Friday, April 30, 2004
Newsview: Dems Fear Kerry Looks Like Gore
WASHINGTON - It's a recurring nightmare for Democratic strategist Tony Coelho — the party's presidential candidate portrayed as a flip-flopping opportunist, ill-served by a strife-torn staff. It happened in 2000, when Coelho ran Al Gore (news - web sites)'s campaign. Now, it's happening to John Kerry (news - web sites).
Democratic leaders fear he's getting "Gored."
"What the Kerry people don't understand is, it's succeeding," Coelho said.
Scores of Kerry supporters like the former California congressman say their initial response is to remain hopeful, based on polls showing the presumptive nominee tied with President Bush (news - web sites) while the Democratic Party is better funded and more united than in 2000. But they are worried about history repeating itself.
"No question, it's a rerun of 2000," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the former vice president's 2000 race.
So much for that "united" jazz. This is my favorite part:
"They're painting Kerry as a liberal, and it's succeeding. They're painting him as somebody who flip flops, and they're succeeding," Coelho said, adding that the race is far from over because Kerry has time to show voters his own biography and character. The campaign plans to unveil new biographical ads as early as next week.
New biographical ads? How pathetic is that? I almost feel sorry for them, thinking that Kerry's problems are because people don't know him. In reality, it is exactly like a recent ad Bush had out there, "The problem isn't that people know him, it's that people do." C'mon, what is he going to put in this biographical ad? Something like this maybe:
"Here's John Kerry. He served in Vietnam. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers for selfish political gain when he returned home. He married a rich woman. an for Congress twice and lost. Was Dukakis' Lt. Governor. Ran for Senate and won. Has voted against every defense program that came before him, and for every tax increase and liberal program he saw, while introducing zero legislation of significance. Divorced rich woman. Married even richer woman, a widow of one of his fellow Senators. Flip-flopped throughout. Vote for Kerry."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Senator John F. Kerry, promising a rush of government action to assist cities and towns, told a gathering of black mayors yesterday that he would tackle a growing concern -- homeland security -- by toughening safeguards for chemical plants and directing the FBI to work more closely with local police.I think Senatoor Kerry's actual promise of action was worded like this:
"I'll vote to boost federal anti-terrorism aid before I vote against it"
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Kerry Says Bush Ignoring Imminent Threats
PHILADELPHIA - Amid warnings that another devastating terrorist attack on the United States could be imminent, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday accused President Bush of leaving the nation's chemical plants vulnerable because of his political ties to the industry.
That's right, Bush is leaving them vulnerable because he is in bed with them!! Think about that logic for a minute. Isn't that the exact opposite of how you are supposed to take care of your cronies? Then again, to Kerry, it is perfect logic.
Kerry painted a bleak picture of the danger facing Americans and suggested there could be an attack before the November election. He said every report out of Washington shows that it's not a matter of whether there will be another terrorist attack, but when.
While I am not saying he is hoping for one, we all know that Kerry believes that a terror attack here will turn us all to Spainiards and we will run to vote for him. Between now and the election, you can bet that Kerry will warn about every possible type of attack just so he can say he warned us.
John Kerry’s position on Castro seems to exemplify the late U.S. Senate minority leader and senior senator from Illinois, Everett Dirksen who once said: “I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.”At least the Kennedys were consistent when it came to Castro. They consistently tried to kill the son of a bitch, and they constantly failed.
There are some that suggest that White House contender Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., may have taken the lawmaker icon’s wit too much to heart, especially in dealing with the Castro and Cuba.
No matter Castro has been identified by both the left-leaning Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as running one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes on the earth.
Kerry has at best equivocated about how America should respond, at worst, he voted against acts that sought to hem in Castro, such as the bipartisan Helms Burton bill that was supported by many Democrats, including Bill Clinton.
Specifically, he needs more muscle. Naturally the only way he might go about doing this (in their view) isn't by showing some personal cojones, but by emulating the cast-iron set that previous Democratic presidents were alleged to possess.
He does have sufficent bona fides, according to the "anyone but Bush" crowd. He and Jack have the same initials, after all. They both ruthlessly exploited the Massachusetts Irish voting demographic. They were both from wealthy families, and they both married rich broads.
The similiarities are striking, no doubt about it.
So how do these otherwise hairbrained leftist hacks think that their beloved anti-war demigod might go about enhancing his public pectorals?
By increasing the size of the baby-killing, civilian-bombing military, naturally. You've got to hand it to them. They take cynical realpolitik to new heights of hypocrisy.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy assailed the Eisenhower administration for ignoring a supposed "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The charge was false — the Soviets weren't actually ahead when it came to missiles — but it allowed Kennedy to outflank Richard Nixon on the right and narrowly win the election.I'm all in favour of boosting military spending, but not when it is being suggested not as a viable long-term commitment to defence and deterence, but instead a cheap political ploy designed to get past the next election.
Today we face a real shortage — a shortage of soldiers. The Army has fallen from 18 divisions in 1991 (710,000 soldiers) to 10 today (486,000) even as its commitments have expanded exponentially. Kerry should make the "muscle gap" a centerpiece of his campaign by pledging to do what George W. Bush won't: dramatically increase the size of the Army.
Bush is being disingenuous when he promises to give commanders in Iraq all the troops they need. The generals won't ask for many reinforcements because they know they don't exist. Just sustaining the current level of 135,000 troops in Iraq is proving almost impossible. Nine of the Army's divisions are either in Iraq and Afghanistan or just returning from there. The only additional one that can be dispatched is the 3rd Infantry Division, which left Iraq less than a year ago after spearheading the drive on Baghdad.
The Defense Department has tried to address pressing needs by sending 25,000 Marines, but the Marine Corps too is seriously overstretched. If any more Marines are sent, commitments in Haiti, South Korea and elsewhere may suffer.
In the end, that's the real problem with democratic candidates and leaders. Not the lack of "muscle". The lack of depth and long-term strategic forsight is their issue. We saw it with Clinton in Somalia and even the much-vaunted Kennedy with his absurdly erratic visions for a premature withdrawal from Vietnam. If Kerry were elected (heaven forfend) he would be exactly the same; a polemical populist with no vision beyond the latest PO polls. In my opinion, there hasn't been a democratic president that could claim any vision whatever since FDR.
And no Bill, drug-induced college hallucinations don't count.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
John Kerry Must Go
So my question is who do you think will ride in to save the DNC from complete destruction at the last minute? My money is and has been on an impromptu (aka: staged) draft Hillary movement at the last moment to save their asses. Personally I think if she were to appear in the race every Republican, pseudo conservative and Democrats in the flyover states would be moved to get out and vote against her.
