Pennsylvania Democrat

Over and out

2005-10-27T07:24:00.000-04:00

I've gotten myself something known to outsiders as a "life." If I decide to return to blogging, it'll be all on one site. I'll post a link if this happens.

The terrorists cannot win

2005-08-28T01:35:00.000-04:00

I'm convinced that the American government is one that will last as long as its citizens desire its use. We're a special sort of people who can't be easily targeted and eliminated from the global scene without a self-induced breakdown.

Theocracy in America?

2005-08-28T01:02:00.000-04:00

The "theory" of Intelligent Design attacks Darwinism well enough, but it lacks scientific credibility of its own. The main thought behind it is that the universe is too complex to have happened by accident. Its followers will be forever searching to uncover a master. The problem is that this will never happen because any master outside our known universe would be supernatural, and his existence could not be proven through science.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than a Trojan horse used for inserting right-wing religious values into the classroom. If you don't believe me, remember what the U.S. military did to recruit soldiers for the war in Iraq.

Besides that, it will break down logic in our youth, as if we didn't already have enough of that without the federal government's help. The only reason youths are immature and unable to lead is because we teach them to be that way.

I don't know about you, but I want my future to be in good hands.

I've got your tax cut right here

2005-07-05T00:52:00.000-04:00

If the government had only required a college-level writing course for its positions, we could've saved millions of dollars.

Cutting unnecessary cost is twice as potent as a tax cut -- both sides are benefited. Unfortunately, most Americans are more concerned about a refund check than government waste.

Independence Day stories

2005-07-05T00:41:00.000-04:00

I often ponder why men celebrate their independence by detonating illegal fireworks and consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, but others have acted to end the ignorance. Here are some good reads:

Wizbang

The Liberal Avenger

In defense of true freedom

2005-07-05T00:22:00.000-04:00

In a bait-and-switch for the ages, president Bush has turned talk away from a direct threat to the U.S., instead harping on freedom 'round the globe. Where was the threat, and when was it stopped? And doesn't that mean our troops' job is done? Iraq has regained its own military and police force now, and even the insurgents are firing on al-Qaeda. I think they can take care of themselves.

I agree that we cannot use a timetable, so that Islamic militants do not simply wait until the U.S. leaves to plan another strike. However, with civil war brewing, it's time for our soldiers to get out before they're caught up in a mess that has nothing to do with our country's interests. No, Iraq is not another Vietnam -- yet. Let's keep it that way.

Besides simply sparing our troops from a potential disaster, there's the hypocrisy factor. Not in a raving moonbattish sense, but in a Boy-Scout-trained-leader sense. Rule #1 in leading a group is to always set the example that you want others to follow. Our legislators aren't following up on Bush's message of freedom, but they remain unchastised by the president. This and similar attempts to tighten government control cannot stand, especially in light of another free speech ruling that could be considered much more appalling than flag-burning.

Bush vs. Bush

2005-06-30T15:35:00.000-04:00

Remember the Daily Show feature in 2000? Now you can play at home! All you have to do is moderate a debate between two conflicting quotes from our nation's 42^nd president. The Liberal Avenger has a good one -- did you know that W. requested a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Kosovo but is now refusing to present a similar exit plan for Iraq?

On the fate of Terri Schiavo

2005-03-27T00:44:00.000-05:00

I respect those of you who had the heart (and guts) to cover this delicate issue, but I believe it has been done in vain. This was a private matter, one which should have remained as such. If the dispute couldn't have been stopped, the case should've been largely suppressed from the media until its conclusion (for the sake of integrity), which would be decided by a local judge. Anything more is simply making the pain and suffering of all parties involved worse.

End of story.

Heroism

2005-03-19T17:16:00.000-05:00

I don't care who you are, or what your stance is on the war in Iraq. This soldier deserves respect.

Interesting overlooked point

2005-03-19T17:11:00.000-05:00

If anyone wants to know why I disapprove of science screwing with genetics, look no further:

Color blind hunters are better able to pick out prey against a confusing background. A dozen prehistoric hunters would have done well to have at least one such member in their posse. An 8% prevalence equals 1 in 12. More contemporary military leaders often recruited color blind soldiers to help them see through certain types of camouflage.

(Link thanks to The Squire)

Campaign reform lunacy

2005-03-09T21:39:00.000-05:00

What was the goal of campaign finance reform, again? I thought it had something to do with leveling the political playing field. If this is true, then

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS OVER!!!

Kerry outspent Bush. Bush won the presidential election. Money is no longer an issue. So why are people still pressing onward? The congnitive dissonance is unbelievable.

I agree that private bloggers need not fear for the following reasons:

The apparent target is one who engages in paid endorsements.

A hyperlink to a candidate's website is not tantamount to a donation itself, but a notification, just like being a campaign volunteer who notifies others of how to contribute. No actual monetary contribution has been made.

I have faith in our lawyers. If they can win cases for people who blame corporations for their own stupidity, I think they can handle a little free speech arguing.

That's not my problem. My problem is why the dialogue hasn't ended and shifted to something more relevant.

The past is over

2005-02-09T13:20:00.000-05:00

A few things I've learned in my brief experience with political commentary are:

1. There is no right or wrong opinion. Only facts and morals can have those qualities.

2. When proven wrong, apologizing and finding something better to talk about is the best and most respectable solution.

3. Assuming that every man's views are consistent throughout history is ludicrous. We are all human, prone to fall for bad ideas and equally able to recover a sense of reality.

I confirmed #3 upon reading the following article:

Mr. Abbas said he and Mr. Sharon "have jointly agreed to cease all acts of violence against Israelis and Palestinians everywhere," while Mr. Sharon said they "agreed that all Palestinians will stop all acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere, and in parallel, Israel will cease all its military activity against all Palestinians everywhere."

