Friday, October 29, 2004

THE LAST WORD (MAYBE)

I've been looking for an article or essay that might just be my last post before election day.

I think I've found it. Victor Davis Hanson writes today with a purpose -- the purpose to make it as clear as possible that a vote for John Kerry is a vote to freeze and then reverse every gain we've made since 9/11 in the war against terror.

If you believe Kerry will make the world safer for America after reading this, I indeed feel sorry for you.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

MAKES SENSE

No surprise to me, there are reports now that say the Russians aided Saddam in moving his WMD into Syria. The Duelfer Report alluded to the belief that whatever stockpiles of CBW Saddam had was moved to Syria. This is the first time a Russian link has been suggested. It makes sense.

FAIR AND UNBIASED?

It appears the Washington Post is creepily becoming fair and unbiased about many issues late in the this campaign.

The "missing explosives" story is one that Kerry dove on with glee, claiming it was one of the greatest blunders of the Bush administration.

Now comes the WaPo and says, It may not be fair to claim, as Sen. John F. Kerry did on Monday, that the loss represents "one of the greatest blunders of this administration." Apart from the doubts about whether the explosives disappeared before or after U.S. troops reached the site, Iraq was covered with some 10,000 weapons sites under Saddam Hussein; Qaqaa was not among those given highest priority by U.S. intelligence.

They go on further to say: It's worth noting, meanwhile, that the sensation over the missing explosives emanates from the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose director, the Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, has been an adversary of the Bush administration on Iraq since well before the war. This month Mr. ElBaradei delivered a report to the U.N. Security Council complaining of "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement" of dual-use equipment at sites once related to Iraq's nuclear program -- at least some of which apparently was done by the U.S. mission itself. News of the missing explosives then leaked to the U.S. media within days of its receipt by his agency. On the same day that it appeared in the New York Times, Mr. ElBaradei took the unusual step of submitting a second letter to the Security Council confirming the report. The fact that he was providing easy fodder for Mr. Kerry's campaign just eight days before the presidential election evidently did not deter this U.N. civil servant.

Of course, Dick Morris thinks this is Kerry's final fumble.

Friday, October 22, 2004

ON ASSIGNMENT IN ENEMY-HELD TERRITORY

I will be in San Francisco until next Thursday. No blogging until then.

ISRAEL'S STILL WINNING

Israel's war against terrorism demonstrates how to do it.

KRAUTHAMMER SAYS WHAT I'VE SAID FOR MONTHS

It's very simple.

John Kerry's plan to rebuild American alliances?

Sacrifice Israel.

He can't say it, but it's the only possible thing he could do to accomplish his stated foreign policy goal to rebuild old alliances.

So for all my Jewish friends, I repeat what I've said before: a vote for John Kerry is a nail in Israel's coffin. Mazel tov.

THIS KIND OF SUMS UP WHY KERRY DOES NOT GET IT

He never has gotten it. He didn't get it in Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq.

What is "it"?

This e-mail from a soldier to Andrew Sullivan sums it up far better than anything I've read from the most astute analysts and pundits:

"I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4".

That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential.

A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless.

A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq). (NOTE: the balance of the over 1,000 deaths were non-combat related.)

There is a scene in the movie "We Were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit.

That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."

A MESSAGE FROM V.D.H.

Victor Davis Hanson has a very simple message to Democrats this morning:

When this is all over, and George Bush is reelected — Republicans then controlling all branches of federal government, and most of the state legislatures and governorships — then, and only then, will Democrats grasp the march of folly in 2004, and either return to their roots or perish from increasing irrelevance. Meanwhile, George Bush, oblivious to the hysteria, will finish and win this war.

PERFECT

It's being reported this morning that Bill Clinton aspires to be the next Sec-Gen of the U.N.

Perfect.

THAT'S WHY EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION

For those who don't know and don't care who the political leaders are in Mozambique or Lithuania, you have to recognize that their citizens may have a very strong opinion about who should be President of the US. Our effect on them is more tangible than theirs on us.

Since the fall of European Communism and the resulting bankruptcy of the Russian economy, the US has remained alone as the sole superpower in the world, both economically and especially militarily. What we do and who leads us affects the entire world, so they care -- they have an opinion.

David Warren wrote on Wednesday about this fact and how the US has had its failures, when we did not act internationally at times when our action could have prevented the horrors of 9/11.