Savor every bite!
[Brian added: Being from Philly, I really love this one!! Great work Joe!!!]
John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.
With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.
What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual— resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.
If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.
Monday, April 26, 2004
"It's time for Dick Cheney to call off the Republican attack dogs." - DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffeWhy should we stop attacking your "presumed candidate" on his record? Really like you'd actually call a halt to your attack dogs if us "Republican Attack Dogs" shut up and went home? No one is dumb enough to believe that, well the people who'd vote for John Kerry might be.
Just an FYI Terry, attacking a candidate on his record is par for the course in Presidential politics. It's just the gauntlet that you have to go down if you want the big job and the nice house. So suck it in or shut the hell up!
John Kerry is a Douchebag, But I'm Voting For Him Anyway
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Kerry contemplates his latest dilemma.
When questions were raised last month about whether a 27-year-old John Kerry had attended a Kansas City meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed, the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.
John Musgrave, a disabled ex-marine from Baldwin City, Kan., who told The Kansas City Star that Mr. Kerry was at the meeting, said he got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign's veterans coordinator.
"He said, `I'd like you to refresh your memory,' " Mr. Musgrave, 55, recounted in an interview, confirming an account he had given to The New York Sun. "He said it twice. `And call that reporter back and say you were mistaken about John Kerry being there.' "
With more and more of John Kerry's past that was to say the least unbecoming of a Presidential Candidate coming to light I'm curious about how many more people are going to be asked to lie about him and how many have already lied about him?
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
By the way, if you know how to make a screen capture please let me know in the comments. I want to save this page before it disappears.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He
Contrast Kerry's gutlessness with Gov. Schwarzenegger, who proudly boasts about his several Hummers. No one cares. But Kerry, so afraid of offending some leftist wackos, he gets caught in a blantant lie, and tries to "nuance" his way out of it.
Do you think he would defend America if the French or Kofi Annan complained? You already know the answer.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
'I think liberals spend too much time pushing issues which just aren't relevant to the mass of people,' -John Kerry, 1975 in the Lowell Sun NewspaperJohn you've just hit the nail on the head with what's wrong with liberals. Unfortunately you now are that liberal pushing issues that aren't relevant to the mass of people.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
KERRY ABORTION FLIP: ADVOCATED 'STATE ISSUE'
Oh, and whenever he does something wrong or some new atrocity is found in his past, the vast majority of the televised media just so happens to be looking in the opposite direction. Or so The Media Research Organization thinks:
The TV Elite DownplaysI can't see how there's any question, they're simply helping Kerry to follow that age-old maxim of it being "better to hold your tongue and be thought a fool than to speak and thus remove all doubt."
Kerry vs. Russert
On Monday, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz presented results of a Post study of cable news coverage from March 3 to April 16. The main finding: President Bush received three times as much live event coverage as John Kerry. If so, is that unfair to Kerry? Or is it unfair to President Bush?
In the last few weeks, almost all of the TV news scrutiny has flowed in Bush's direction. Nothing Kerry has said or done – unless it figures into the media attack on Bush – gains any traction. Take, for example, Kerry's Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. This could have been a high-profile news story which resulted in much pundit evaluation, as President Bush’s grilling from Russert was in February. But only NBC found the interview worth a whole story, with a summarizing story on Sunday's Nightly News and a shorter piece on Monday's Today.
In the Sunday night story, NBC’s Carl Quintanilla focused on Iraq, but also noted Kerry “supported Israel's actions against Hamas, bristled at suggestions his wife release her tax returns, and once again refused to name those now- infamous foreign leaders he says wanted him elected.”
Quintanilla added: “Kerry may also be dogged by his stance on another war, Vietnam.” Asked about a 1971 Meet the Press interview in which the young Vietnam vet claimed to have seen and committed war atrocities, Kerry backed away from his wildest claims, vaguely telling Russert “I'd have framed some of that differently.” Quintanilla finished: “That issue is likely to get more play this week as his Senate testimony against the war marks its 33rd anniversary.”
But neither of these passages about potential problems for Kerry aired on Today the next morning. That’s strange, since Kerry’s backing away from his 1971 overstatements appeared in the second paragraph on the front page of the Washington Post, and led the New York Times story on the Russert interview, headlined “Kerry Backs Off Statements on Vietnam War.”
ABC and CBS chose not to air any of Kerry’s quotes about his wife’s tax returns, or his wild statements about supposed Vietnam atrocities. ABC only mentioned Kerry as a potential 2004 partner for Hillary Clinton as they promoted the paperback edition of her memoirs on Good Morning America.
On Sunday’s CBS Evening News, (which aired only in Western time zones), Joie Chen showed viewers just one Kerry quote, where he used claims from Bob Woodward’s book to trash Bush. On Monday’s Early Show, CBS’s Bill Plante used a Kerry quote attacking Bush on Iraq. But the networks all ignored Kerry stumbling over Russert’s question about his Iraq plan: “How can you possibly say the U.N. and NATO are going to come to our rescue when they don’t have the troops or the interest of going in there?”
Once print reporters pressed the Kerry campaign to post Kerry’s military records on his Web site, based on the Russert interview, CBS aired two sentences at 7:30 on Wednesday morning. ABC’s Dan Harris did a story pointing fingers at “Kerry’s opponents” for the disclosures on Good Morning America. Neither used NBC’s Sunday clips.
Why is John Kerry going unscrutinized on the network newscasts? Have they decided that Kerry is not worth scrutinizing? Or do they fear that the more people look at Kerry, the worse he will fare? He ought to be scrutinized by the networks as a potential President, not just another negative voice on their daily anti-Bush soundtrack.
Read more from Mike Jericho at The Fall of Jericho.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Reader Frank Martin would like to know why John Kerry hasn't announced any plans to leave the Senate -- and why no one else seems to be planning to take his place:
The Democrats obviously want to keep a seat in the senate, which begs the question: Why isn’t the national Democratic party making noise about who is going to take Kerry’s place? Why aren’t any of the Mass. political class jumping in front of cameras?
In every way that matters, Kerry’s seat represents the first chance in very long time for a politico in Massachusetts to step into the Senate, which, is actually a very powerful position. Teddy “Wheres my Gin Bottle” Kennedy, is sadly not long for this earth. Its entirely likely that the Junior senator for Mass in this term could become the Senior senator in no time at all. Perks? Privilege? Prestige? That’s the “crack cocaine” of the political class.