I am no longer upset, but cautiously optimistic. One thing Bush has right is that these talks need to continue.

Political Compass, part II

2005-02-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd see if my move toward more moderate politics affected my core beliefs.

The Results of test #1:

(-2.88, -4.26)

After test #2:

(-3, -3.9)

Apparently, my core values remain intact. That's what counts.

Liberalism and Iraq

2005-02-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

The previous post concerning Bush's mistakes in foreign policy will be the last unless a serious problem, rather than a political disagreement from several years ago, arises. Anyone concered with remaining within the confines of reality should seriously consider supporting the success of a democratic Iraq. The only other alternatives that I can see right now are leaving a chaotic hole in the Middle East or killing every single Islamic radical, neither of which are desirable actions.

Supporting Iraqi freedom while being opposed to the Iraq war is not hypocritical but a paradox. It's about living within reality, not creating a new one. Creating a new reality would be denying that the war ever happened or assuming that it has been a failure, as Wizbang notes. I'd like to know where the antiwar congressmen were when the authority to act in Iraq was passed unanimously.

Unlike these people, I've decided to put my opposition to the war aside and do some good with the peace we have left. I'm a true humanitarian, not one who will fight even success in the name of political gain. Take something bad and make it good. It's time for true liberals to help the Iraqi people, who have been innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, people involved in neither Saddam's nor Bush's actions.

My issues were with how Bush handled the war, mainly his ignorance of other crises and the decision to prematurely end weapons inspectors' tour of Iraq. If we had a president who let the inspectors finish, created and discussed a comprehensive plan, and did not promise a swift war where one could not happen, all would be well.

Where do we go from here? Let the military take on a humanitarian role and provide aid to suffering Iraqis, withdraw troops within the next few months, and respond to the genocide in Darfur. This is where my opposition lies, not in a free Iraq.

Was he right on the war? Some rejoice, others are threatening. It is now our duty to cut the right/wrong crap and fight the return of a government reminiscient of the Taliban.

Regardless, I understand President Bush's place in history as a hero to some. He responded to the 9/11 attacks with the right mix of compassion and vengeance to capture the hearts of a great deal of Americans. He faced the opposition head-on and realized his visions anyway. Does that make him a pushover or a winner? Clinton was a winner for doing the same thing -- fighting a Republican-dominated Congress and still achieving his goals.

Let people idolize whomever they want. I will do no such thing for any man.

Hypocrisy in the left? I concur, but you won't find it here. Maybe liberating Iraq was a sloppy process, but the end result of Iraqis becoming an important ally in Middle Eastern terrorism control must be honored.

Fight pollution, not flawed theory

2005-02-06T14:42:00.000-05:00

The Teleologic Blog links to this intriguing letter. I'll admit that although I've denied that global warming is a problem before, I didn't know these three things myself:

Before I'll listen to anyone even express an opinion on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I've been asking them to take a simple, 3-question quiz for the past five years or so:

1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?

2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?

3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?

Answers:

1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.

2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.

3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the "Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since.

Teleologic also mentions a new book I haven't seen yet (thank 18 credits of engineering classes for that), called State of Fear, which is supposed to rip climatologists as politically motivated. This would not surprise me one bit.

I've been onto these paranoia-inducing creeps since my freshman year of high school. I still have a research paper and an accompanying pamphlet that I wrote five years ago, amid Al Gore's aggressive environmentalism. If I can find it and revise it, I'll post it here to supplement my argument.

For now...

A hole in the ozone layer is headed for Europe. That's where we need the Kyoto Protocol, not here.

The U.N. has been found to have faulty records on global temperatures.

Naturally occurring volcanoes do more "damage" to the environment than mankind.

Now scientists are telling us that record-breaking COLD temperatures are causing the ozone problem. How the f**k is that related to global WARMING?!?!

I'm still a Democrat, and I still give a damn about the environment. I'm angry because people need to start working on what matters, like conservation or discovering how to contain radioactive waste or controlling air pollution, not some half-baked theory that wormed its way into our minds just because a few important people said that it's true. Although I wish we'd recognize the U.N. and try to solve problems rather than ignoring them, the one good thing W. has done is acknowledged that we can in fact operate without them, finally sending the message to America that we can think for ourselves.

Unfortunately, thinking for ourselves has come at the price of our well-being.

War and piece

2005-02-01T01:19:00.000-05:00

I wanted badly to support the U.S. crusade for democracy. I wanted to say I played a part in helping to free millions. Not only did I forsee a mission in Afghanistan following 9/11, but I also supported it 100%. Even as I saw some of the problems with war, I figured that if we're going into Iraq, we might as well do some good.

After the Bush administration stated in no uncertain terms that we'd be in Iraq for the long haul, I could no longer support its mission. War is an ugly thing. Unplanned war is even uglier. But to drag out an unplanned war over a period of four or more years? I didn't even want to imagine it.

I cannot ignore how this war was conducted without respect for our soldiers.

Now everyone who supported the war is further demonizing a legitimate portion of the populace with "we were right" taunts. So much for supporting freedom. We can't even have freedom here without someone trying to crush dissent.

What is the point of the gloating over Iraq's first election? It carries little or no consequence if the leaders elected do not serve faithfully. Also note that the U.S. is expected to need about 2 more years of military committment. Why are people declaring victory now?

If you want to use the Iraqi elections as a declaration of victory, then the war is over, right? Iraq now has a military force, voters, and a democratic government. What is left for us to do besides monitor the government and make sure it does Bush's bidding?