SO, HOW DOES KERRY SPIN THIS?

Oops. John Kerry's favorite international "let's-all-join-hands-around-the-campfire-and-sing-Kumbaya" organization (the U-frickin-N), has pronounced things on track for elections in Iraq.

You can be sure the Kerry campaign will ignore that little news nugget.

MORE ON TERAYZA

I spell it that way now because I want to make sure you pronounce in that way when you read it. It's TeRAYza, not TahREEsa, OK? Let's not offend.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that more are picking up on the fact that, in these last ten days of world-class mudslinging, the Kerrys are not doing well.

Specifically, Terayza's open-mouthed criticism of Laura Bush, followed by her even more stupid apology. First, she slams Ms. Bush because she's never had a real job. Then she apologizes, saying she forgot the First Lady was a teacher and librarian for a number of years.

Her wonderful empathic skills totally missed the real disrespect that she exhibited -- it wasn't that she forgot Ms. Bush had had a real job, it's that she effectively dissed all women who choose not to work. For that, there was no apology.

I'm sure her response to that would be another gaffe, so we can only hope that she tries to apologize again.

Thursday, October 21, 2004


BIZARRO WORLD

The Puyallup, Washington school district has had just about enough of this disrespectful attitude toward witches.

The district said Halloween celebrations and children dressed in Halloween costumes might be offensive to real witches.

DOWN IN FLAMES

Jimmy Carter had brother Billy, the family embarrassment, the perpetual redneck, a guy Jeff Foxworthy could talk about all day long. Goofball supreme.

Bill Clinton had brother (actually, wasn't it half-brother?) Roger to occasionally pop up as an embarrassment. Slacker.

The media loved to ridicule both of them, but at least they were pretty far removed from having any influence over their brothers.

John Kerry has a different kind of problem. He has a wife who is in many ways the embodiment of Billy Carter. Loud-mouthed. Sometimes crude. Says the wrong thing at the wrong time. Arrogant, effete Eurotrash.

Teresa has inserted her well-manicured foot into her mouth multiple times this campaign season, but no instance has been as telling as her interview with USA Today.

A shit storm is still raining down, even though she's issued an apology. Those who were offended (including my wife and, possibly, verrrrrry many undecided female voters) see her statement as an arrogant, dismissive comment from a woman who looks down upon "stayathome" moms. I'm sure the Kerry campaign would like to hit the rewind/erase button, but they can't.

In battleground states like Ohio (where I live), I've heard a lot of women say the past day or two that they would much rather see Laura Bush in the White House than a woman who has such obvious disdain for the typical American woman.

After the dust settles, after Bush wins, I'd love it if the analysts determined Teresa's mouth cost John-boy the election. Of course, if that plays out he won't divorce her. Doesn't have the balls. Pussy.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

IS IT REALLY OVER FOR KERRY?

Steven den Beste thinks so and so do I.


BLOGGIS INTERRUPTIS

Tied up in business meetings all day yesterday and today. Back on Wednesday.




THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT

Glad to see that 'W' is finally calling a spade a spade. I wish Bush would have done this about an hour after Kerry became the "presumptive" (or is it presumptuous?) candidate. I think he played it too safe for too long, letting the "proxies" (Swift Boat Vets, et. al.) hang the dirty laundry.

For me, the tipping point was the New York Times Magazine article from a week ago Sunday. You know, Kerry saying (in effect) he wanted to turn the clock back to a time when terrorism was a "nuisance". (When would that be John? 9/10/2001?) Since that article was published, the Bush campaign has gone after Kerry, no holds barred; and Kerry has slipped in the polls since many of the undecideds have woken up to how untouched by reality this man is.

Friday, October 15, 2004

FINAL WORD ON TERRORISM AS A NUISANCE


NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND TERROR GROUPS

Right? That's been the "conventional wisdom" promulgated by most of the media, even though the "9/11" commission clearly showed links.

In case you still doubt them, read this.

A DEMOCRAT I WOULD VOTE FOR

Joseph Lieberman was one of my senators when I lived in Connecticut, and he's still there.

His voice got drowned out first by Howard Dean and then Kerry during the Democratic primaries.

Joe is a mensch, something I can't say for any other "national" Democrat.

Here's why I voted for him when I lived in Connecticut and would vote for him today.