Now, Politicos are like sharks, they smell blood in the water and they are compelled by nature to be all over it. So, why aren’t these guys all over the biggest political opportunity in a lifetime in the relatively safe democratic seat in Massachusetts?
Maybe, because they know its not going to be open because the current occupant is not going anywhere?
Frank adds, "your blog is great lately. You are on fire man!" Thanks, buddy. I'd blush, but I think you all know that I just don't know how.
Cranking up his initiative in an environmentally dependent and fragile state, the Massachusetts senator even sought to enlist local wildlife.Should we get a padded room ready for the Senator?
``He's saying, `Help! Help! Help!'' Kerry quipped when his entourage spotted a dolphin from the end of the Ballast Point pier.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
John Kerry says, "A lot of people don't really know who I am."
Well, actually, a lot of people do.
Kerry’s hometown paper says, “In his continuing effort to be all things to all voters … John Kerry is engaging in a level of doublespeak that makes most voters wince.”
The Wall Street Journal said Kerry's tax plan “would mean increasing the tax burden again, which would likely kill the recovery."
On Iraq, The Washington Post said “Kerry’s attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying [his] positions are unconvincing.”
The Union Leader says Kerry has “waffled” on historic education reforms he supported in 2001, but now opposes.
And the non-partisan National Journal magazine ranks Kerry the most liberal member of the Senate – more liberal than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy.
John Kerry’s problem is not that people don’t know him. It’s that people do.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
He should bring her on the campaign trail, especially at universities.
Focus on War, Terror Lifts Bush in Polls
Three New Kerry Ads Solicit Donations
Poll Shows New Gains for Bush
Kerry's 'Anybody But Bush' trap
You'd think that if Senator Kerry could demand and get the release of all of President Bush's military records he'd be open to release of all of his own.
"The day after Kerry told MEET THE PRESS he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material"
I think that the Senator needs to come clean especially with allegations that at least one of his three Purple Hearts that got him out of Vietnam after only four months was nothing more than a scratch.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Who are you going to call when you have an infestation of Terrorists? You sure as hell won't be calling Kerry with President Bush's 21 point lead over the Senator in this important category.
Looks like Johnny's big lead has withered away and with further economic good news chances are it'll be a loss for him.
How can President Bush be pulling ahead of the Senator? I thought according to the major media that we were stuck in another Vietnam and if we truly were the numbers would be going in the French looking candidate's favor.
Social Security Now: Kerry +4 March: +16
Deficit: Now: +1 March: +15
Education: Now: Bush +3 March: Kerry +12
Jobs: Now: Kerry +2 March: Kerry +8
Prescription Drugs: Now: Kerry +3 March: +9
Can you see a trend here, more and more of Senator Kerry's positives are being whittled away. My guestimation behind this trend is a mixture of the Senator's record being discovered by voters and a fantastic ad campaign by the Bush camp. If this trend continues I'll be curious if Kerry has any positives left by mid-summer.
I guess that getting a larger tax refund this year turned everyone around from trusting John "I Love Taxes" Kerry on this issue.
The key issue is that the more that people see and find out about Senator Kerry the less they trust him to run this country, steer us in the right course and to be our leader and that is why he will not be the next President of the United States Of America.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Being an Australian, essentially the dweller of the world's largest island, you are born with a sense of isolation; of remoteness from the events that so deeply and profoundly effect the rest of humanity. It is only an intangibly slight sensation, one that has been easily overcome by the preponderence of international news that we currently enjoy access to. It is there, nevertheless, and I suspect that it is this "observers view" of the goings on of the species that allows us a certain objective edge.
That is not to say that Australians are an armchair culture, content to watch the globe like an apathetic slob. Far from it. From our very inception as a Federated Union of Colonies, we were deeply rooted in international events.
Especially war. Australians, as a people, tend to like a good fight. By "good" I do not mean "indiscriminant". We have a clear definition of fair-play, and a health scorn of those that depart from established rules of conduct. We've amply displayed this in our service to our overseas allies, time and again. Originally in the Boer War, and WW1 with our Beloved Colonial Masters, the British. But with the onset of WW2, we were in the thick of it from the word go. While it has become fashionable to refer to how Britain "stood alone" in the days before Hitler made the Kerryesque decision of invading Soviet Russia, the truth of the matter is that Australia joined the war a few minutes after the pommie showboaters. Our boys served well in Europe, and outstandingly in the Pacific, alongside our American or "Yank" allies.*
There is a good deal of speculation as to whether or not Japan would actually have been logistically able to invade and occupy Australia. I take the view that one way or another, without the sacrifice of tens of thousands of US personnel in the Pacific Theatre, our goose was cooked. Whether it be as a subserviant nation overshadowed by the "New Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" or as slaves toiling in the desert mines of the Japanese Province of Australia, doesn't matter. I enjoy my existence care of the the United States, and I won't forget it. Not ever.
Others knew this before me, and we set about repaying part of the debt by sending our forces to Korea, [largest contingent outside of the USA] Vietnam, [Third to USA & SVA] and both Gulf Wars. As I reminded Thomas Friedman of the NYT, in reply to an article of his that asserted that the USA "had no true allies", the United States could ask for no more dependable and resolute ally than Australia. (I still have his profusely apologetic email, and giggle at it often.)
I was watching as the second plane hit the WTC, it was the middle of the night, and leaning from the balcony of our apartment, we could hear the startled cries of people in the buildings around us. The whole city of Sydney came awake, the lights breaking the shadows of midnight, as families huddled around televisions, watching in stunned and appalled silence. Australian journalists, hurriedly summoned from their beds, sobbed as they read the news into cameras. The next day, young Aussie bucks picked fist-fights with Muslims wherever they found them, the martial blood already fired up. Our troops served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are still in both nations now.
We're not going to do a "Spain" on you. We don't run. We don't desert our mates. Not ever.
In happier pursuits we constantly beat the world in Rugby, Cricket and Swimming, and have a fair go at the other, less relevant sporting endeavors. We steal Oscars away from uber-talented American actors every year and occasionally steal one of your revered yachting trophies too. So we can't claim to be completely apart from the world.
Senator John Kerry is a man that all Australians are familiar with. Even the most uneducated and least current-events-oriented member of our society will be able to pick his ugly, drooping face out of a line-up. We know that he came from (originally) hard-working, poor immigrant Jewish stock, which we can respect. That his forbears made something of themselves is laudible. That he was born with a bit of money and a good name (albeit not actually his) behind him is fine. Success ought to be rewarded.
