Tuesday, November 30, 2004


Meet Carlos Gutierrez, the prototype of the "American dream."

Bush's nominee is a liberal's worst nightmare:

A Cuban-born refugee who started working as a truck driver in Mexico City and wound up being the CEO of a major corporation . . . and he's a Republican!!!!!

How dare he succeed and not recognize he owes his success to the Democrats!!!!


I will be traveling on business for the next week. Doubt there will be much time for blogging.

Monday, November 29, 2004


Kofi Annan has got to go. It was obvious months ago that his leadership has been non-existent and now that we're learning more about the misnamed "oil-for-food" program in Iraq, he and his son and all concerned should be arrested by US authorities. I think RICO might apply since this appears to have been a widespread criminal enterprise.


I just noticed an online poll at CNN.com.

The question was, "Will you spend more on holiday gifts this year than last year?"

Only 24% said "yes". I guess they're still depressed that Kerry lost.


You sure aren't hearing anything in the US media, but in Israel? They think he's finished.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004


Lance Cpl. Dimitrios Gavriel


As this country has traveled further and further from the days of lynchings and cross burnings, overt racism is a dwindling phenomenon. Even "funny" but racist jokes are pretty rare.

In the world of liberals, however, some racism is OK. That racism is reserved for minorities who don't realize the debt they owe liberals. It's as though a successful African-American who is a conservative is fair game for the sort of labels and epithets than would be scorned if the same person were liberal.

It's time that liberals have their ticket punched on this free ride they've been receiving. The latest round of such behavior is particularly disgusting.


In Israel, we are used to hearing of stories of teenage (and younger) children who blow themselves up for the glory of the Palestinian cause.

Compare those stories to this one.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004


And speaking of losers, Rather announced his "retirement" today, to great applause amongst the blogosphere.


Does anyone else think these two stories are related??


Here's a great comparison about how two liberal news organizations handle the same story. One (CBS) is "fair and balanced", the other (NY Times) isn't. No surprise. Just disgust.


As you may know (if you're a Democrat), four years ago George Bush (and his brother Jeb) stole the 2000 election from Al Gore. That made the past four years livable for most Democrats -- in their minds, they didn't lose.

So today, since John Kerry actually lost (and was man enough to admit it), the only thing you can do if you're a Democrat is what? That's right, boys and girls, you blame someone else. But who to blame???

It's those damned exurban dumbasses.

The BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) for the Dems is many people no longer want to live in (and pay for) "Big Blue", the large urban city that is under the control of the Democrats. Many years ago, we began to migrate to the outer suburbs and further. Not just to get away from crime, but to avoid paying for services and institutions you didn't use -- like "Big Blue"'s bankrupt schools. Since most of us send our kids to private schools and we don't need a lot of police, our property taxes are quite low. That savings allows us to live in bigger houses surrounded by wide open spaces.

Here's the dose of cold water for the Dems -- the exurbs are increasing in population; the cities aren't.

Monday, November 22, 2004


Michael Moore and others have made much of a purported financial relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud.

But what about the House of Clinton?


But for some reason, I liked his article today.

I especially like the last bit: "I envision a G.O.P. ticket ... (in 2008) ... with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain on top and Schwarzenegger as running-mate. For Democrats, Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton for president, Peter Jennings (Canadian-born) for v.p."

Works for me, especially with Giuliani.


Patrick Ruffini, former webmaster of the Bush-Cheney campaign's websites was nice enough to link to this blog.

I recommend his new blog very highly.


There are limits. This new videogame exceeds the limit known as good taste.


I must say that Michael Barone's article in US News makes this compelling argument.

It's simple, Sam Walton made a mammoth fortune by creating retail stores in suburban and exurban communities that were considered "unprofitable markets" by Sears or JCPenney. Of course, we all know how profitable they really are. And we know how successful Wal-Mart became at the expense of everyone else. Parenthetically, Sear, Penneys and the rest never challenged or adopted Wal-Mart's model.

The Republicans have apparently adopted this model. Why waste your time on New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.? Aim for everywhere else. And when you take a look at the blue "islands" in the sea of red, it looks like a model that works in politics, too.

Question is, will the Democrats continue to rely on the large, urban areas and ignore the rest?


The young Marine at the center of the controversy over his shooting of an Iraqi "insurgent" has to be thankful to the morons in the NBA. The Detroit/Indiana street brawl was what dominated the news over the weekend, so I'm guessing that if the public wants to see more footage of morons throwing beer and multi-million dollar a year athletes acting like idiots, then our young Marine is safe from further scrutiny.