HERE'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR BUSH TO REMAIN PRESIDENT

Simply stated, unless someone's totally dropped the ball, you don't remove a president when the job's not done.

Afghanistan is on the road to democracy, Iraq will be in a few months.

This is why it's so important. How much did you see and hear about the elections in Afghanistan? Not much, did you. There were problems, I'm sure, but why wasn't this event trumpeted by the media? It could be the most important event that's occurred in that part of the world in a generation, but it got very little attention.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

JUST LIE

Drudge is reporting that Kerry supporters are being told to look for voter intimidation by Republicans.

And if they don't see any?

Say there's intimidation anyway.

This is in sync with reports that Democrats will file law suits in any state they lose where the winning margin is small.


AN OLD FRIEND

I used to read Rachel Lucas every day. She is a really funny, opinionated Texan chick who was in high gear just before and after the War in Iraq rolled into Baghdad.

Then she got tired of writing and went on something of a sabbatical.

She's. Back.

At least long enough to fire a few shots across Kerry's bow.

DON'T KNOW . . . DON'T CARE

As with the three previous debates, I didn't watch last night's.

And, as you might expect, there are three different opinions (Bush won, Kerry won, draw) being voiced by those who watched. I suspect the correlation between the opinion of the man and the "who won?" approximate 100%. In other words, it's unlikely anyone changed their mind. "Their guy" won. The "draw" voters tend to be journalists who want to appear impartial.

A waste.

I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WAITED THIS LONG

The National Rifle Association endorsed Bush yesterday and they are gearing up to, as George Will says, bring out their big guns. This is not good news for Kerry as the NRA is superb at getting the most bang for the buck.

As Will describes in his article today, Clinton admits his failure to counter the NRA in 1994 cost the Democrats control of Congress.

Maybe that's why they waited. In a "two minute drill", they can put the Democrats on the defensive in a way that will cause them to take their eye off the ball.

(How's that for maximum use of puns and cliches?)

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

THE LEFTISTS CALL BUSH A NAZI?

This viewpoint from Israel is worth reading:

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that the only people in America today (aside from a few neo-Nazis) running around spray painting, burning and affixing swastikas are leftists.

HE STILL HASN'T AUTHORIZED RELEASE OF ALL HIS RECORDS

With all the back-and-forth about Bush's military records, real and fraudulent, Kerry has still not authorized release of all of his.

There has been a persistent rumor that the reason "why not" was that there was something he wanted to hide . . . an embarrassment.

This article raises this issue again, based upon documents Kerry has released (which we can assume are not fraudulent).

Will we ever know?

WHAT IF WE TOOK THE "LAW ENFORCEMENT" APPROACH?

Or, how to explain WMDs to liberals.

I'D LOVE TO HEAR KERRY COMMENT ON THIS

For decades, at the core of all the various "civil rights" movements has been the precept "we are all equal, we are all the same." That precept has carried over into all aspects of life, even in areas where it flies in the face of reality.

Unfortunately, it appears this "positive" bias has had an unintended consequence. Scientifically, genetically, we are not "equal." There are some small genetic differences amonst us which may result in some of us being susceptible to disease and others virtually immune. Yet most pharmaceutical protocols have been "color blind." This has resulted in the development of drugs which work wonderfully for most people, yet are no better than an aspirin for others.

I encountered this myself early this year when I had a medical problem. My doctor intended on prescribing a particular drug, yet told me that it would not be effective if I were Asian (as he is). He asked if I had any Asian ancestry and I said "no."

Yet some scientists steadfastly refuse to admit that there are genetic differences which must be acknowledged in order to provide everyone with the best health care available. There is ample evidence that some "wonder" drugs (e.g., the drug I took) have a high success rate for some races yet are ineffective for others.

Logic would say fine, let's have race-specific drug development. But wait, others say that investigating genetic differences amongst races will play into the hands of racists. Yet, the persistence of health problems amongst some races (e.g., African-Americans have a higher rate of hypertension than white Americans) may be the result of this attempt to be "color blind." A perfect example of a negative unintended consequence. So African-Americans continue to die from heart disease. Yet, rather than acknowledging there might be some scientific (genetic) difference, sociologists insist it's because of increased stress levels due to discrimination.