That he went a little bit nuts in Vietnam, shooting civilians and allied troops is a bit of a worry. The fact that his (very senior) commanding officer actually can remember him - not for his martial ability - but his sociopathic, homicidal behavior, and the desire to place him in a straight jacket is not cause for celebration. That he may have souped up minor wounds to gain extra Purple Hearts is worth investigating. That he (probably in order to shift blame for his atrocities) became a leading figure in the war movement, decrying his national leadership, the US Armed Forces and their commanders, when he really ought to have been serving another tour in the bush is somewhat lamentable. That he lied about it is unsurprising. That he got cosy with famous people who made a wonderful living from western, capitalist society, who themselves then chose to run around, consorting and channeling funds to the chic' little communist people who were earnestly trying to kill as many American (and Australian) soldiers as possible is, well, treacherous. That he then sold out on his war-buddies and became a part of "the establishment" is unsurprising. The war-movement was his "out" from the days of killing gooks like crazy, and the government was his "out" from those grubby, smelly, poor people in the anti-war movement.
That he married money isn't an issue. Maybe he really loved her. That he did it again with a woman that has more dollars than the average person has taste buds is the act of a jerk. The fact that he now has more houses than Bill Gates makes me doubt his ability to truly be at one with the huddled masses that have a hard time affording food every week or so. If he had worked hard and made the money that bought those houses I would have no issue. Like I say, success is its own justification. If he had inherited the houses from his family it would have been fair enough. But to progressively marrying rich woman after richer woman is the act of a... well... I won't use that word here.
The fact that he was honored with a place as a representative of the people of the United States is puzzling. That he spent that time dithering, acting as a political dilettante, leaping to and fro on issues that required a serious, resolute attitude was shameful. That he became just another polemicist that ranted against (but consistently supported) "special interest" when he had every advantage in the world was foolish. That he consistently attempted to coddle the Democratic Left by savaging defense spending was outreagous. That he advocated higher taxes for those on wealthier incomes, but then didn't himself pay the optional higher tax rate was very revealing.
That he ran for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States of America will prove to be a mistake. The man's stupid, avaricious, without shame, weak-minded, weak-spined, uninspiring and unpatriotic.
Ditch him America. That's the Australian View.
* = A "Yank" in the Australian common usage is an American, be they from Northern or Southern states. It is generally said in affection, but if the word "bloody" appears before it, you should consider punching the speaker hard across the jaw in retort.
Mike Jericho also authors his own blog at The Fall of Jericho
Also, if you would like to be added to the "Friends of the Blog" list, let us know.
Or, you may e-mail any comments or thoughts that you want to share with the readers of this blog.
(This part blatantly copied from the Viking Pundit)
The rich should pay higher taxes…except me
With a hat tip to the Cracker Barrel Philosopher, here’s an article by Howie Carr which suggests that John “Soak the rich!” Kerry didn’t pay the extra tax on his Massachusetts return:
Weary of liberals always clamoring for higher taxes on other people, an anti-tax group managed to place a line on the tax form giving Bay Staters the option of paying at the old, since-repealed 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the current 5.3 percent rate.
For two years now, John Kerry has had the opportunity to pay his "fair share." But like some Benedict Arnold CEO, the Democratic Party candidate for president has taken the money and ran.
"Why do you even call asking about this?" his spokesman, Michael Meehan, said Saturday morning. "He has made the same decision as 99.9 percent of his fellow Massachusetts residents."
A little defensive, Mike? How much would it have cost Senator Splunge to set an example for his fellow millionaires? According to Carr, a measly $2,174.
Yep, Kerry is an average Joe.
With months still ahead in the 2004 campaign, Presidential hopeful John Kerry is already losing control of his rhetoric. Some partisan Democrats seem to think the fact that John Kerry served in Vietnam over thirty years ago should prevent anyone from questioning his votes during the nearly two decades he served in the Senate since. Now, that ridiculous assertion has come from the mouth of the candidate himself.
While campaigning in Pittsburgh PA, Kerry attacked Republicans for questioning his history of voting against defense funding. This is a legitimate line of questioning which deserves a straight answer. Last year, for instance, Congress voted on an $87 billion package, 75% of which was intended for military expenditures including troop transportation, body armor, armored Humvees and two-week furloughs for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the reaction to his "nay" vote, Kerry told his listeners, "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went (to Vietnam). I'm not going listen to them talk to me about patriotism."
No one remotely connected with President Bush, of course, has ever actually questioned Kerry's patriotism. In fact, none of them have questioned the patriotism of Democrats in general, or even that of the farthest-left Liberals. The vicious personal attacks have gone in the other direction, with high-ranking Democrats such as Al Gore screaming that President Bush "betrayed this country," or Ted Kennedy accusing President Bush of concocting a war for political gain. The old saying that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," was meant for this situation -- when a person hides behind patriotism, using it as a way to avoid honest questions about his conduct. It's possible (though difficult to see how) a person may love America and still want to disable her defenses. But is a person with that kind of flawed judgement a good candidate for President?
Patriotism is generally understood to mean "devotion to the welfare of one's country", which reducing the military and hobbling the intelligence services is unlikely to improve. Yet John Kerry did, in fact, vote numerous times in favor of reducing the military and intelligence budgets. Just four months after the 1993 bombing attack on the World trade Center, Kerry introduced Bill S.1163, which included the following provisions:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.
Reduction in number of light divisions.
Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.
Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities.
Strategic Defense Initiative [reduced to research only].
Termination of the MHC(V) coastal mine-hunting ship program.
Termination of the Kinetic Energy Anti-satellite Attack program.
Required exercise of early retirement authority.
Kerry introduced Bill S.1290 in 1995 in order to "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." In 1996, Kerry attempted to reduce the defense budget by $6.5 billion, but Bill S.1580 found no backers. It's understandable that Kerry's distaste for America's involvement in the Vietnam War -- for which many blamed the CIA -- might have led him to want intelligence agencies and the military kept on a short leash and buried in restrictions. But is that the kind of person who should be elected Commander-in-Chief of the military, the person to whom all our intelligence services report? Especially in the middle of a war of worldwide scope?