Great, we liberated Iraq. Now bring the troops home, where they can be congratulated for a job well done. Then send them to Libya and Darfur on truly humaitarian missions.

Besides, Iraq needs to function on its own, now, or the U.S. will officially become an occupier and another oppressor. The time has come for the president to be straight with us that he has no plan instead of spinning practically everything as a part of his strategery.

Furthermore, the "fight the terrorists on their home turf" idea has placed us at risk, and the federal government has taken no action besides creating a Department of Paranoia and passing the USA Dictatorship Act. Our borders remain wide open. If you think al-Qaeda has not attacked because we've dealt them a severe blow, think again. These terrorists are more than petty criminals. They are strategic geniuses, planning moves years in advance. God help us when they strike again; our safety has taken a back seat (source) to W.'s popularity.

Reality Check:

When did violent war become a humanitarian action?
When did tearing a country nearly in half (literally) give the president a clear mandate?
When did being fiscally irresponsible qualify someone to run the country's economy?

Unfortunately, Bush is just as adept at creating an alternative reality as the radical left.

Rebel without a clue

2005-01-15T17:00:00.000-05:00

A reason why I don't dismiss conservatives as morons

A man protesting seatbelt laws died in an automobile accident in which a seatbelt could have saved his life. Look, hippies, "the man" is dead, and you killed him by joining in the political process and making yourselves a people under the establishment.

Some laws exist to protect us. Without that law, his blood would be on the government's hands.

(From somewherequiet)

Just call him Arafat, Jr.

2005-01-10T02:01:00.000-05:00

Abbas, the man who supposedly wishes for Palestine to embrace peaceful democracy, is also a man who denies the Holocaust, blaming its place in history on a "Zionist conspiracy." He's set to win the Palestinian election.

I'm reminded of a movie clip I saw on television last week in which a man who denied the Holocaust was barred from testifying in court due to a lack of validity. If this is true in real life, then we again don't have a legitimate partner in peace.

As much as I loathe war and violence, cooperating with a known enemy of Israel's major demographic isn't the solution.

Kerry, say it ain't so!

2005-01-09T15:00:00.000-05:00

I think I've located the source of the left's troubles -- blind faith. It's a killer. We've learned that the hard way as we experience the aftermath of the failed "Anyone But Bush" doctrine.

I was totally convinced that a "president Kerry" would have been a step up for our country, simply because he presented himself better and promised peaceful solutions. In reality, these things were smokescreens for indecision. He couldn't declare all-out peace because he wouldn't be able to change his mind and declare war. He couldn't declare all-out war because he was scarred by Vietnam. Permanently.

I believe my father, as a Vietnam veteran, could attest to the psychological damage that those soldiers may have suffered. Some forty years later, he continues to remind me of the evils of war and why it should only be a last resort, using his experience with the U.S. Navy as examples.

This leads me to believe that Sen. Kerry may not have been as up-front about himself as we'd like to believe. Note the similarities between this occurence and what he did in Vietnam:

War breaks out, and he supports it wholeheartedly
His short-sightedness fails to recognize the consequences
He comes up with an excuse and attempts activism
When the activism falls short, he meets with the enemy

He's a "if you want it to be done right, then do it yourself" guy. Such a belief will win a man respect, but this sort of attitude should be cast aside when it threatens the integrity official U.S. policy. Maybe there is hope for this country. Fifty-one percent of us knew better than to give this man executive power.

Asia's lethal tsunami

2004-12-30T01:43:00.000-05:00

I could easily write a bitter piece about the Bush administration's lack of caring in both the Iraq war and the tsunami relief, but those would be both assinine and subversive. Why must we be slaves to schism in a political environment?

Instead, I'll simply link to the story. These people will be in my thoughts and prayers.

Merry Christmas!

2004-12-25T03:08:00.000-05:00

Hopefully, the month off to take care of personal business didn't alienate all of my readers. The election had made me too hot-headed, even more than I could handle, so I left, an unfortunately rude but necessary interruption. Of couse, as with everything, when I plan to leave long-term, I forget to leave a note.

Anyway, Merry Christmas. Plenty has happened recently to keep the blog going.

First Arafat, now the Ba'ath Party

2004-11-21T11:08:00.000-05:00

Things like these are what make me happy that we won't pursue an alliance with France. I suppose that if we were to recognize a world court in The Hague, we could have taken action, but now it's up to the French government to deal with their own murderers.

Furthermore, it is quite possible to be open-minded without letting known threats have a say in your political process. So is the French government delusional, or do they condone terrorism? You decide.

Either way, the picture doesn't look too good.

Senate Democrats "get it"

2004-11-18T01:06:00.000-05:00

As Sen. Harry Reid (D-NE) is appointed the new Senate Minority Leader, the Democratic Party gains a conservative who can appease both parties. This is the highly moral, just-barely-Democrat I think the party needs. Hopefully, he will experience continued success and perhaps serve as a voice of reason to balance party activists in the future.

Do you still think any world leaders involved were innocent?

2004-11-16T01:30:00.000-05:00

Maybe the reason nobody paid attention to the UNScam is because they all had a stake in it. Duh.

If you were one of those people, would you turn yourself in for bribery that could ruin your entire future or shut up and take cold, hard cash? My bet lies with the cash.

President Bush turns liberal

2004-11-16T01:29:00.000-05:00

What's gotten into President Bush lately? Freed from the pressure of elections, he's cut the tough talk and decided to be perhaps more sickening than Kerry debating foreign policy.

The disturbing promises made by W. are as follows:

Ignoring the wishes of Israel, our ally, and negotiating to achieve an independent Palestine.