This article from the New York Times Magazine is an excellent discussion of this problem. But could you imagine John Kerry trying to make sense of it?

MORE OF THIS, PLEASE

It appears that even the lunatic fringe Iraqis are waking up to the fact that (as they used to be called in the South) "outside agitators" are beginning to cause them more grief than good.

More of this in Iraq will result in stability. The outsiders have nothing to lose -- the Iraqis have everything to lose.

SELECTIVITY

It appears that the "no WMD" rant, like all such rants, may be technically accurate. But it is not the whole story. The Kerry campaign is content to tell half the story.

Or as The American Spectator puts it:

So what is the significance of the Duelfer report?

Is the answer:"The president didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Or is it:"What Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program, and the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction."

Incidentally, which of these answers from the two Presidential candidates reveals the intellectual ability to grasp the nature of the threat the U.S. faces in a post-9/11 world?

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


JOHN KERRY -- HEALING AMERICA

I'm sure the major media outlets won't touch this one, but Kerry's cute little running mate made the comment yesterday that "(w)hen John Kerry is the president people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk again."

Good grief. Reeve, at the time Edwards said this, was dead. Does he suggest Kerry can raise the dead or just heal quadriplegics? Dude, get a grip.

P.J. O'ROURKE HAS SOME ADVICE FOR BUSH

Actually, he has a series of points Bush should make about Kerry in the next debate.

He begins with: My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .


IT'S ABOUT TIME

I remember the first time I saw the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. It was 1966, just over 20 years after the end of WWII. The war was still in the memory of anyone older than 25.

I also remember our German tour guide saying how happy they were that the US bombers spared the Cathedral, though there were a few pock marks here and there where bomb fragments had hit it.

What struck you was how new everything was in Cologne, because almost every building except the Cathedral had been destroyed. I remember showing pictures I'd taken from the top of the Cathedral to one of my brothers who was in WWII and he said the bridges were new, too, and that his crew took out the last one standing as the Allies were on their way to Berlin.

But here's the reality check. He also mentioned (and it has been widely reported) that the reason the Cathedral still remained virtually untouched is that it was the best navigational landmark in Germany. Whether a raid was centered on Cologne or not, in the days when dead reckoning was the only method of aerial navigation, many used the Cathedral as the equivalent of a GPS satellite fix.

Elsewhere in Germany and throughout Europe, religious buidlings were not targeted, but they were not "avoided at all costs".

So, why has there been such an avoidance in the War in Iraq? It has seemed that we have ceded mosques to the bad guys to be used as both secure havens (as the Germans used the Cologne Cathedral for their troops during Allied bombardment), but also as armed fortresses. All in the name of this being a war on terror, not Islam.

Until today. I guess we decided enough was enough.

Which resulted in this predictable response: "This cowboy behavior cannot be accepted," said cleric Abdullah Abu Omar of the Ramadi Mosque. "The Americans seem to have lost their senses and have gone out of control."

I hope all terrorists believe "we have lost our senses and have gone out of control." Fear is something they should get used to experiencing. No safe haven. No remorse.

THIS IS THE INTELLECT OF A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER?

I'm not sure what to say about this woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

If you haven't heard yet, she alleges that HIV/AIDS was created as a biological agent to wipe out Africans.

COULD THIS BE THE "BIG OOPS"?

I suspect Kerry's quoted description of reducing terrorism to a "nuisance" level will generate a lot of debate today. It did yesterday, but yesterday was a sort-of holiday, so we'll see about what happens today.

First round in the debate goes to Rudy Giuliani. Let's see how quickly Kerry spins his response into a "though that's what I said that's not what I meant" response.

It does point out very clearly Kerry's political bias. While his gut may tell him "this is war" and military action is required, he still doesn't seem to have the stones required to be commander in chief.

To believe that ANY level of terrorism could be classified as a nuisance speaks volumes about Kerry's detached world view. Quel moron.

If Bush is smart, this will be the theme for the next three weeks -- "There ain't no nuance in nuisance, my fellow Americans."

UPDATE: The guys at Power Line have a good take on it, too.

AND THIS FROM JAMES LILEKS:

A nuisance?

I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.”

I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.”

I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government.

I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent.

Mosquito bites are a nuisance.

Cable outages are a nuisance.

Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.

But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died.

We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10?

We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again?

We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done?

We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don’t want to go back there.

Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nighTmares are their dreams.

We have to get back to the place we were?

No. We have to go the place where they are.

AND THIS FROM THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Kerry is our Neville Chamberlain, assuring us that we are not really at war, that the seeming conflict is all a misunderstanding that can be cleared up with a little clever diplomacy, and that he will bring us "peace in our time."

AND THIS FROM WRETCHARD


NO WMD, NO PROBLEM

Wrong.

Just because Saddam didn't have completed weapons systems doesn't mean he didn't have the parts.

It's the parts that are problematic. Or, should I say the missing parts. Care to guess where this stuff might be?


I'M JOHN KERRY AND I APPROVE OF OFFSHORE INVESTMENTS

We hear what he says now about the Bush adminsitration "providing tax breaks to companies that send jobs offshore."

But what about John-boy himself? Has he ever invested offshore for tax benefits? Of course not.

But then again, uh, well, maybe.

IF AMERICANS ARE COWBOYS, WHAT ARE EUROPEANS?

Yeah, I know. Pussies. Wimps. Effete intellectuals.

Here's a better answer.

Monday, October 11, 2004


GOOD NEWS? WE'LL SEE

So the pint-sized cleric has decided to disarm.

Sounds like good news, but don't celebrate just yet.

It seems to me they do this every time they're about to have their ass kicked. They turn in a couple of hundred AKs and RPGs and promise to be good boys. They then take a little R&R and repeat the whole cycle again.

Let's hope this time is different.

Saturday, October 09, 2004


WE DODGED A BULLET MOST OF YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF

One of our staunchest allies, Australia, re-elected John Howard today. As you might imagine, a key issue was Iraq, since Aussies have been there from day one and there is anti-war sentiment in their country as well. A loss by Howard could have been a "falling domino".

The election was (like here) supposed to be close. It wasn't. It was a rout. This is good news for Bush.

Friday, October 08, 2004

SLOWLY BUT SURELY

The US finally appears to be labeling Saudi Arabia appropriately.

THIS IS SERIOUS

In the past few days there have been multiple instances of attacks on the offices of the Bush/Cheney campaign.

I'm not talking about picketing, I'm talking about everything from unlawful trespass to the use of firearms. Two of the five instances I've read about have involved representatives from labor unions. Conspiracy? Who knows?

I have also heard many anecdotal comments (here in Ohio) about people with Bush/Cheney stickers on their car getting them "keyed", having people drive pass them and give them the finger, etc.

So I began to take notice and can report that in the past couple of weeks, driving for at least 1500 miles on Ohio freeways all over the state, I have seen very, very few Bush/Cheney stickers. By contrast, Kerry/Edward stickers are prevalant.

However, many cars have either yellow ribbon stickers ("Support Our Troops") or red/white/blue ribbon stickers ("God Bless America"). Also, I haven't seen a single vehicle with a Kerry/Edwards sticker and a ribbon.

Could it be? Yep -- I think the ribbon is the "stealth" Bush/Cheney sticker. Heh, heh, heh -- there are a lot of them out there.

SO, HOW ARE WE DOING?

Victor Davis Hanson (as usual) puts the war in Iraq in perspective and offers the following assessment of John Kerry's "policy":

Senator Kerry offers neither a plan to stay nor one to leave Iraq, only something "secret." He thinks a country that defeated Japan, Italy, and Germany at the same time as a warm-up to keeping at bay a nuclear Soviet Union and China must fail if takes on Afghanistan and Iraq at onceHis trial balloons so far — beg the Germans and French to come in and give the Iranians clean uranium — have met with polite chuckles. We already know the effect that such warmed-over Carterism will have in Iraq: failure with the added wage of humiliation.

THIS IS STILL NUTS

I wrote about this a couple of week ago.

Though Detroit's mayor vetoed the City Council's plans, they appear to be hell bent on doing it anyway.

UNFAIR AND IMBALANCED?

This campaign season, the media bias question has finally gotten some honest airing and debate, but it still doesn't appear the message has sunk in.

The folks at Mediatenor.com did an interesting survey of the reporting after the first presidential debate. They carefully monitored the comments on each network and recorded instances where a reporter either said something positive or negative about each candidate. They then subtracted the negative from the positive to determine, net-net, where they "stood" on the two candidates. In other words, what was their bias?