Worse than the alleged attack on Kerry's patriotism was his implication that Americans who did not serve in the military should not question Kerry's Senate votes. The last time I checked the Constitution, military service was not a prerequisite for asking about a candidate's voting record. Should John Kerry's history, except for what he chooses for his commercials and speeches, be exempt from scrutiny simply because he once served in the military? Is he afraid of making more admissions like that concerning the $87 billion package? "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," Kerry told a West Virgina gathering in March. Unless you served in Vietnam, you'd better not ask for clarification.
Why not just choose a President randomly, if Americans aren't allowed to question the supposedly public records of the candidates?
I noticed some comments on your blog about catholics and kerry.
I would like to bring a new website to your attention. A small group of Catholics recently started this website in response to Senator Kerry's attempts to gain Catholic votes. Our goals are to stop Senator Kerry from using his faux catholicism as an election prop, to reduce the number of votes he receives from Catholics, and to enable other Catholics to tell the world we do not support this man--that he is not a "Catholic candidate."
If you have a moment, could you look over the website? Its address is www.catholicsagainstkerry.com
Any and all comments, suggestions, and especially criticisms would be appreciated. Please feel free to forward the website or this email to anyone you wish to forward it too.
I have added this:
I thank you whole-heartedly for this website and I believe it does a great service for all those interested in government and politics, especially those who realize that Kerry should not and will not be elected. I am an undergraduate student studied Poli Sci in New York City and I am glad to see someone take a stand for Bush, because not many people here seem to. Thanks for your brutal honesty and wit.
Thank you for that e-mail, Lisa.
There was some stuff in the news a couple of weeks ago about how Kerry needs to get more in touch with flyover country; start wearing jeans and be more "blue collar". The song was inspired by that.
Take a listen
MR. RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?
SEN. KERRY: It depends on what the situation is you find on the ground on January 20th of 2005. I will tell you this, Tim. I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world, which will do a number of things. (Meaning he will bow to the United Nations and let them ruin everything like they always do. This way, Kerry can do what he does best: Shift blame elsewhere.) Number one, change how we're approaching North Korea. (Bribe them like Clinton did, while they become even more dangerous.) Number two, change how we're dealing with AIDS globally. (How is that? Spend even more money than Bush has? This is pandering to gays) Number three, change how we're doing with proliferation with Russia and other countries. (Now who is stuck in the Cold War? Is he saying that he is once agin going to bind us to a treaty with Russia that isn't worth the paper it is printed on, and that Russia never upheld anyway?) Number four, change our approach to global warming and the effort of 160 nations. (That sounds like Kyoto. Kerry voted for a Senate resolution that declared that the Senate would never ratify Kyoto. Kerry is pandering to environmentalists and lying through his teeth. Shameless nonsense.) And that will take some of the poison out of the well that this administration has put there. (Sure, as long as we let those weak, insignificant countries like France and Germany dictate our policy, they'll love us.)
Hey Democrats, this is the best you could do? No way Kerry beats Bush in November.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Where is Kerry’s Massachusetts tax return?
Tom the Minuteman and Byron York on NRO are both analyzing John Kerry’s recently released federal tax return today but, in my opinion, they’re missing the bigger story. Massachusetts has an “optional tax rate” of 5.85% instead of the normal 5.3%; thus, if you are “blessed to be wealthy” you may feel compelled to voluntarily increase your tax burden to help out the state.
Raising taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 has been the cornerstone of John Kerry’s so-called economic policy. Does he practice the noblesse oblige he preaches or did he pay the lower tax rate? Let’s see the MA state tax return, Senator.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
After reading that I got to think what would each of this year’s Presidential candidates do if our planes were attacked out of the blue in international airspace? I am an avid reader and researcher of history as well as being a news addict who spends at least four hours a day surfing the web reading news from various sources. One of the things I do with all of the information I have is to role play different scenarios and see which ones are most probable. Here is how the two dominant party candidates for Presidency would react to the scenario of American planes being attacked in international airspace by country X.
President A upon learning of the attack immediately gives the word for all American forces in the region to raise their alert level and authorizes our planes to shoot down any aggressor aircraft. Country X is reprimanded diplomatically while the United States plans and executes a strike on Country X's military in retaliation for their aggression.
President B upon learning of the attack immediately protests the aggression by Country X at the United Nations and asks for them to punish Country X. President B then moves all US military forces out of the region away from Country X as not to provoke them.
After President A's attack Country X is humbled and humiliated on the world stage and ceases their aggression. Other countries who might desire to act aggressively towards the Unites States take notice and decide that it's in their best interests not to mess with us.
With President B's situation in the end the United Nations fails to do anything. Country X continues threatening and attacking American airplanes in international airspace and other countries who desire to act aggressively towards America take note and come to the conclusion that the United States is weak and they can act aggressively at will with no real punishment.
With national security being the #1 topic for this Presidential election according to recent polls who would you choose to keep our country safe? President A is the correct answer and guess who President A is? It's President George W. Bush. Hopefully John Kerry doesn't get to be the President B that his record has shown that he'd be.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's blog.
"This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies...
"It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes.
"President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. ... all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them...
Add bin Laden to the list of foreign leaders that want Kerry to win. Hell, if bin Laden shows support for universal health care and abortion on demand, he might get a speaking slot at the Democrat convention.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
During his day at the college's Harlem campus, Kerry promoted his plan to give a free college education to students who agree to public service by ending a $13 billion windfall that banks earn for issuing government-backed student loans.
Without profits, why would banks issue loans? I am no economist, but if the banks do not make money from issuing loans, they won't issue loans. If they don't issue loans, who will then have to come up with the money? Why the government!!! And, where does the government get the money? From you and me in the form of taxes!!
Either Kerry is a dope, or is counting on those students who are a product of an inferior Democrat-backed education establishment to be dopes.
Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
"Kerry said the misery index is the highest it's ever been. Well, duh. He invented it yesterday."
Not a chance - Brian at Anti John-Kerry declares a Kerry-Gephardt ticket is “gonna happen.” No way. Too Washington, too old-school. Gephardt is ancient history.
If the Democrats were half as smart as the Viking Pundit, I would never have predicted Gephardt. Problem is, they'll go establishment, just like they did with John Kerry. Eric sees Gephardt for what he is, and thinks that the Democrats do too. He should know better. That's the problem when you are dealing with the donkeys: You have to lower yourself to think on their level. I have a much easier time thinking like a dope than the Viking Pundit does. He's too smart for that.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Frankly, I don't think it makes a difference who Kerry picks to fill the VP slot on his ticket. He is going to lose in November. I am quite confident of that. I don't read polls that have Bush losing by 6 points to Kerry today, and next week will have him winning by 5 because they are a waste of time. Polls are crap, used by news organizations to get pre-determined results to fit pre-determined story lines. It is the same story over and over. Bad week in Iraq? Bush falls in polls. Good week? He goes up. Good economic news? That gets buried so few hear about it anyway. The press wants a back and forth race story line, so they'll invent it any way they can. Polls are the way to go. Bottom line: Bush beats Kerry come November. If having a certain someone on his ticket would put him over the top, that certain someone would be at the top of the ticket.