As for the whole NBA, do you think the behavior would be different if all players were forced to attend college for at least four years. Yeah, I know -- they would have about 55 credit hours after four years, but maybe they'd at least learn a little more about life. Allowing 18 and 19 year olds to go from high school to the spotlight of being multi-gazillionaires will continue to result in this sort of embarrassment for the NBA.

Of course, now the story will be about Ron Artest losing $5 million in income over a couple of punches. As usual, the only net winners in this case will be the lawyers.

Friday, November 19, 2004


You're in the right place. It's my almost annual time to change the look of the blog. So this is it for awhile. Ain't perfect, but it's different.

If you want to leave a comment, feel free to click on the "comment" link, but it won't be private. Everyone can see every comment.

Also, if you want to e-mail a post to someone, click on the little envelope icon.

Finally -- sorry, but this new template won't allow linking to other blogs or websites, so the links that were on the previous template are gone.

Hey -- nbdy's prfct.


But Time magazine has a "Life in Retrospect" piece on him. What a vile piece of shit.

Forget about all the deaths he was responsible for. He was responsible for one life -- his daughter's. But the story that is told of his marriage and her birth is that he chose to live apart from his family. So detached was their relationship that . . ."when an aide brought baby Zahwa to his office, he asked, "Who is this girl with you?" Arafat publicly treated his family life as an irrelevance, and his aides and constituents followed his lead."



Did you see the videos of Clinton at the unveiling of his library (which looks strangely like a mobile home)? He doesn't look so good since his surgery.

Here's what he needs to get back to his old fighting weight.


For anyone who still hears the bullshit line about Bush stealing the Florida vote (and the election) in 2000, ask whoever's saying it "do you trust the New York Times?" Since the answer to that question when posed to any liberal is "of course", then show them this article from three years ago, after extensive recounts were completed by more than one independent group.


There's a lot to like about our new Secretary of State.

Here's another one:

During the bombings of the summer of 1963, her father and other neighborhood men guarded the streets at night to keep white vigilantes at bay. Rice said her staunch defense of gun rights comes from those days. She has argued that if the guns her father and neighbors carried had been registered, they could have been confiscated by the authorities, leaving the black community defenseless.


My son turned 14 today. I don't have any words that sum up how I feel about things like this.


Western Europeans still seem to be in denial.

I thought the attacks in Madrid would be the "bath of cold water" that they needed. Apparently not, since the Spaniards folded like a cheap suitcase -- no backbone, I guess. It seems the case is closed for them -- the terrorists attacked, they threw out the government, they arrested a few perps, life is back to normal.

The Dutch seem incensed about the assassination murder of Theo van Gogh but, other than words, they don't seem to have done anything. Arrested a few perps, life will be back to normal by Monday.

But at the same time, there was an assassination murder in Belgium that doesn't seem to have gotten much press. The man was shot two days ago and I learned of it through the Jerusalem Post just after it happened -- he finally died yesterday afternoon. Could it be because the victim was a Jew? Oh, I guess it isn't the same.

Attacks on Jews by Islamofacists in Europe have never "counted" as terrorist acts. Kill an artist (the filmmaker van Gogh) and the whole world erupts. Kill a Jew and it gets 150 words below the fold.

Thursday, November 18, 2004


a. Fallujah, once the US started its action to take the city.

b. Fallujah, before the US started its action to take the city.

Read this article from (of all places) The Times, and you might just choose what's behind door 'b'.


USA Today shows a photo (photo # 2 in this slide show) of what appears to be Sarin gas vials captured by US forces in Fallujah.

The entire slide show is worth looking at -- what a hell hole.


But certainly not forgotten by Christopher Hitchens. In his piece, he ends by saying:

The charming conclusion of this drama is now the widely spread rumor that the chairman was martyred after all, having been poisoned by the Jews: a rumor itself perhaps designed to pre-empt any discussion of his AIDS-like symptoms at the end. What a squalid and ignoble terminus, to a life of steadily diminishing returns.


The pollsters at Rasmussen did a recent survey in the US to determine how people feel about France and the UN. Some tidbits:
  • Only 25% had a favorable view of France.
  • 31% believe France is our enemy.
  • Only 33% believe the UN is our ally.

There's hope after all . . .


Except for the recount.

The election for Governor of Washington is over. The Republican, Dino Rossi, won by 261 votes. Of course, there will be a recount, so it will probably be December before everything's certified.