And the winner is . . . . click here.

Spoiler: ABC wins, having predominantly praised Kerry and trashed Bush, CBS comes in second and Fox News (true to their advertising) was almost perfectly "fair and balanced", having said fewer negative than positive things about both candidates.

KERRY FOREIGN POLICY A NON-STARTER

Glenn Reynolds make the convincing point this morning that Kerry's foreign policy pronouncements have totally collapsed.

He sums it up:

Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either (1) Bush lied, and I'm gullible: or (2) Bush and I both got fooled, but I'll do better next time. Neither is very compelling.


LISTEN, DON'T WATCH

Want to figure out who "won" the debate tonight?

Listen, don't watch.

I've read a number of comments regarding the first Bush/Kerry debate and the Cheney/Edwards debate that said those who heard it on radio or read a transcript were more likely to say Bush and Cheney won.

That reminded me of the first Presidential debate -- Nixon v. Kennedy. In a poll taken later, those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won convincingly. those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won.

Style. Substance.

You decide.

Thursday, October 07, 2004


SCREW STABILITY

Michael Totten puts forth a good argument in his article today on Tech Central Station. Simply stated:

And let us be against stability. For now anyway. The Middle Eastern political slum is a diabolical thing that has killed millions of people already. Some were killed in trenches, some in their homes. Some were killed in battle, others in mass graves, industrial shredders, and dungeons. Some were killed in secret, others on video. Some were killed in New York. Others were killed in Jerusalem and Buenos Aires, in Bali and Bombay. In Nairobi and Istanbul and Madrid, in Pennsylvania and Washington.

Kerry says he will respond to any attack on America. Of course he will. Any president would. But that is not enough. The tyrants of the Middle East will retrench even deeper into deadly old habits if the liberal pressure -- applied by President Bush -- is relieved from their necks.

HE'S BA-A-A-ACK!

Last year I regularly read the postings of Bill Whittle as he wrote essays (some OK, some very good) about politics and life. He's been dormant for about six months, but just posted a new one in two parts called "Deterrence". I haven't read it yet, but I would bet it will not be a waste of your time.

WHO ARE YOU? WHAT ARE YOU?

I get asked that question a couple of times a week by pollsters -- don't ask how, but I have become one of the people that is polled by Zogby, Rasmussen and others.

Inevitably, one of the questions they ask looks like this:

Do you consider yourself to be:

a. Liberal
b. Conservative
c. Moderate
d. Prefer not to answer

Before you consider how you would answer that one, read this article by Glenn Reynolds.


SO WHY DID THEY ACT "GUILTY"?

I've had a couple of people ask me why did I think the Iraqis gave the UN weapons inspectors such a hard time? After all, Saddam's people made it look like they were hiding things from the inspectors.

Now, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence there were no stockpiles of CBW, nor was there an active, productive nuclear program.

So, why didn't they just allow the inspectors full access? Here's why. Saddam knew the Iranians were ahead of him. And he knew they were crazy enough to use them once they had them.


TERRORISM -- THE BIG PICTURE

George Freidman founded Stratfor, a private intelligence service I admire. Dr. Friedman just wrote a book (America's Secret War). I suspect I'll own it within the next week.

David Warren has apparently already read it and has a few comments worth reading.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


TERRORISM -- WHO? WHERE?

There aren't any concrete answers.

Right now, there are questions. That isn't good.


WHO WON LAST NIGHT?

Don't know. Don't care.

Some say Cheney. Some say Edwards.

I don't give a rat's ass.

Just ask yourself whom you would rather have a "heartbeat away" from being President?

Sorry -- John Edwards may be a wonderful trial lawyer and he seems like a nice guy but do you really want to take the risk this guy might be in the Oval Office? Thinking about it gives me a chill.

Don't forget. He was the number 2 or 3 loser to Kerry amongst Democrats.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004


COULD BADNARIK BE BUSH'S NADER?

Clearly, Ralph Nader lost the 2000 election for Al Gore, an accomplishment he's proud of.

Michael Badnarik has flown beneath almost everyone's radar as the candidate of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party's core belief is societies can function quite well without government. In other words, a fairly conservative group.

Badnarik is polling as much as 3-5% in some states, similar to Nader's best in 2000.

Except the swap set for Badnarik would be voters who would undoubtedly vote for Bush. It would be hard to describe a true Libertarian who would vote for Kerry over Bush.

