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.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=