Thursday, January 29, 2004
BRING IT ON!
I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")
Monday, January 26, 2004
Here are just a few of the votes John Kerry has cast in his long, shockingly liberal US Senate career:
-Voted against funding our troops in Iraq, one of only twelve senators to do so.
-Voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending.
-Voted repeatedly to slash the budgets of intelligence agencies by billions of dollars.
-Voted for the largest tax increase ever.
-Voted for the death tax.
-Voted against a Balanced Budget Amendment at least five times.
-Voted for a 50-percent increase in the gas tax.
-Voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion at least three times.
-Voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, one of only fourteen senators to do so.
-Voted against requiring parental notification for minors' abortions.
-Voted against mandatory sentences for drug dealers.
-Voted to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.
-Voted against the death penalty for terrorists and cop killers.
According to Americans for Democratic Action, the premier liberal rating group, Kerry's voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy's. In addition to the above votes, Kerry was a radical Vietnam war protester, has called for "almost eliminating CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
This country cannot afford a Kerry presidency.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, dozens of bloggers ask their readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.
If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And then e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org so that you'll be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
Yeah, Kerry doesn't need a Southern State to win. Just ask President Gore.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support.
There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
Matthew Hoy's response:
It was a good thing President Bush mentioned this in such a widely disseminated speech. The Democrat presidential hopefuls (and, as you shall see, Democrats in the Congress), especially Sen. John Kerry, have been characterizing the U.S. as going it alone. Kerry's characterization of those 34 countries is that they are a "fraudulent coalition."
Apparently for Democrats, any coalition without France and/or Germany isn't really a coalition at all. Democrat candidates have made a point of saying that they will "repair" the breach Bush has allegedly opened between the U.S. and France (the breach was really opened by France, not the U.S.). But if the Democrat candidate actually wins in November, what effect will his vitriolic attacks on the coalition of the willing have on the relationship between the U.S. and each of those countries? How will British PM Tony Blair react to being part of a "fraud?"
Great thinking, Matt.