It's funny -- two different thoughts about men and institutions separated by time and space.

Yesterday, I was reminded when reading an article about command governments of the comment made by one Soviet dissident about their "history." The comment was "the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."

Whether is was Rome, the Nazis, the Soviets or, apparently, the Clintonistas, the passage of time gives revisionists the opportunity to rewrite history.

But not all.


The past month has to have been Hell on Earth for a number of constituencies -- mainstream media, liberal Democrats, Euroweanies, Jihadists. The list goes on . . .

Everything for them has gone wrong:

What looked like a probable squeaker victory for John Kerry was over in three hours.

There have been successful, democratic elections in Afghanistan.

The U.S. took Fallujah with a kill ratio of something like 400-500:1.

God took out Yasser Arafat.

It must be horrible to have so many things go against you if you hate George W. Bush. For those in mourning, I have four words for you -- get used to it.

Whether they are in Fallujah, Tehran, Damascus or Washington, DC, the jihadis of all stripes are in deep shit. Both militarily and diplomatically, things have changed.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004



No, not that election. Bush won.

The election for Governor of the state of Washington still isn't final and the vote separation is 19 votes.

Stay tuned.


It was an "oil for money" program. And Saddam used that money as he saw fit, including the subsidizing of suicide bombers.


We've all seen and heard the collective gasp of those who think the shooting of one bad guy by one Marine in Fallujah somehow invalidates the success of that campaign. It's the next Abu Ghraib . . .

But wait a minute. By most accounts, Sen. John Kerry won a medal for chasing down a VC and shooting him in the back. Didn't he?


You know the hysteria -- Bush won so he's going to invade Iran. The Iranians haven't done diddly to to us, but this foaming-at-the-mouth, born-again warmonger is going to invade yet another Muslim country.

Then again, maybe Iran has always been a bigger danger than Saddam.


PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a/k/a People Emotionally Traumatized by Adulthood) now says that we shouldn't eat fish. Fish have feelings, too, and they are intelligent animals. Hey, most of us have, or have had, pet fish. Right?

Get a frickin' grip.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Line-item veto.

Let's all adopt this as our mantra for Bush II.


Quick question: what would be the predictable response of the French if Israel used its F-16s to bomb and strafe suspected terrorist assets in Gaza or the West Bank? A rhetorical question, right?

So, why do the French get a free pass for what they did in the Ivory Coast?


My favorite economist, Arnold Kling, proposes a simple but radical four-tax system to replace the massively complicated system we now have.

I think I like it.

Monday, November 15, 2004


This might happen.

After all, the "born in the USA" requirement was there to keep a British royal from emigrating to the US, becoming President and then pushing for reinstatement as a colony.

I think we're safe from the risk than Prince Harry will become President.

But for more than a century immigrants have come to the US and have become citizens.

Why can't a person who came here from Cuba or Austria or China become President? Their American-born children (who might not necessarily be US citizens) are eligible.

Aren't we a nation of immigrants?

What's the point of this restriction?


In late 1997 I was in Singapore and happened to see Gen. Colin Powell at Raffles. He was there to give a speech to VIP customers of Citibank. There were a lot of rumors about this man who had such "high positives" amongst the American public. Was he going to be the first African-American President? Maybe.

Since then, Powell has (to me) been a disappointment. He was at his worst when he rationalized why it was the right time to take Baghdad in 2003, but not in 1991, when a military victory might have been just as easy as in 2003. Except the "peace" would have been much easier.

So now, he's resigned. He hasn't added a thing that I can see during the past four years. Anyone who might promote him to try to run for President in 2008 would be well advised to back off. Since he resigned his commission to become a citizen, it has only made me wonder whether what we saw in the Gulf War was style or substance. Recent history seems to say style.


"The Bush Doctrine" is usually described as having something to do with pre-emptive action. We reserve the right to stop terrorists attacks rather than wait for them to occur and use the police to find the perp.

I believe that decades from now there's the opportunity for another "Bush Doctrine" to be even better known.

It starts with what just happened -- the re-election of the President. I heard many Democrats (and a few Republicans) saying that re-electing Bush was a repudiation of the New Deal and the Great Society -- that Bush wanted to turn back sixty years of "progress". Know what . . . they're right, but not about the "progress" part.

Think back to the 1930s. FDR used the then power of the government to get the country off its ass. His New Deal allowed for a quicker recovery from the depression. Increased power was assumed by the government and increased power was passed along to labor unions. More and more, whether directly through the government or indirectly through labor contract, the concept of "lifetime employment" evolved. It became a very cozy compact between those who owed their economic allegiance to the government and the party that made that happen. That was the Democrat's IOU -- we got you that job, we'll keep you there as long as you vote for us.