So, what does this mean? It's your guess.


I GUESS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE

Remember a few months ago when John Kerry talked about "unnamed" foreign leaders who supported him over Bush?

I guess it wasn't Poland.


A TERRIFIC POST FROM DAVID WARREN

You have to read it.


I COULD HAVE TOLD THEM FOUR YEARS AGO

Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas has admitted the intifada of the past four years and virtually everything the Palestinians have done is a failure.

So now what?


THE COALITION OF THE FRAUDULENT

There now appears to be a few billion reasons why France and Russia did not want to depose Saddam.


I RISK BEING REDUNDANT

So be it. I've said it before: an American Jew who votes Democratic doesn't understand the risk.


EDWARDS COMPETING WITH TERESA

For the dumbass award.

I DIDN'T SEE IT LIVE, DARN IT

Unfortunately I was in a business meeting, so I didn't get to see Rutan & Co. punch another hole in the sky.

At another place and time, the world would have stopped to see this. Today, it's barely covered by the media.

But you can be assured there are those who need to ask the question why a private team with under $20 million in funding (probably the cost of engineering the "waste recycling system" on the Space Shuttle) was able to put a piloted rocket into space twice. I suspect there are those in NASA who aren't particularly happy -- maybe we should fire them and hire Rutan??


DOUBLE OUCH

Seems that Michael Moore was offered the fraudulent documents that Dan Rather used to go after Bush's Air Guard record.

His staff rejected them because they believed the documents to be fraudulent.

Given Moore's track record of using sketchy, out-of-context "evidence" to lampoon someone, Rather should feel like a moron's moron (with all apologies to morons).

Monday, October 04, 2004


KERRY'S FIRST FOREIGN POLICY IDEA REJECTED

Kerry suggested in the debate that the US should have offered Iran nuclear fuel to see if they were serious about "peaceful use only".

Iran's response?

"We have the technology and there is no need for us to beg from others."

In other words, "go away."

A glimpse into the foreign policy capability of the junior senator from Massachusetts.

Friday, October 01, 2004


IT'S AT THE CORE OF BUSH-HATE

I'd bet my net worth that if you surveyed those who admit to being "Bush-haters" and one of the questions was "Do you think George W. Bush is a racist?", the overwhelming answer would be "yes". If there were an even stronger positive answer (like "hell yes"), it would receive a majority of the votes. No question.

Funny thing about opinions. Sometimes they're right. Often they're wrong.


HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?

Knowing what we know now, it made sense to depose Saddam (nothwithstanding John Kerry's various and sundry "nuanced" versions of "if I knew then what I know now"). For most people, the tipping point was the discovery of mass torture and execution under his regime. Stopping that was worth the effort, with the bonus that any hopes he had of having a suite of WMDs at his disposal was immediately quashed.

So how is Iran any different? They are much, much closer to nuclear than Saddam could have ever hoped to be. Of course, they don't have his track record of torture and exectution, right?

Wrong. They do.

So, on the basis of "knowing now" isn't Iran, in fact, a bigger threat than Saddam was two years ago?


CITIZEN STEYN

Mark Steyn wrote a terrific piece in The Spectator.


KERRY -- AN ELEGANT, INTELLIGENT IDIOT LIGHT

Victor Davis Hanson writes today about John Kerry, a person of whom he says:

He is simply a captive of the pulse of the battlefield, without any steady vision or historical sense that might put the carnage of the day into some larger tactical, strategic, or political framework.

OK, now I get it. Kerry is like a gauge of sentiment. If you want to know what people might be thinking, he reflects it. As he perceives a change in public thought, he changes. It's like he's one of those idiot lights on your car's dashboard. Of course, he might argue for a more "nuanced" metaphor. OK, he's a speedometer -- but in his case the speedometer also has a negative scale.


I DIDN'T SEE IT, SO DON'T ASK

What's the point? I'm not sure, at this stage of a political campaign, that three "debates" will provide any net benefit to what I already knew about the candidates, so I watched a couple of really cool nature documentaries on INHD.

I heard a few people on the radio this morning say they thought Kerry looked and sounded pretty good, Bush a bit less so. One insta-survey purportedly said Kerry "won", but not a single survey participant said they had changed their mind.

Like I said, what's the point?