An ally is one whom we have pledged to fully support, not fully contradict. If Israel is attacked by radical terrorists, it is our job to stop the terrorists, not concede to their demands.

Granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

What's wrong with accepting illegal aliens? They're illegal. Enforce the law, don't skirt around it. If illegal immigrants are paying taxes and holding jobs, there's something seriously wrong with both border security and the IRS that must be addressed immediately.

Turnover in the White House

2004-11-16T01:18:00.000-05:00

Ashcroft, Evans, Powell, and three others have resigned.

Gonzales and Rice have been chosen as replacements already.

I won't try to spin this one as a massive mutiny. Maybe they've just had enough. That's the risk you take when hiring older, more experienced politicians -- their careers may be nearing an end.

My concern? The death penalty. Why on earth is a nation as advanced as ours still allowing state-sanctioned murders to teach us that murder is wrong? The last thing we need is yet another strong advocate for executions serving in the White House.

"Democratic Reality:" The New Oxymoron

2004-11-13T03:08:00.000-05:00

I can't go small game hunting this weekend, so I'm sticking with moonbats. If your writing looks like this, this, this, this, or this, then you are a probable target.

Look, all I'm asking is for my party to give it up (unlike some easily debunked morons), regroup, and find a middle ground from where we can actually reach Republican voters. No, Applebee's will not solve all of our problems. Likewise, no amount of psychotherapy can turn back time and hand the election over to Senator Kerry.

Meanwhile, while we wrestle with the simple notion of existence, the U.N. is pressuring Poland to change its abortion laws. Whatever happened to the organization being a summit of independent, sovreign nations? Now the U.N. wants a hand in the policies of governments it could never fully understand.

Where is our president when he should be defending Poland, both pro-life and an ally? He's off pitching his latest amnesty proposal.

Also, please don't tell me that southern conservatives didn't have an effect on this election. This one comes from the states, completely unrelated to the Bush administration.

When will he quit?

2004-11-07T02:11:00.000-05:00

While we're on the subject of lessons to be learned from this year's elections, Ralph Nader should have learned not to run for president. Hitting a new low in pointlessness, he was left off of the Ohio election results, while the candidates for two other parties that have historically been even less known than Nader himself gained recognition.

First post-election blunder

2004-11-06T23:00:00.000-05:00

...And it's not even from Bush!

My jaw dropped when I read this. It seems that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), expected to become head of the Senate Judiciary Committe soon, has warned George W. Bush not to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices:

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think that is unlikely."

Those of you who bet on the Republican majority in Congress beginning to legislate Christian values, let this be a lesson about stereotyping.

Arlen Specter, moron

Not only has Specter betrayed his party, but he dually offends those of us who are frustrated with the manipulation of the Supreme Court to promote a specific agenda. The senator has already limited his decision, regardless of the justice's ability or overall beliefs, demonstrating small-minded thinking and an unwillingness to compromise, two things that detract from any political process. Not only that, but he does this after affirming his strong support of the pro-life George W. Bush, an overt act of deception. In his last political advertisement, Arlen Specter replayed his statement that he supported the president 89% of the time. I guess we're experiencing the other 11% right now.

Assistance requested

(Source)

I'm reaching across party lines to ask you, regardless of your political affiliation, to assist me in preventing Sen. Specter's rise to chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, or at least making our senate Republicans aware that he is strongly opposed. We cannot have men who stand prejudiced against particular viewpoints having any type of authority over our justice system. Justice is supposed to be blind.

If you plan to contact any senators, be sure to do so A.S.A.P. Senate Republicans may hold a caucus on this decision as soon as next week.

Contact Information:

Find your state's senators

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Majority Leader

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senator in question

Please note that this is a decision to be made by Senate Republicans, so do not contact Democratic senators regarding this issue.

If you have a high-traffic website or weblog, I encourage you to post this notice. If you are a reader, please email this message to everyone you know. Perhaps with enough cooperation, we can take this down, CBS-style. I just can't wait to see what Tom Brokaw compares weblogging to next.

A plea to end abortion

I have found a way to be Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat at the same time. While I will defend a pro-choice politician's right to run for office, especially if the race is between pro-choice and pro-mistake (i.e. Kerry vs. Bush), I am personally opposed to abortion, and I will do all that is in my power to ban the brutal practice so long as it does not involve compromising my vote.

Politicians and judges have made the issue of abortion more complicated than it really is. Let's face the fact that a fetus takes on a human nature within a few weeks. Forget about a woman's right to choose. Forget about the definition of "meaningful life."

Fact: Abortion kills.

If a doctor kills, he/she is in violation of the Hippocratic Oath taken upon entering the medical profession. End of story.

There stand the Equal Opportunity Facts -- they hold true regardless of race, age, gender, nationality, or religious beliefs. However, the Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into the reinstatement of an abortion ban ever since Roe v. Wade, which occurred 31 years ago. While I believe that the previous attempt was futile and could be related to ramming a brick wall, an attempt to ban abortion constitutionally by overturning the old court ruling is quite acceptable, and with a president who promises to appoint pro-life justices, we have been given a rare opportunity to do just that, and I will not let this moment pass without action.

The time has come to give our radically liberal politicians a cold, hard dose of reality.

Speaking of Sen. Arlen Specter...

Spoons has a list of more controversial decisions he's made.

Does this look like a man who supports our president? I think not. The man lied his way into re-election, once tried to undercut one of his supporters, and now he is about to be considered for a promotion. The time has come to ensure that he does not receive it.

Open Letter to President Bush

2004-11-06T04:00:00.000-05:00

I'd like to thank fellow conservative weblogger CD for having the presence of mind not to gloat over Bush's win on Tuesday and instead promise to evaluate things fairly.