That compact with an ever-growing number of citizens continued to work for a long time.

Fast forward to the 1960s. The Democrats, led by that master politician Lyndon B. Johnson, recognized their compact from New Deal times had a flaw they needed to fix and they had the political ability to make it happen.

African-Americans and other minorities weren't really a part of the New Deal. As progressive as he was, Roosevelt needed the support of southern Democrats, so he never pushed for "federally-legislated equality". He was content to allow the Supreme Court call the tougher ones. Johnson recognized that the civil rights legislation he ramrodded through Congress would effectively lose the south for the Democrats, but he felt they would still remain a majority party. And, if you believe his biographers, he believed it was the right thing to do.

Without judging that, the reality was the Democrats had now served up the complete fulfillment of their prior promise. For many millions of Americans of all races, the largess of the government ensured lifetime employment for many Americans -- civil servants, employees of government contractors, members of labor unions, etc.

Fast forward to the 1980s. With the rapid evolution of technological capabilities, particularly in computing and communications, the world was shrinking daily. No longer were many of the previous "systems" relevant or necessary. Global competition forced all nations to begin to address the artificiality of their economic engines. Command and control economies (most notable the Soviet) crumbled. Flexible and capitalist countries flourished.

Concepts changed. No longer was there a "guaranty" of lifetime employment -- it wasn't feasible. Sheer demand for skilled (and unskilled) labor ensured everyone who wanted to work could do so, regardless of race or color (or membership in a labor union). Success bred success and most people grew used to the idea of moving from one employer to another. Previously exclusive employment benefits (e.g., health insurance and pension plans) had become portable. There was no longer an economic disincentive to leave one employer for another. Many of the foundations of the New Deal and Great Society had already evaporated, but no one noticed.

You've heard of "an Army of one"? The same concept occurred in society as a whole. We had all become "companies of one". We were all entrepreneurs, whether we realized it or not. Even when forced out of jobs, most workers became re-employed in positions with greater benefits and pay. There were ever-increasing economic incentives to become better educated, both in increased levels of formal education and increasing commitments from employers to provide job-related training.

Unfortunately, the Democrats weren't watching or listening. In most major cities they didn't need to do so. They had ensured a status quo of massive numbers of civil service, political patronage and union-organized jobs -- their base constituency. They continued to count on (but not cultivate) that constituency.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of America was doing something different. They were rejecting the concepts that were the foundations of the New Deal and the Great Society. They didn't wish to rely on the government. In fact, they wanted the government out of their lives. These people found a hero. That hero's name was Ronald Reagan.

The "Reagan Revolution" was the first recognition by many the the New Deal and Great Society were ideas for their times. But these were different times and they no longer were what was best for America. Whether it was the "Laffer Curve" or "trickle-down economics", there were concepts that flowed from this new revolution that were widely derided in the mainstream media. "Everyone" knew (or thought they knew) that only the government could really stimulate the economy through printing money. "Everyone" was wrong.

So, what was the Democrats answer to the Reagan Revolution? Nothing of substance.

Fast forward to 1994 -- the "Gingrich Revolution" hit the Democrats like an F-5 tornado. Just when the Democrats thought they had a "mandate", the Republicans trounced them in the mid-term elections and took Congress away from them. The people who had voted for Perot as a protest against the first Bush voted Republican in 1994 and Clinton was neutered. For the remainder of his first term and his full second term, Clinton (ever the masterful politician) morphed into a small-government Democrat. Nothing major happened. No national health insurance. Only welfare reform -- hardly a Democrat idea, but Clinton cleverly knew when to steal a good idea.

So, you have to ask yourself why? Why haven't the Democrats been open-eyed and objective about what America is saying to them? In 2004 they nominate a quasi-Euro-northeastern liberal and a class-action trial lawyer? What the hell were they thinking? What the hell are they thinking? They must think the country still wants the New Deal/Great Society.

The New Deal and the Great Society are history. Dead. Over. Obsolete.

Make way for the Ownership Society. It may not happen, but if Bush chooses to do so, the "Ownership Society" could be the Bush doctrine that becomes the "Bush Doctrine", one that sustains us for far longer than the New Deal and Great Society sustained this country.

Friday, November 12, 2004


Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, Yasser Arafat was a stone cold killer -- a terrorist who also became adept as a politician.

