recognized that his positions were inconsistent with the ones they hold. And the poll also shows that people were not swayed by the senator's claims that he is every bit as tough on the war as the president.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than they are generally given credit for.


Kerry's make-up artists get an A+ - did they bleach his face to get all of that orange shit off of it? Ooompa loompa loompa-de-de, if you are smart you'll listen to ME!


And Hugh Hewitt does make me feel a little better. Maybe I'm being too critical...hearing all of the weaknesses in Kerry's arguments I was just disappointed that the president didn't hammer them all home as I'd hoped. But the arguments were still weak and obviously so.

Thursday, September 30, 2004


But then again, Kerry did step on his Treblinka. Heh, heh.


What I wish Bush would have said:

On Bunker Busting Nukes: "I'm not surprised that my opponent wants to kill a program that would enable us to attack underground sites of the type that hide our enemies' WMD research facilities. He has opposed weapons system after weapons system during his tenure in the Senate that would have assisted our armed forces in their mission to protect the country. I will never, as your Commander-in-Chief, renounce a weapon that would help deter our enemies and make our nation more secure."

On the "character" question: "I'm actually offended that you would ask me that question, as if I assigned evil motives or charcter flaws to people who disagree with me on policy issues. The issues in this campaign do not revolve around the character of my opponent but rather on his mistaken ideas about how best to lead our country in the wake of 9/11." And then what the president said about his respect for Kerry which was gracious. It was a bullshit question for a "serious" journalist.

And although he wasn't asked about it I think Bush should have elaborated on the PATRIOT Act - at least pointing out that Kerry and his supporters want to weaken it (even though many of them voted for it) because they are concerned about the rights of potential terrorists.

Oh well...it wasn't a disaster...and remember that Mondale was perceived to have won the first debate against Reagan in 84 only to have been flattened in the General Election.


Bush was less than average tonight. Kerry wins.

Bush missed a number of opportunities to hammer Kerry during the debate.

I would have hit him on these:

Kerry criticized the president about not providing body armor for the troops that some of them got the equipment they needed as "birthday presents". My response would have been something like this - "I find it astonishing that my opponent could criticize me for not proviing proper equipment for the troops when he, in his capacity as a United States senator, voted against 87 billion dollars for the war effort, a part of which was devoted to the purchase of body armor. I've heard him try to explain this vote but to me, I guess I'm to simple, I can't understand the nuance. I can only tell you this - there is no excuse for playing politics with the safety of our sons and daughters in uniform during a time of war."

Kerry criticized Bush on the negotiations with North Korea and Bush was better on this issue but he still missed a weakness:

"I listened in disbelief while my opponent suggested that we provide nuclear fuel to Iran to "test their intentions" - that is exactly what the Clinton adminstration did with North Korea. That policy failed and while we supplied North Korea with nuclear reactors and heating fuel they pursued a nuclear weapons program under the noses of the IAEA. We can't repeat the mistakes of the past with the North Koreans - the stakes are too high. The North Koreans don't want the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and South Koreans involved in the negotiations - but why shouldn't we insist on it, after all those countries are the ones actually at risk of North Korean aggression, not the United States. At least we aren't at risk yet. But eventually the North Koreans and others will develop missle systems that can reach our shores and pair them with nuclear warheads which is why it is vitally important that we pursue an anti-missile defense system which the senator, inexpicably, opposes."

On Kyoto:

"I've been criticized about walking away from the Kyoto accords. Well my opponent is a member of the United States Senate - a body that voted 95-0 against Kyoto during the Clinton administrateion. The last time I checked, our Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate. It seems to me that oppostion to Kyoto was one of the few things that the Senate was able to agree upon in a bi-partisan manner and I don't feel that the president should try to circumvent the will of the people as expressed so forcefully by their elected representatives. So I simply informed the world of the will of the representatives of the American people...and whether other countries like it or they don't it's my duty to covey that message."

On our lack of allies: "Apparently the Senator does not recognize the following countries as our allies - Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, and Poland. These countries along with more than 20 others supported our decision to take action and deployed forces there."