People like this give me hope that we will someday come to understand the fact that we all share the same America, regardless of our beliefs.

We drank the Kool-aid and paid the price

2004-11-03T21:29:00.000-05:00

Despite having some rather well-founded thoughts on why a President Kerry could be a step up for this country, I gave in to the Democrats' radical side, and for good reason -- I was deceived. We were all deceived. I helped promote the radical left-wing agenda, despite flashes of being a reasonable liberal, and I'm sorry.

I am all in favor of the mission in Iraq. In fact, the war-antiwar struggle should've ended a year ago when troops first entered Iraq, with victory on all of our minds. Nobody needs a failed Iraq, and Kerry's wavering would not have been the most efficient way to conduct things.

While I'm convinced that we may have passed the point of law solving abortion, considering that it's been around since ancient history, if the new conservative government can successfully ban it, without being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court three times, I will support them. Catholics need to stop bickering about the vote now and work with what we have. Let's put aside our differences and fight for the right to life at all stages. Even if you define the fetus as not having "meaningful life," the doctor is bound by oath not to kill. End of story.

And that is the reason for the lack of posts toward Election Day. Perhaps it's not too late to save face and hope for a reasonable candidate next time.

Let's face it: Kerry never was the best the Dems had to offer, just the wealthiest. What kind of rational politician can't let go of Vietnam? Why did he keep using his admittedly criminal war experience as proof of his leadership? Why did he divorce his first wife to pursue a Senate seat? He should not have tempted fate. Had Kerry tended to his wife, we wouldn't be in this situation today. Finally, I won't even try to defend the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" comment. Not only is that incongruous with his affirmed support for Iraq, but when presented with an opportunity to clear things up, he promoted what seemed to be the further division of his mind. Typical of a pandering senator, but poor for a commander-in-chief.

Though the rhetoric in the debates dominated, I couldn't discern anything new or clearly expressed. He talked in circles, using a superior command of the English language to disguise indecision. At least Bush was honest about where he stands, and I wonder if he wasn't right. Kerry wants to negotiate on Iraq and the oil contracts after outright denouncing them! We've already accepted the mission to police the world, and it's too late to turn back.

Furthermore, he outgunned Bush and still lost. He raised more money, and garnered more good press, but clearly communicated a poor image. Not only that, but the Democratic Party may have contributed to his defeat, courting the likes of Michael Moore openly, drawing the ire of mainstream America. I still believe that the Bush-Saudi connection is a valid talking point, but Moore has distorted our politics far beyond a simple negotiation with the Saudi royal family, pushing into accusations of fraud, war crimes, and assorted abuses of power that simply do not exist.

My opposition to Bush is mainly because he possesses things that one should not legislate, intangible moral values. Kerry is a foil -- cold-hearted, calculating opportunist, and politically intelligent (at least better than W.). I liked him for his superior handling of politics until the end. While he ultimately received my vote, Kerry was definitely not my favorite Democrat. I think John Edwards, had he not run out of money, had a good chance. But even then, we have his political inexperience. And Howard Dean just has too many crazy ideas to come up with bills that would actually pass through Congress. Let's sweep up the front porch.

Unfortunately for the left, these are our front-runners. Where are the liberal versions of the Republicans I respect, the Democrats' version of Reagan, Bush Sr., Giuliani, or McCain? Why have the pro-life Democrats been silenced under the threat of political suicide?

It's so bad that we've re-elected a man whose tenure as president nearly self-destructed, not to mention the recent rash of government-subsidized homophobia. (The Catholic Church even accepts gays, just not gay marriage.) I hope that this is a wake-up call to the folks who worship the DU and MoveOn.org as heroes to their cause.

Edwards in 2008?

Democracy in Iraq, part IV

2004-10-06T21:10:00.000-04:00

One more for now, then back to the election and current policy discussion. I have long since been able to recognize that troops are already in Iraq, and the time to be against the war has passed, and I have no intentions of this section snowballing into an antiwar argument.

1. Former president George H.W. Bush explains why he left Saddam in Iraq during the first Gulf War. Perhaps he foresaw the chaotic environment that would follow his removal.

2. The presence of U.S. military has given the jihadis ammunition to kill civilians.

3. The Bush administration cannot agree with itself on whether the war in Iraq is being managed properly.

Democracy in Iraq, part III

2004-09-27T03:30:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, I wonder where the Bush supporters find the notion that the war in Iraq is a success.

An Iraqi general is busted for supporting the insurgency.

An ally is calling one of Bush's cruical decisions a mistake.

W. himself overstated figures regarding Iraqi security forces.

From "Peace Train" to Hamas

2004-09-27T01:35:00.000-04:00

Yusuf al-Islam's (formerly Cat Stevens) flight into the U.S. was diverted, and he was denied admission.

First, how did he end up on a terror watch list? A charity to which he donated gave funds to Hamas, according to U.S. officials.

Contradictory to this report, he did nothing himself, it seems. CNN lists the charities from his website, and nowhere is Hamas ever mentioned. In order to implicate Islam in a crime, we need to prove that he had previous knowledge of a charity's involvement with terrorism, but one cannot prove a person's thought patterns with hard evidence.

Some have brought his support of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie to light as proof that he had rejected his peaceful ways. However, what they ignore is that the fatwa is a part of Islamic religious doctrine, not up for debate.

We have yet to see evidence of Islam plotting crimes or carrying weapons. In fact, he was not even given a list of charges upon his arrest.

Besides, I think the real question is how Yusuf al-Islam was admitted onto the plane in the first place, despite appearing on a terror watch list, or how he managed to successfully enter the U.S. to promote a DVD in May. Isn't that how 9/11 happened? What a remarkable improvement to our security under the Bush administration.