How should we remember Arafat? Like this.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004


I read a lot . . . and there are only two writers I read regularly, meaning I read everything they write.

One is Victor Davis Hanson (see his two links at the top of the right side of this page. The other is Wretchard (nom de plume of a Filipino-Australian), the author of Belmont Club.

As I posted yesterday, read Wretchard if you want reporting and succinct analysis of what's going on in Iraq. A priceless quote from one of his recent posts:

There can be no joy in war: it is always repulsive in actual detail, but if we are not left with the facts, then the world is deprived even of the doleful experience of the battlefield. The jihadi dream was a fraud. September 11 opened the door, not to Paradise but the portal to Hell and the jihadi nightmare will continue for as long as they are nourished on illusion and false encouragement. We are not their permanent enemies; that foe is within their breast.


Christopher Hitchens writes very little and some of what he writes isn't worth reading.

This is an exception. A great quote:

Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

Tuesday, November 09, 2004



Good news for Republicans. Howard Dean is considering a shot at becoming the chairman of the Democrats.


Anytime CNN posts an article titled "The political genius of George Bush", you have to read it.


Anyone who reads Reuters (who refuse to use the word "terrorist" in news stories) knows that these guys are "freedom fighters", "insurgents", "rebels", etc., etc.

The idea is they are just products of the combination of abject poverty and oppressive imperialism by developed nations, primarily the USA. This has been the meme from liberals since forever.

So, along comes a Harvard University (that bastion of conservative thought) professor who says, "no, not true at all." The fact is "...that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom." No shit, Sherlock.


Wretchard has a good assessment of what's happening.

There appears to be the will, finally, to take Fallujah once and for all.

None too soon.

Monday, November 08, 2004


What the hell, might as well post every asshole's opinion. (Or is it every opinion's asshole?)


According to Drudge, Bush is considering the appointment of Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should Rhenquist step down.

This creates the sort of angst in liberals that cause them to spontaneously combust. While their rational side sees an African-American rising to the most important judicial post in the world, their irrational side negates that since they see him as a conservative traitor to the "true cause."


Let's hope. Wretchard continues his and others' theories (all fascinating) about the sustainability of terrorist networks and how, other than the random suicide bombers, the Zarqawi brand of terrorism is dependent upon having a physical sanctuary.

For years and years, terrorists have had Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (and, to a lesser degree, Iran and other countries) as safe harbors. No other aspect of the Bush Doctrine now rings as loudly.

We have to eliminate those safe harbors.


I'm afraid to admit it but my generation (the "Baby Boomers"), or at least its Democratic wing, just doesn't know how to lose. I went nuts Sunday morning channel surfing to find some group of talking heads who were talking about something other than "what Kerry could have done to win."

All I heard was what Russ Vaughn heard.

Get a grip. It wasn't the bible-thumping, gun-carrying, pro-life, born-again, gay marriage-hating rednecks that elected for Bush.

Kerry lost this one all on his own when he chose to run on a record (his military exploits) that proved to be highly questionable, because he knew he could not run on a record (his legislative exploits) that was barely noticeable.

The "after" polls clearly showed that Bush received far more votes from those who called themselves Democrats than Kerry received from those calling themselves Republicans. Kerry lost because his "record" did not appeal to more centrist/conservative Democrats.


It's time. These two individuals have created more human disaster in their lifetimes than any two leaders I can think of short of Idi Amin and Pol Pot (or Hitler).

And, like Idi Amin and Pol Pot (and Hitler), they were not just leaders or figureheads, they were the entire government as we know it.

When they are gone, the vacuum will be so large that a real government will have to replace them. That's the good news.

Friday, November 05, 2004


According to Scrappleface, John Kerry actually planned to lose:

Kerry Plan: White House Run Hid True Ambition

(2004-11-03) -- Sen. John Forbes Kerry, who was also a presidential candidate until recently, today finally explained "the plan" to which he often referred during his White House bid.

"You probably thought my plan involved sitting in the Oval Office," said Mr. Kerry, "But everything I have done this year was simply to lay the groundwork for my triumphal ascension to the post of Senate Minority Leader. Now that my coattails have carried Tom Daschle to defeat, I stand ready to lead the remainder of the senate Democrats with my progressive ideas."

A straw poll of Democrat senators shows that Mr. Kerry stands a good chance of garnering the position, since the party is looking for "fresh new faces."

"I've never met him personally," said one veteran U.S. Senator, "but it sounds like he has the personality to pick up where Sen. Daschle left off."