On the UN: "My opponent suggests that we did not invite the United Nations into Iraq to help when they offered help. In fact they were in Iraq. Unfortunately the United Nations decided that it would be undesireable to have US forces provide protection for them because it woule make them a target. They were a target even without Americans around. Tragically the UN has not learned the lessons of 9/11 that our opponents are opponents of liberty, human rights and democracy and those concepts are not exclusively American; they never recognized that the Islamic facsists are opposed to us BECAUSE we support liberty, religious freedom, and women's rights. Then the UN did the worst thing possible - they caved in to terrorism. What kind of lesson do we teach the terrorists when we respond to their bloody assassinations and mass murders by abandoning the mission? All we do when we recoil from their attacks is encourage future attacks. We must be steadfast and we must be strong."

Bush stumbled too much. I was surprised at how tentative and halting he was. He was too focused on hammering the theme home - mixed messages, flip-flops, in it to win it, etc. He let Kerry slide too much on his claim that he will be just as strong but smarter.

That said, I'm not too sure how many undecideds will be swayed by this. Kerry avoided being knocked out tonight but that was about the best he could hope for. The electorate will not be turned around on the issue of security - that is Bush's strength and it remains so. And I think the election will hinge on security and there won't be much movement on domestic issues.

I'm not happy tonight but I still think Bush wins by 5 to 6 points with a comfortable electoral margin. If you want a chance at a limited war and not an all out war against Islam, you'd better pray that Bush wins.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004


If, after watching Kerry in the debates attack the president on the PATRIOT Act and de facto take the side of the terrorists against America, you feel the need to vent your spleen "send a message" to George Soros. Oh....pleeeeaaase send a message to George Soros.

While I was writing this brief aside, I heard Chris Matthews say this while interviewing (expecting brainchild) Bill Maher':

"It's as if FDR after Pearl Harbor had said "Let's attack Australia"...what the hell let's kick their butt."

Uhh...not quite Chrissy. It would be more like FDR deciding to attack, ummmm like maybeee... Germany after the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. Do ya think??? Idiot?!!! Germany had an alliance with Japan before the attack but they didn't participate in it. America could easily have made peace with Germany even though they were terrorizing Britain and had conquered France because...hey, they weren't an immediate threat to US!

Analize this - to Chrissy Matthews the following is true: al-Qaeda is to Japan as Iraq is to Australia????? How the fuck does that compute? Matthews has become a disgrace. I can't understand how anyone who has a high-school education could make that analogy. But we have to give him some slack, he was interviewing that intellectual giant, Bill Maher...must have been overcome by the star power.

I know that I'm becoming more vitriolic now but I can't understand how people that I (previously) thought were serious could make statements like that.

John Kerry and the Democrats would be an abject disaster for the our country. We will be subject to MORE attempts at intimidation if that weenie becomes president because al-Qaeda will feel that they were able to influence our elections by the intimidation tactics of suicide bombings and beheading. Kerry had a chance to position himself as tougher than Bush but he's lost that now. No one believes him when he claims that he will keep us safer now; that's why he is losing the female vote now.

And besides, he, like Chris Matthews, is an a-hole. And if I'm going to elect an A-hole for president, I want a president that is going to be an ASSHOLE TO OUR ENEMIES not one who promises only to be an a-hole to his political opponents.


Kerry's comments regarding Prime Minister Allawi's address to Congress last week should have convinced even the most diehard Bush-hater of the Senator's complete lack of character and class. Not to mention seriousness. While his campaign is whining incessantly about "negative" campaigning by the Bushies, Kerry and his henchmen play to the terrorists by castigating Allawi as a "puppet" and lackey of the Administration. Another brilliant tactic to win allies and deter enemies!

Let's be clear about something that apparently Senator Kerry (and Senator's Biden and Kennedy) does not understand - the conflict we are engaged in is more political than military. Islamic facsists do not behead foreign aid workers in Iraq and blow up UN missions in order to defeat us militarily; they use these tactics to turn US public opinion against the war. One beheaded truck driver makes a greater impact than ten dead soldiers, so they continue with their barbaric kidnappings and hope that idiotic US Senators will hysterically react by advocating US troop withdrawals. Once we are gone how many volunteers do you think there will be to fight the Baathist/Islamofacsists?