Continuing, an update since the original story broke claims that the problem was caused by a spelling error.

I don't think the problem was a spelling error, given that Arabic-English translations are rather loose, but the name itself comes from a small pool of Islamic names. This watch list, based on names only, is like "banning all the John Smiths from flying." (see comments in above link) Another unbelievable method for stopping terrorists from boarding our planes.

Tort DE-form

2004-09-27T01:22:00.000-04:00

W. sent us backward, with tort reforms that actually raise insurance rates. He's done nothing to win my vote over the trial lawyer ticket.

Democracy in Iraq, part II

2004-09-27T01:16:00.000-04:00

Read this article, and be sure to take a good look at the map. This is Bush's idea of controlling the chaos. Once again, he fails to see the magnitude of the violence in Iraq. BushLogic dictates that the elections must occur in January because:

1. The Iraqis want to be free.
2. The U.S. military is involved. Defeat is impossible.
3. The remaining provinces will vote for his puppet Allawi.

Unfortunately, BushLogic isn't the kind of logic we need right now. It's time for a regime change at home so we can clean things up a bit.

Republican scaremongering alive and well

2004-09-27T01:13:00.000-04:00

No, we liberals do NOT intend to ban Bibles.

Democracy in Iraq

2004-09-26T23:41:00.000-04:00

Saddam Hussein's lawyer advised him that he could run for president of Iraq and rightfully reclaim his palace. With no trial expected soon, his candidacy is a real possibility. As for those of you who doubt that he could win, a recent survey shows that 42% of Iraqis would like to see Saddam back in power, as opposed to 40% who wish to see him executed.

This puts Bush in a precarious situation. He has three options:

1. Prevent Saddam Hussein from attaining candidacy.

2. Let Saddam reclaim power, undoing the efforts of all military action.

Should W. choose option #1, he is interfering with freedom in Iraq, thus altering our troops' status officially from liberators to occupiers. If he goes with option #2, the 1,000+ troops and innocent civilians have died needlessly for a war that ran us in a circle and accomplished nothing.

Checkmate?

So where have I been today?

2004-09-20T02:10:00.000-04:00

John Edwards came to Johnstown, and I was there to greet him!

Can you be any clearer than this?

2004-09-15T06:06:00.000-04:00

Strictly by the numbers, George W. Bush has been terrible with job creation.

Subversives for a good cause

2004-09-15T05:43:00.000-04:00

Le Resistance restores the French underground. Unlike the Democratic Underground, we're talking about real underground caverns.

They give me hope for the future because right now, people are morons. Opinion writers are SUPPOSED to be biased.

Unions only work with compromise

2004-09-15T04:54:00.000-04:00

News from the hometown:

Isn't the point of negotiations to...negotiate? Instead of doing so, the school board president of the Richland school district, whose teachers are on strike, said the following:

" 'I defy anyone to tell me that our proposal [for a cap on premiums] is not a fair and equitable proposal,' said Rex McQuaide, school board president. "We cannot in good faith ask a taxpayer to pony up additional money to subsidize a health-care plan that the taxpayer himself doesn't have.'
McQuaide said the board warned the union that if it went on strike, any negotiated pay raises would not be retroactive.

'The union is going to test our resolve, and they will find out we will not yield.' "

So, despite every local taxpayer being charged with funding the school district, it is unreasonable to provide free healthcare to the teachers, who are constantly exposed to unsanitary schoolchildren? Besides, refusing to budge is negotiating in bad faith, also.

Never mind the bad English. The word is "dare," not "defy."

Some people just need to grow up and get a clue.

Political Compass

2004-09-15T04:33:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Southern Watch, we have an analysis that explains my political leanings. My results are -2.88 Economic, -4.26 Social. This puts me in good company, with respected leaders such as the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. I'm also diametrically opposed (by graph and ideology) to George W. Bush. Go figure.

If you are a blogger, and you wish to have your results published, go here.

What do you call it when Republicans ignore ethics and the Supreme Court?

2004-09-15T01:20:00.000-04:00

Ralph Nader, the Reform Party liberal who is expected to split the Kerry vote, has been placed on Florida ballots against court orders.

9/11

2004-09-14T08:12:00.000-04:00

I can't come up with the words for a tribute, but I can express my emotions. The one question that remains unanswered, one that I may struggle with for a lifetime, is: where was the unity and patriotism before the terrorist attacks?

Can you say "Bushitler?"

2004-09-14T07:52:00.000-04:00

I quit reading the DU a long time ago, so I can only imagine what they're doing to this story. Mind you that while it wasn't Bush's fault, this is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

Bush's true colors shine through

2004-09-14T06:53:00.000-04:00

Kerry makes a good call.

He has, on numerous occasions, stood accused of being a liberal flip-flopper who sways with his political opportunities. However, the facts are against these accusations:

1. Kerry is a conservative Democrat. The Republicans are being beaten by their own philosophy, and they need to learn how to deal with it.

2. Kerry should not be expected to carry the exact same message for 30 years. If he did that, he'd be labeled an outdated dinosaur.

3. If anyone is chasing opportunism, it's Bush.

Bill Maher gets the idea. (Ed: His opinions resemble mine. The dream of a political career continues.)

Further proof of Bush's opportunism: he let the assault weapons ban expire in spite of massive public support.

What do I think about the ban? It is perfectly fine, and needs to be renewed, albeit with minor changes, such as allowing the police to use them in defense of the criminals who obtain guns on the black market. That, however is a subject for a later entry.

Bush claims that he's simply supporting our Second Amendment rights, but a whopping 75% of Americans support the ban. So what is driving Bush's lack of action? Could it be a pending endorsement from the NRA liars? Besides, who needs one of these to kill a deer?