John McCain as Kerry's VP? Give me a break. A media invention. Bush would still beat Kerry even if that happened.
Take a look at this Washington Times article discussing Kerry's selection process. This is a great opening sentence:
Democratic leaders are advising Sen. John Kerry to take great care in picking his running mate and select someone who neutralizes his Northeast liberal reputation and doesn't eclipse him in the charm department.
Well, so much for Howard Dean. Just for a few laughs, I'll analyze the contenders for you. I may only have a B.S. in Political Science from Arizona State University, but I think I have a grasp of the situation, and I won't cost Kerry $1,000 an hour.
- Evan Bayh, Indiana senator - The guy he should pick. Bayh would guarantee Indiana for Kerry, and probably almost guarantee for him Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan. He is one of the few Democrats that Republican-leaning swing voters respect. But, since he is not a abortion-on-demand absolutist, the interest groups that have Kerry by the balls would gripe about him to no end. I just don't see Bayh trying to push himself off as a friend of NARAL. If I did, I would not have seen him as a respectable Democrat to begin with.
- John Edwards, North Carolina senator - The guy a lot of Democrats hope he selects, and I would be stunned if he did. Edwards would overshadow Kerry, who just can't have that. Besides, Edwards does not guarantee South Carolina and North Carolina for Kerry, as much as the Democrats and the media think he would. That "Two Americas" speech will fall on deaf ears to swing voters.
- Wesley Clark, clown - First, get this laughable quote:
[Outshining Kerry] not be the problem if he picked former Army Gen. Wesley Clark, said Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver.
"I don't really think he would outshine Kerry," he said. "They would bring different strengths to the ticket. They would complement each other a lot."
Mr. Oliver said Mr. Clark's military record would help Democrats burnish their chronic image problem with national defense.
"I can't remember a time when a ticket had more military experience than that one would have," he said. "It would really take that issue off the table."
He wishes. The Democratic Party may see Clark as their Patton or Eisenhower, but most Americans with half a brain see him as just above Gomer Pyle. I pray that Kerry picks Clark. He'd sink him for sure.
- Richard Gephardt, Missouri Congressman - Most "experts" think that Gephardt, an unbridled union lackey, would bring Kerry Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. That's good. I hope they continue to think that way. The union rank-and-file already has the Democrats in their back pocket. Gephardt will not add one vote for Kerry outside of Missouri, and I would bet that Bush would win Missouri anyway. If Gephardt had all that union juice we keep hearing about, he would have had a hell of a lot better showing in union-dominated Iowa caucuses, which Gephardt won in 1988.
- Hillary Clinton - No way, as the campaign would be all about her. Besides, every Hillary supporter is already going to vote for Kerry, and her presence would only rile up people to vote against her. C'mon. Use your brain here. IS there actually one person in this country who is planning to vote for Bush, but would say after Hillary was added to the ticket, "That clinches it. I'm voting for Kerry?" No way.
- Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor and former U.N. ambassador - He is the Governor of the state in live in, and if it wasn't for seeing him on network TV talking about national issues, I wouldn't know anything about this guy. He is a Mexican with an Anglo name. Combined with his U.N. experience and that he was a Secretary of Energy under Clinton, this makes him a media darling. If Richardson was the Governor of a larger state, I would guarantee right here and now that he would be Kerry's pick. Still, I think this guy has a good shot, especially since he speaks perfect Spanish. If you heard this guy's Spanish-language response to the State of the Union, you would know him as the Mexican Yassar Arafat: Says one thing in English, and a wholly different thing in Spanish.
- Janet Napolitano - Arizona Governor - Since I also live in Arizona 3 days a week, I hear the pundits mention her a lot as well. They should just forget it. She is single and looks like a bull-dyke. No one who looks like this could ever win a national election.
Go ahead and call me sexist or whatever you want. You know I am right.
- Bob Graham, Florida senator - I think if Kerry continues to fall in the Florida polling, he may just pick this guy. Another pick I would be happy with. Graham is ripe for the ripping. If he ran as VP like he did for the Democrat nomination, Kerry wouls regret picking him before Labor Day.
- Virginia Governor Mark Warner - A hard-core tax raiser that Cheney would have an open season on in debates. Besides, not enough name recognition.
- Iowa Governor someone - Who?
- Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania Governor - I actually know him, since I worked at his mayor's gala for 6 of the 8 years he was the mayor of Philadelphia. I like him. I think he is a decent guy. But then again, I love my sister-in-law, despite that she would vote for Dennis Kucinch before Bush. I would never vote for Rendell, and he would be too much of a lightening rod for Kerry. Forget him.
In sum, I would not be at all surprised if he picked Bill Richardson. He fits the bill perfectly. A Spanish-speaking Mexican with an Anglo name, governor of a state the Gore only won by 336 votes in 2000, and a guy who could go to Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California and speak to the locals in their native tongue. Plus, he is a media darling and is another one-world U.N.-loving Socialist.
But, I am predicting right here and now that Kerry picks Dick Gephardt. Why? Because the Democrats will go right along with the playbook, despite that it has failed them time after time. Gephardt is an establishment Democrat, who will not do anything to hurt Kerry. (He also would not do anything to help him either) Plus, he has all that "union support" we keep hearing about. Gephardt will be the VP on Kerry's ticket.
One last thing about Gephardt. If he is so popular in Missouri, why has he never run for Senate? Haven't many current Senators started out as Congressman? Isn't being a Senator considered a much higher status than a Congressman? There are only 2 potential answers to that: He either isn't as popular statewide as the media would like us to think, or he is so entrenched in the party leadership that it would hurt his career to leave?
Kerry-Gephardt. It's gonna happen.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Which US senator admitted on Sept. 11, 2001, "We have always known this could happen. . . . I regret to say -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it -- but not really doing the hard work of responding.''
That was John Kerry on "Larry King Live," ruing his and his colleagues' pre-9/11 failure to give the threat from international terrorism the urgent attention and "hard work of responding" it should have had.