Bush Senior didn't go on to take Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War. Big mistake.

'W' has stopped short of taking Fallujah twice. Big mistake.

Let's hope the third time's the charm. Admittedly, the appearance has to be that any strategic action must be taken by the Iraqis, but it shouldn't be too hard to convince Allawi that now is the time to finish the job.


Oh, life is bigger
It's bigger than you
And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no, I've
said too much
I set it up

(First chorus of R.E.M.'s Losing My Religion)

Of all the post-election autopsies, one that's getting a lot of play is religion.

It's now pretty clear that religious issues and beliefs were a major factor in the defeat of John Kerry. No one would disagree that the so-called "religious right" voted for George Bush in massive numbers.

But the label "religious right" is used by liberals almost as an epithet. Degrogatory, isn't it?

Kerry was abandoned by those who indicate they are Christian and regularly attend church. What's most important, however, is that within that group of "Christians who regularly attend church" are Catholics.

A majority of Catholics voted for George Bush. Catholics who historically supported Democrats. Catholics who, on Tuesday, voted against a Catholic. Catholics who rejected John Kerry.

Wow. That'll leave a scar.


Remember the old Saturday Night Live?

Remember "Weekend Update"?

Remember Chevy Chase saying "Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead"?

Today it would be, "Yasser Arafat is still alive."

Not for long. And then what?

Thursday, November 04, 2004


I happened to wander onto George Soros’ website, where he has posted this:

A post-election comment from George Soros

Obviously, I am distressed at the outcome of the election. I hope, but don't trust, that the second Bush administration will have learned something from the mistakes of the first. What is at stake is our ability to recognize our own fallibility.

I established GeorgeSoros.com in order to engage in a critical discussion with readers about President Bush's policies, particularly in Iraq. To all those who sent in messages, thank you. I found the dialogue to be thought provoking, and I hope visitors to the site did as well. Georgesoros.com proved more popular than I initially imagined. There have been more than a million and a half visitors to the site and more than 30,000 people sent in messages.

Having established the site in the run up to the election, I frankly did not pause to consider what to do with it afterwards. Given the outcome, I now feel strongly that it should continue. Exactly what shape the future content will take, and how actively I will pursue the weblog, will take some time to figure out. In the meantime, I am traveling to Europe to attend to the business of my foundation - but I'll be back.

Please check back in a few weeks for updates. Thank you.

So, feeling George’s pain, I sent him the following e-mail:

To: George
From: Steve
Subject: Sorry You’re Distressed

For years, Democrats have labeled Republicans as the party of the rich and wealthy. Republicans have been accused of being able to buy anything, including political favor. You apparently believed that Democrat myth.

Elections and political office cannot be bought, as you've just seen. Your "experiment" didn't work.

You see, the dark and dirty little secret is the Republicans of the 21st century are overwhelmingly middle class Americans.

"Red" states are states where people work in factories, retail stores and the family farm. Some of them are wealthy -- 99% aren't.

In fact, I'm guessing the number of Cadillacs, Mercedes and BMWs per capita in "Red" states is lower than in "Blue" states. No data to support that, but I'd bet my net worth against yours that I'm right.

So, thanks for the millions you spent on attack ads against the President. Those millions trickled down through the ad agencies, PR firms and media buys into the pockets of Republicans all over the country.

What a country!

Best regards,

PS Not to further distress you, but the population of "Red" states is increasing at a rate far, far higher than the population of "Blue" states. See you in 2008!!


I talked about it yesterday. It was the buzz on some news programs last night. And people continue to write about it today. What is it? A "heads up" to Democrats -- it's over. And it's not just the election that's over, it's the wave of social engineering that began with Johnson's "Great Society".

William Tucker sums it up this morning when he says:

(T)he country is divided rural vs. urban, cosmopolitans versus the average American. The cosmopolitans are able to project their vision out from New York and Hollywood, but people aren't listening anymore.


I like this post, especially this part:

What does the . . . election of George Bush mean to you, as a member of the left? It means you and your party have four years to get yourselves together and figure out exactly what you stand for. It means you have a couple of years, max, to come up with a viable candidate who represents the majority of you and doesn't pander to every knock off group of your party. It means you have time to get your act together and decide once and for all what you stand for and produce a leader who will stand up for your ideals. It means you better find a candidate who is someone you can vote for with conscience, and not just vote for out of hatred for his opponent.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004


Let the ass kissing begin!


QUESTION: Is Kerry’s decision to concede borne of pragmatism or insecurity?