Which one is it?

2004-09-14T06:42:00.000-04:00

Seriously, if the administration can't get its story straight, do you really want them to be in charge of your safety?

I sure as Hell don't. Frankly, I'm not surprised the FBI and the CIA were having communication troubles. They were victims of a confused presidential cabinet more than anything else.

Kerry/Edwards in 2004. They actually know how to report facts.

If this isn't alarming, I don't know what is

2004-09-14T05:20:00.000-04:00

From Revoke Bush's free pass on 9/11:

"Although the Clinton and Bush administrations acted rather similarly to the threats posed by al Qaeda, the two administrations acted under radically different circumstances. Only the Bush administration faced the increasing terrorist "chatter" [P. 259] of the summer of 2001 with coincident warnings that, in the specific words of the famous Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001 [Pp. 261-2], "Bin Ladin [is] Determined To Strike in U. S.," "Al-Qu'ida members . . . have resided in . . . the U. S. for years," and "Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U. S. aircraft." President Bush reacted to the briefing by remaining on vacation in Texas for most of the rest of August, asking no follow-up actions of any of his appointees [260] who might have done something to prevent a hijack."

You read this correctly: Bush responded to a terror memo by going on vacation. Maybe Michael Moore wasn't so far off the mark after all. There is no War on Terror. It is a ploy to keep Bush in office in the midst of disaster.

This section of the report also brings to mind a pre-9/11 documentary on MSNBC claiming that we had over 300 known al-Qaeda cells in the U.S. alone. How do you think the hijackers got their information? Why didn't Bush work to stop this problem before we were attacked? It's about time he gave us some answers.

The miserable failure continues

2004-09-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

In light of recent news from Iraq claiming that the war is nowhere near over, I wonder exactly how gullibile both George W. Bush and the media think we are.

Let's start with Bush's declaration of victory back in May of last year:

"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before."

I think we have seen something swifter and bolder before. Think Kosovo.

Our seemingly inept commander-in-chief continues by comparing the conflict in Iraq to WWII:

"In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.

Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime."

This is perhaps one of the most brazen attempts to mislead the public I've seen from Bush. The situation in Iraq is nowhere near a world war. WWII was going on long before the U.S. intervened. Most people thought that it wasn't our war to be fought. The only reason America joined the Allied forces was because Hitler had conquered the better part of Europe. What did Saddam do this time? He didn't invade any countries or directly threaten U.S. citizens. Better yet, what did the Iraqis do to deserve this? If Bush were truly fighting to free Iraqi citizens, this kind of casualty would be unacceptable. Iraq is not truly free. Citizens still live in fear, a more dangerous kind of fear -- a fear of other Iraqis. Unless the interim government can protect its citizens' most basic right, the right to live, it is not a sovreign government and should not be treated as such. Which begs the question, wouldn't the U.S. be opposed to a country that acted against our will to "free" us from Bush by bombing the U.S., killing Americans, and turning anarchy loose in the United States? Hurrican Ivan provides us with a preview.

How about the miscalculation? The problem with the 1,000 deaths is not by any means the magnitude, as we have seen worse. The problem is that they've died for a mistake. Operation Iraqi Freedom, if not a miserable failure, is at best incomplete.

In other misleading news, VP Dick Cheney asserts that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States...
And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Another open use of scare tactics finds its way to the news. The 9/11 attacks were criminal acts. We can't be at war. The enemy -- "terrorism" and random unamed "terrorists" -- is conceptual. Homeland security is about just that: security. Security is about DEFENSE, not attack. CONFIDENCE, not fear.

I can't fathom how Zell Miller can entrust the safety of his grandchildren with four more years of George W. Bush. To quote Miller:

"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

What about OUR borders? Here's some poetic justice: The U.S.-Mexico border is defended with pepper balls. We might as well put Osama bin Laden on the phone and invite him to attack Texas. Maybe that will get W.'s attention. Bush and co. have been so consumed by Iraq that they've ignored their very own constituents. What a great homeland security policy.

Who votes for a politician who ignores the people who elected him? I sure don't.

Amazing paradox: Alice Cooper weighs in

2004-08-31T01:24:00.000-04:00

Hardly your typical conservative, rock star Alice Cooper comments on the recent trend of Bush-bashing among other artists:
"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know musicians made a career out of making music.
"Besides, when I read the list of people who are supporting Kerry, if I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."

Linda Ronstadt -- understandable. But...whoa! Don Henley, of the Eagles? You've gone too far. Then again, Cooper said we shouldn't listen to rock stars for advice, so perhaps his words will go unheeded. Did he just call himself a moron intelligently? Amazing paradox.

The RNC

2004-08-31T00:04:00.000-04:00

I don't think it would be fair to simply give my views and stop. After all, we all share the same country, and we aren't enemies. In fact, I agree with the push for a flat tax and an end to abortion.

In any case, we've already heard from the Dems, and now the Republican voice should be heard before drawing any conclusions about election issues. INCITE is tracking the events.

The Ten Commandments according to Clinton

2004-08-30T21:11:00.000-04:00

Bill Clinton appeared at a church, discussing how the GOP is the "people of the Nine Commandments." Frankly, if they're a people of nine commandments, they're doing a good job. When did Clinton become a moral authority, anyway? Apparently, it is possible to attain the status of Moses without having his faith -- simply replace the word "morals" with "popularity." That seems to be how one gains a following in modern times.

Here are the Ten Commandments, according to ~~Captain Sleaze~~ Clinton himself:

...

The Ten Commandments of Bill Clinton

1. Money and fame are God, thou shalt not have other gods before them.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of money or fame in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the Election Day.