So what does Kerry do? He could have made a strong statement indicating that he supports Prime Minister Allawi and that he, JFK, would be a better ally because once elected he would clean out the terrorist nests in Falluja and Najaf, increase security forces in the country and accelerate the expenditure of reconstruction funds. That message would have criticized the president while sending a message to our enemies that they will get no relief from the US Military during a Kerry adminsitration. Instead, Kerry carried on with a petulant tirade against the president and implied that Allawi was lying to put a good face on the situation. His remark to a reporter at his press conference immediately following the Allawi speech (reminiscent of the midnight rally that he and Edwards held a few minutes after the end of the Republican National Convention) gave off the strong scent of desperation (among other less pleasant odors).

In case you had any doubt about what Kerry meant in his remarks, Joe Lockhart (the miserable piece of shit that he is) was there to to criticize a man who regularly faces assassination attempts by al-Qaeda and former Baathists as a Bush puppet. I wonder how that statement will play in the Arab press Joe? Think maybe it will encourage the terrorists and help recruitment? Maybe they'll get the idea that if the advisors to the Democratic nominee for US president take this position after just a few American beheadings that more violence will turn the tide? DOES ANYONE AT THE KERRY CAMPAIGN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE NOMINEE HAVE AN AUDIENCE BEYOND OUR SHORES? It does appear that they either want American policy to fail to bring about a secular democratic government in Iraq or they are complete and utter fools.

Why should anyone be suprised that the violence is escalating in the months leading up to our presidential election and the Iraqi elections? The lesson that the terrorists learned from the Madrid bombing was that faced with the brutal tactics of random slaughter Westerners are more than willing to sacrifice Iraq to the Islamofacsists. Having seen this work in Spain they would be fools not to try it again to influence American elections. If they are really smart they understand that Americans are a little more stubborn and patriotic than Spaniards and that any attack on US soil prior to the election will most likely rally the public around the president. But, a procession of videotaped beheadings of Americans could cause public opinion to sour.

Do the terrorists want Kerry to win the election - you bet they do. What Kerry never says (because he can't and still hope to be elected) is that he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq in short order. Senator Kerry is completely unserious about the war in Iraq and the war on Islamofacsism in general and the American electorate senses this - that is why he has no chance to win in Novemeber.

Thursday, September 23, 2004


I watched Kerry's weak-kneed, desperately hoarse response to Allawi's address to congress this morning. Too tired to write an article of my own (just got in from the west coast), I offer this from Ralph Peters (via Instapundit):

"September 23, 2004 -- IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.
We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?"


"Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.

As he always does, Kerry slips in qualifiers. Of course, Iraq's important. And he'll fight terror, too. It's just that the Bush administration doesn't know how to do anything. A Kerry presidency would let us withdraw our troops, collect more allies, succeed where others have "failed" and win the hearts and minds of the whole, wide world.

Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested.

As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans.

As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry.

Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals.

I think it's great that Kerry speaks fluent French. I wish he'd go to France where he could speak it all the time.

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility."

Spot on.

Monday, September 20, 2004


Too tired for linking...just a few thoughts about the latest RatherGate revelations:

Tonight's events were much anticipated but created a lot more questions than they answered. The appearance of Clinton axe-man Joe Lockhart in the story, coming as it does only a couple of days after we learned of Max Cleland's role, suggests a deeper involvement by the Kerry campaign that was only hinted at before.

If you will Gunga Dan, "with respect", just answer the questions:

1. Tonight you personally said you were sorry but exactly what are you apologizing for and to whom? To your viewers for misleading them with obviously false documentation? To Laura Bush who you questioned as having no proof of her claim that the memos were probably forgeries? To President Bush whose reputation you attempted to smear with a cheap, partisan attack?

2. Why did you accept the memos as genuine when your own experts told you that they had serious concerns about their authenticity?

3. Why did you not listen to Killian's son and widow when they told you that these documents did not square with what they knew about his feelings towards George Bush?

4. Why did you continue on the offensive against the president asking him to "respectfully, answer the questions" raised by the fraudulent documents and by implying to your viewers that because the administration did not deny the unsubstantiated claims it was some kind of admission of their veracity?

5. Why did you accept the word of a wing-nut like Bill Burkett about the authenticity of documents that he was passing on from someone else who remains unnamed?

6. Who are you really protecting? It isn't CBS or Bill Burkett or Mary Mapes - is it Joe Lockhart? Max Cleland? or someone else in the Kerry campaign.

Bad, bad news for Hurricane Dan. Heh, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=