And, what Teddy Kennedy is doing to John Kerry's campaign. How appropriate:
Via the briliant Joe Ham
Of course he'd be a Waffle House. How fitting for the king of waffling.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
To undo the fiscal mess, Kerry would be torn between reassuring Wall Street with a lot of deficit cutting and trying to find some funds to restore domestic social investment.
2 things: One, there is no "fiscal mess" in reality. This is a liberal illusion that they have come to believe themselves. Two, I just love the words "domestic social investment." Clinton was brilliant in how he made welfare and government largesse sound like investments, as if there will be some return on them. If stock markets were based on social investment, they' have crashed a long time ago. This is Socialist (dare I say Communist>) rhetoric. Basically, social investment is welfare. Believe that.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Friday, April 09, 2004
Kerry would face daunting problems
Here's a perfect example of a Democrat preemptively blaming any of a President Kerry's problems on President Bush:
"On the economic front, most observers expect higher interest rates in late 2004. Kerry will face a sluggish economy and perhaps a double-dip recession. The reason for the higher interest rates is the Bush deficits."
I guess everything is some one else's fault and let's start by picking the ultimate boogeyman for any liberal, a Republican President to assign blame to. You know what, if they stopped blaming everyone else for their woes, ineptitude and incompitence maybe they would actually win the White House, The House, The Senate and Governorships across the nation but thankfully they just think that The Nile is just a river in Egypt.
Hey, just a question that popped into my mind, I thought the Democrats and Liberals were against the concept of preemption?
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
I know the right thing to do now is to stay the course, defeat the bad guys, disarm the militias and try to build a political framework that will hold the now wavering Shiite majority on our side — because if we lose them, the game is over. But this will take time and sacrifice, and the only way to generate enough of that is by enlisting the U.N., NATO and all of our allies to make the development of a decent state in Iraq a global priority.
Without more allies, without more global legitimacy — and without an Iraqi center ready to stand up against their Khmer Rouge now posing as their Viet Cong — we cannot win in Iraq. We will be building a house with bricks and no cement. In that case, we will have to move to Plan B. Too bad we never really had Plan A.
Gee, you would think he would know better than anyone that NATO and the U.N. do not want to get involved, no matter what. And, he should know that no matter what the U.S. does, there will never be "global legitmacy." Sum up Friedman and the liberal and the Friedman company line like this: Kill people like it is an assembly, OK. Put a stop to it without France and Germany, no way.
MoveOn staffer moves on to Kerry campaign
WASHINGTON — A senior strategist for MoveOn, a liberal activist group, is joining John Kerry's Democratic presidential campaign. Zack Exley will direct Kerry's online organizing.
MoveOn said Exley and his former colleagues will avoid contact.
Yeah, and I'm an Amish who shuns modernity.
If anyone has wanted to know exactly what John Kerry's plan is for fighting terrorism is, he was kind enough to provide a detailed synopsis yesterday on CNN.
Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I’m not the president, and I didn’t create this mess so I don’t want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven’t made.
Kerry's entire campaign hinges on the fact that he's not George W. Bush. He hasn't got a single original idea of his own, and most of the people who are going to vote for him don't care what his ideas are, they just know that he's not George W. Bush, and that's good enough for them.
If there was ever any doubt of Kerry's weakness on national defense, let his statement above put it to rest. He's stated numerous times his desire to cede control of American foreign policy to the United Nations, and to give France and Germany a virtual veto over our national security objectives. Anyone, regardless of party ideology, who believs in a strong national defense could not possibly entertain the idea of voting for this man.
John Kerry, Fiscal Conservative
And, yes, they use their favorite word to describe John Kerry's policy proposal, the same word they loved to use when Howard Dean was their lovechild:
Yesterday at Georgetown University, Senator John Kerry delivered a forceful speech on the virtues of responsible budgeting. On top of his recent nuanced proposals on corporate taxes, Mr. Kerry's performance suggested he is starting to hit his stride in thinking and talking about the economy.
This is not the first, nor will it be the last, time the Times' will toot Kerry's horn.
For the second time in two days, Sen. John F. Kerry on Wednesday seemed unable to answer a question about what he would do if he were president. Kerry this week has blasted the Bush administration for its "failures" in Iraq. On Wednesday, in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks, Kerry called the administration's actions in Iraq "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."You'd think if Senator Kerry was actually a competent candidate for the office of the Presidency he'd have an answer, pathetic.
But later, in an interview on CNN, Kerry was asked what he would do differently if he were president.
According to a CNN transcript, anchor Judy Woodruff asked Kerry, "What exactly -- right now -- would you do differently?"
Kerry: "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Good stuff from Useful Fools.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Can't you just hear the Nasally condescending tone of the Elitist:
"If the president can find time to throw out the first ball of the season, he can find the time to throw out the first efforts for real peace in the region, and I think it's long since overdue."-- JFingKerry(D)
It sounds like JFingKerry(D) is stuck in a slogan rut:
"We don't need a president who just says 'gentlemen, start your engines.' We need a president who says 'America, let's start the economy and put people back to work,"' -- JFingKerry(D)
"Condoleezza Rice can find time to do '60 Minutes' on television before the American people, She ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath. We are talking about the security of our country." -- JFingKerry(D)
It seems to me the format is:
'Sarcastic condescending observation' + 'Cliche ridden spin' + 'sweeping generalization'
Let's try one shall we? ( try to imagine the Patrician Boston Accent )
If John Kerry is going to take so much time discussing 'outsourcing of American Jobs', he ought to have a word with the missus about the 57 Heinz plants overseas. That's no way to build America's future.
If John Kerry truly wants to limit government spending, he might have chosen to vote 'NO' rather then 'YES' on 350 burdensome tax increases in his 19 years in the Senate. Massive tax increases are no way to control the federal budget.
I know... it's really too easy... to clip the flip-flopper all you have to do is point out his contradictory statements...
Certainly the disdainful reference to 'Baseball' reminds us of his dismissal of the NASCAR crowd just a few weeks ago and the baseless platitude that the brief moment 'distracts from peace in the world' has that special flavor of JFingKerry(D) arrogance that I can't duplicate with the use of factual references. So too the JFKerry(D) spin on Condi was particularly loathesome as it in fact displayed his willful ignorance of the 'Separation of Powers' between the employee of the President, Condi of the Executive Branch, and the 911 Commission of the Legislative Branch.