Pragmatism – a beginning student of statistics could see the handwriting on the TV screen by about 10.00PM last night. The trend in Bush’s favor wasn’t small, though the nervous networks chose to play it conservatively by not calling any state that would have put Bush over the top. He was raised as a gentle and noble man – he made the gentlemanly decision.

Insecurity – Kerry’s fear that any protracted legal challenge would paint him the same color as Al Gore made him realize he had to do the right thing. It just wasn’t worth being labeled a spoiled-sport raving lunatic.

You choose.

QUESTION: Is there a deeper message in the vote (other than Bush won?)?


Wretchard has said it best, so I will include his words in their totality (NOTE: he wrote this before Kerry conceded):

The Presidential election is over for all practical purposes. Although spin doctors and lawyers will quibble and obfuscate, the essence of the news is not so much that Bush won, but how big he won. Whatever shaving is done on the margins it must now be accepted that the old order is dead. Neither the 60s nor vaudeville are coming back. Overlooked in the obsession with Presidential electoral votes was the passage in 11 out of 11 states of the Gay Marriage Ban. The Guardian reports:

In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon - the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

This is not the place to discuss the subject of homosexual marriage, but this result together with everything else, if does not suggest something definite, unmistakably hints the atmosphere has changed forever. The Left cannot now attempt to reassemble the pieces of their old platforms, hoping that a little tweaking and repackaging here and there will once again make them competitive. It's the platform itself that has rotted and fallen to pieces. The times, they are a' changing.

Thoughtful people within the Liberal establishment must now accept, or at least seriously consider the possibility that:
  • the world is indeed facing a new fascist threat in the shape of radical Islam. It is not imaginary;
  • chaos and disorder are threatening to engulf large parts of the Third World and international institutions, like the World Bank and the UN have proved incapable to deal with it; and
  • the populations of Europe and America, or America at least, retain certain core beliefs -- never mind what these are for the present -- which are absolutely nonnegotiable and which will not be surrendered under any circumstances.

On this basis all men of goodwill can work together to build a 21st century society that will face the new aggressors; use the power of the markets and technology to bring material prosperity to the billions of impoverished people in the Third World; and acknowledge that we, like all our ancestors from the day we first learned to bury our dead under a cairn of stones are still entitled to ask the eternal questions. That we desire, not to be New Soviet or Post-modern Men, but simply Men, as ever we were.

I’ll add my two cents . . .

After the vote of 2000, the left/liberal/Democrats didn’t get it. They’ve sat in denial for four years, believing Gore won; since Gore won they've continued believing their platform survived. They completely missed the message.

As punishment for that arrogance, the American voter has now delivered an impressive mandate -- not just that they want George Bush to be President for four more years.

  • Virtually every ballot initiative that involved a new tax levy was defeated.

  • Every ballot measure that legitimized gay marriage and/or civil unions was overwhelmingly defeated, even amongst those who voted for Kerry.

  • Virtually all "liberal" causes that were the subject of special referenda were defeated.

The message to the Democrats was cold and unambiguous.

Their man was defeated by a multi-million vote majority but their agenda was rejected by an astounding majority. The American voter couldn’t have been more clear – Democrats must abandon their tired, unwanted agenda or continue to suffer defeat. It’s over. The message is "adapt or be further marginalized."

It’s a good day.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004


Bill Whittle is of the opinion that today is not the most important election in his lifetime. I offer his post from Sunday in its entirety:


On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.

I have tried to make clear the reasons I have, and continue to support, President Bush. Despite his many faults, he seems to understand that the only nations serious about this fight are already in the field at our side. We have recovered from budget deficits before. We have been debating abortion and gay rights and all the other lifestyle issues for decades, and these debates will not go away if John Kerry is elected.

I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work -- that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.

I believe, from a reading of the history and the very words of the leaders of North Vietnam, that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home.

I further believe that history shows that the Ayatollah Khomeini had our number in this regard, and I regard the start of this current conflict as the day they overran the US Embassy in Tehran, to which our response was...what?

The murdering, beheading savages who are trying to steal victory from defeat in the American ballot box have seen these lessons of Vietnam, and Iran, and Somalia, and they are -- and have openly said they are -- doing their best to kill as many Americans as they can to win this election for the man they certainly seem to fear less. That tells me something.

We now discover from MEMRI (link here) in a more precise interpretation of Osama bin Laden's recent tape that he was in fact saying that those American states that do not mess with him will be safe, and the implication, of course, is that those that do -- by voting for Bush -- face his retaliation.