To really capture JFingKerry(D)'s "style" you would have to be mean spirited enough to actually invent and spin with his special flavor of uber-wealthy-Old-Money-Haughty.
A far-left group feels that the entire world population ought to participate in our presidential election, since "it is not an exaggeration to say that the U.S. election is almost as important to citizens of other nations as it is to Americans." This outfit has taken it upon itself to open an online global polling station. The URL is: http://www.allvote.org/
This is being pushed by, among others, a hyperfeminist leftist who's a notorious dissident ex-nun:
Americans who so little value their citizenship ought not go unchallenged. The results of this exercise are a foregone conclusion since it's being promoted heavily in far-left circles, and undoubtedly the numbers will be picked up and echoed endlessly in the coming months as "evidence" of the President's supposed foreign policy "failure." Perhaps Bush supporters (and those on the other side who value the quaint notion of sovereignty) could take a moment to
balance the scales a tad. Please share with anyone who may be interested.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Kerry hits Bush on steel tariffs - but would not re-impose them
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry said Monday the White House should not have scrapped steep tariffs on foreign-made steel last year -- but would not put them back in place if he is elected.
Think about that for a second. Kerry said, Bush is a dead wrong, and I'll do exactly the same thing he is doing.
The 3 guys running this blog, as a reminder, are Tim from 4 Right WIng Wackos, Paul from It's All Downhill From Here, and Brian from Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.
I read your blog, and I find it interesting. Good stuff on there today, I would've commented, but there was nothing more to add! I ran across this bit on a site, thought you might think it amusing. I don't know if the guy's an arab, Muslim, or what- but this bit on Kerry is a scream. Check it out: http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000478.html
Keep up the good work.
An American in Tokyo, Pamela
[Brian's note: I think this is the same woman who hates my views on homosexuals giving blood to the Red Cross, which I wrote about on Tomfoolery of the Highest Order. Also, as far as I know, Allah is somewhere in New England and is quite anonymous]
Check out the streaming video too!
Jeff Pugh - Rants of a Young Mind
Kerry is so NUANCED because every timer you ask him the SAME question
you get a NEW-ANSWER!
[Brian's note: Daniel, saw you got a mention on Power Line as well. Thanks for keeping us all updated on what you find]
Several of the Senators constituents were flabbergasted to learn of their Senators huge absence from the workplace. Martha Libneck said "Maybe he was getting another infusion of life giving Botox" while Leftie Voter said "At least he didn't drive off of a bridge". As of this time the Senator's Campaign has responded by saying "Look there's Richard Clark" before disappearing on yet another “vacation”.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's blog.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Jed Babbin, a deputy secretary of defense in the first Bush presidency, writes in the American Spectator that some of the Vietnamese POWs are already on the boil, eager to make Monsieur Kerry pay for intensifying and prolonging their misery at the Hanoi Hilton with his evangelistic work at the side of Jane Fonda...John F. Kerry's actions caused our soldiers, sailors and airmen interned in prisoner of war camps to be tortured mentally and physically and now he wants to be the Commander in Chef? You must be joking!
...Mr. Collins recalls how his captors gloated when Monsieur Kerry and other veterans threw their medals over a temporary fence surrounding the Capitol. (In Monsieur Kerry's case this was only a pretense. He threw someone else's medals and kept his own, which he framed years later for the wall in his Senate office.) "Now you hear the truth about this," his captors told Mr. Collins. " 'This is what your whole country thinks.' "
By the way, "He threw someone else's medals and kept his own, which he framed years later for the wall in his Senate office" what a poseur!
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
He wife looks real happy to be there, doesn't she?
[Update: The Washington Times has an interesting article on Kerry and church attendance]
Saturday, April 03, 2004
No lie: Kerry's just a wannabe
Hat tip to Southern Appeal
via Blogs for Bush
Friday, April 02, 2004
I know this statement from John Kerry is a boldfaced lie:
"In every single month of this administration, we havent seen the creation of a single manufacturing job in America,"
I work for a window manufacturer and over the last year we created two brand spanking new positions in manufacturing so there has in fact been job creation in the manufacturing sector under the Bush Administration.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
"[If a pregnant woman is assaulted], how many victims are there, one or two? Your answer will define you."
My answer, as you know, is two. To John Kerry, the answer is one. Thankfully, for President Bush, the answer is two. Today, the President signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, with these remarks:
[A]ny time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child's life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law.
The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers. And now, the protection of federal law extends to those children, as well. With this action, we widen the circle of compassion and inclusion in our society, and we reaffirm that the United States of America is building a culture of life.
John Kerry was one of the 38 Senators who voted against this act, which is disgusting on two levels. First, he voted against this simply for his own personal political gain with NARAL, NOW, and the other abortion promoters. (LIke I've said before, it has gone way past "protection of rights." It is full-fleged abortion promotion now) Second, he has missed so many votes over the last 9 months or so, for him to even show and and vote against this is disgraceful.
Read this page. Imagine how Kerry would react to it. He wouldn't. Now, image if Bush read it. There is no doubt in my mind he would be as upset about it as I was.
If you are a Kerry supporter despite this, why? Especially if you have children of your own.
The political climate in this country has become entirely out of control. With an election coming up, we might like to consider alternatives to the current incumbent president, but the best anyone can offer us is John Kerry, who apparantly couldn't hold a consistent political position if his life depended on it and Ralph Nader. There's no debate out of the Democrat party anymore - there are insults and childishness the likes of which I have never seen out of any damn fool politician before, up to and including Bill Clinton. And then there is this: National I'm Embarassed by my President Day.
That's right. Nothing constructive, just pissy name-calling at our President. You know, having a President is like having a husband in many ways. He is going to screw up - guaranteed. You get mad at him. You yell at him. You do your best to get him to change - but you do it at home. When you go out in public, you support him. If you absolutely can't support him, you are at least dignified in your disagreement. People don't seem to get that, and they seem determined to air as much bullshit as humanly possible, and more than some of us thought was possible, clear up to the election.
Well, I'm embarassed too. I'm embarassed by all the bullshit and "we can't stick to issues" politics, and tomorrow I'm embarassed by the shit-brown ribbon that people will be wearing to display just how much disdain they share for a man doing a job that most of us wouldn't have the steel stomach to attempt. So, I'm taking back the color brown and pointing it towards the real embarassment . I'm EMBARASSED BY BULLSHIT. And if you are, too, feel free to take my graphic and put it up on your website, too. I don't fool myself that my brown will spread nearly as far as the other guys, but I just can't let this one go unchallenged.