Whether or not you are willing to bargain your safety with this man is up to your own individual conscience. Personally, the idea disgusts me, and I think the reason the press has --shockingly! -- declined to mention this is because they know that despite Michael Moore, this is not Spain. I believe the idea of bin Laden dictating American politics is enough to ensure a Bush win. Read the article at MEMRI and draw your own conclusion.

President Bush has already done much to re-program our mortal enemies assumptions about our determination to finish what we start, no matter the cost. Three dangerous enemies have fallen during his watch -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The first two were predicted to cause American streets to run red with blood as the Jihadists took their vengeance upon us. In the three years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on this country. That is a record to be proud of, and one that deserves the reward of my vote, at least.

I want to finish this fight, now. I don't think our children should have to worry about this five or ten or twenty years from now, when Iran or North Korea has had a chance to spread some nuclear largesse around. I believe a badly wounded enemy is more dangerous than a dead one. I want this fight to be over so that the country can afford to elect someone who panders to everyone and speaks French and can undo all this animosity from Europe with a few well-placed toasts and a conciliatory speech at the UN. The time for that is when this thing is over.

There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President. But he means to finish this fight, and by that, I believe he means to finish it by winning.

Afghanistan did not go to the warlords. It went to the polls. There were not one million refugees. Iraq did not produce 10,000 US casualties in house-to-house fighting, nor did it splinter into 3-way civil war as so many predicted. In three months, Iraqis will also go to the polls, and they, by all accounts, will continue their widespread support for secular candidates and repudiation of the extremists that are fighting so hard to terrorize and dishearten them. But the Iraqis are not terrorized. They are signing on for their army and police forces in the face of great danger. We owe those brave men and women something better than "wrong war, wrong place and wrong time."

This is failure?

Not by my standards, it isn't.

So I promised you a final thought, and everything above this point is mere preamble to it. Here it is:

People are telling you that Tuesday will be the most important election of your lives.

That is not true.

The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.

What happened on that day led to one man being in the White House these past four years, rather than the other one. Whether he has done enough to keep us safe, even if he should lose on Tuesday, remains to be seen. But the fact remains that George W. Bush was Commander in Chief and President when we needed him the most.

I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday.


Yep, I'm wearing the "I Voted Today" sticker. First time I've had the opportunity to vote in Ohio and the first time I've used the dreaded, much-maligned "punch card" system that was a huge story in Florida in 2000. I guess Floridians must not be able to figure it out -- Ohioans still use punch cards and nobody complains. It's quite easy and, yes, I left no hanging or dimpled chads.

But, for what it's worth, the story in the Cleveland area this morning is how crowded the polling places are compared to prior years. At my polling place, I was in line at 7.05AM and it took about 10 minutes to wait, sign in and vote. Everyone in line was saying there had never, ever been a line before. People I work with reported lines up to 45 minutes and callers into drive-time radio shows said some polling places were chaotic.

Is this good news? It depends who wins.

Monday, November 01, 2004


John Kerry appears to have pulled it off.

No, not winning the election.

He's kept his complete service record a secret and there are credible sources that say there's a good reason he has done so. I liked this one factoid in particular:

A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.


You've seen the gun camera photos of enemy troops being vaporized by JDAMs, mini-guns or other very expensive weaponry. Effective, but very costly.

What you don't see are the results of the most cost-effective weapon we have, the well-trained sniper. These guys are the quiet but effective "smart" weapons.

And they could use your support.


There's a story that's gotten absolutely no air time that should be more widely discussed.

Walter Cronkite, dean emeritus of American TV journalism made a statement on Larry King Live last Friday that just defies rational thought. Larry played a video of bin Laden's latest rant and asked Walter what he made of it.

His response:

What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

And Larry's response to Walter's comment:

Are there enough undecideds to tilt this? Or what do you think of the whole election picture?

Time frickin' out! Cronkite says the equivalent of "they have bin Laden under their control" and Larry acts like he doesn't hear it? Where does he think we have him stashed - - Area 51?


I'm not sure I agree 100%, but Wretchard is convinced that the latest missive from bin Laden is in fact a surrender proposal. As Wretchard describes it:

He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

In other words, "vote for John Kerry."


. . . an old wound.

Common perception (a/k/a "myth"): George W. Bush just barely won Florida in 2000.

Reality: he probably won by a very comfortable margin.

Yo, Dan Rather! 60 Minutes? Wouldn't this be the story of the decade? I guess not.