4. Honor thy mansion and rich Hollywood friends.

5. Thou shalt not kill a Democrat's political career.

6. Thou shalt not raise illegal campaign money unless it is for yourself.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery with someone who has an STD.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness when not appearing in court.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife if she is ugly.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods unless he is richer than thou.

...

Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I can't point out how Bill Clinton has the morals of a snake and should restrict his speaking to political policy.

UPDATE:

Fausta of the Bad Hair Blog has similar thoughts.

Free pass?

2004-08-30T15:33:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has returned from his month-long hiatus to find this. Apparently, since Kerry isn't a born-again evangelist, he's not entitled to forget his mistakes. Who suddenly made Bush a moral authority?

So Kerry is of lesser moral standing because he kept his faith the whole time, or has gone through a similar experience as a Catholic? Utter bullshit. Beginning with Clinton, it has been established that moral values have little effect on a man's ability to run the country. Even after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the man didn't suffer a drop in approval. In fact, those were the times when the government managed to turn a budget surplus. Somebody has to stop these people from running wild, turning Republicans into crazed fundamentalists. Sadly, this kind of ancient anti-Catholic mindset is experiencing a revival.

In America, nobody should receive a free pass for being an newly enlightened fool. Accountability breeds responsibility, which in turn breeds better leaders.

New project

2004-08-30T02:34:00.000-04:00

Here's something I will definitely be following.

Blog Contest

2004-08-30T02:29:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post is featuring a contest for political blogs. This being a political blog, I found it quite relevant.

The dangers of too much secrecy

2004-08-28T16:06:00.000-04:00

(Thanks to White Rose)

1.Secrecy breeds mistrust.

It's a natural human reaction. What isn't known for sure could possibly be a lie. Look at what Kerry's attempts to keep his war records private has done to him.

2. Secrecy is expensive.

Last year, the amount spent on securing classified documents was pegged at $6.5 billion, a huge increase from 2001 spending. Why is this an issue? Two words:

Budget Deficit

3. Secrecy is...well, secret.

Bush's desire for increased secrecy is causing communication problems.

Mounting evidence that Iraq is being mishandled

2004-08-28T15:54:00.000-04:00

What is the meaning of this? After wasting our resources and risking our troops' lives, NOW they want a peace agreement?

Is it war or peace?

What is going on with the so-called "spread of democracy?" The actions of Iraqi police aren't helping Bush's case for freedom.

Is it freedom or tyrrany?

Damn you, censorship!

2004-08-28T06:07:00.000-04:00

Thanks to fears that all soldiers go into war with their heads up their asses, we've lost a valuable firsthand account of the war in Iraq.

Thanks to the Religious Police who punish anyone who isn't like them, we've lost a valuable firsthand account of the Saudi government's actions.

Thanks to campaign reform, we're gradually losing our free speech, and perhaps a candidate.

Sacrifice on the home front

2004-08-28T02:35:00.000-04:00

This is one of those times when you need to cast aside your arguments on the war in Iraq and remember the sacrifices made. One such sacrifice is being made right here at home, in the U.S., by military spouses.

Let's not forget these people.

Bipartisan thinking

2004-08-27T17:10:00.000-04:00

I've been seeing a few jokes based on Kerry's exaggerated claims of who "served together." On the Kerry-Edwards blog, a commenter notes:

"How can there be 250 Swiftboat veterans supporting the ad? Did they have bleachers on the delta or something so people could watch? The swiftboats hold somewhere about 5 to 7 people. There were 5 boats. Yup, that works out."

Let's be fair.

Stolen Honor preview

2004-08-27T12:08:00.000-04:00

Stolen Honor is trying to do just that -- steal your honorable vote. Based on the sample clips (link thanks to Wizbang) it appears to be nothing but a series of interviews with men who hold a personal grudge against Vietnam protesters. They also mention Jane Fonda. How does that discredit anyone besides...well, Jane Fonda? Besides, documentaries like these that attempt to use Kerry against himself are the very reason he won't release his military records. I have a sneaking suspicion that these people would manipulate even the official record to see Kerry booted out of the election. The interviews showcase arguments that are tentative at best.

Clip #1

Quotes from protesters were being played on loudspeakers to the American P.O.W.'s in Vietnam.

So what? The North Vietnamese were using the protesters' words out-of-context as propaganda. Likewise, I could quote the Bible to support Satan. Does that mean the Bible was written by the devil? No.

Check Kerry's voting record to see if he supports our troops.

This is unfair to Kerry. Check Bush's record to see if he supports our troops and get back to me. I took a look at both men's actions.

A good leader admits to his mistakes and leads us in another direction.

So why does Bush keep running into a brick wall with his environmental policy? Some say that all he has to do is drop the drilling of the ANWR, and it would be passed. Why does Bush continue with his bad economic policy, which flies in the face of the facts?

Better yet, the Vietnam War was in the hands of four U.S. presidents. How did they respond?

Eisenhower, during the rush to stop the spread of communism, signed a treaty with the South Vietnamese pledging military support.
JFK received a letter from the South Vietnamese president requesting assistance. As a result of the treaty, his hands were tied. He sent troops.
LBJ believed in the mission and kept it going.
Nixon came up with this half-baked idea of "peace with dignity," in which we would continue the attack as we retreated. Sounds quite indecisive to me.

Such is the nature of politics. If you admit to your mistakes, you lose votes. Tell me, have we ever had a president who was able to change his course of action in mid-blunder? Kerry admitted to his mistakes in Vietnam, and protested the war. Now he's being demonized for it. Will the fickle attempts to discredit him ever stop?

Clip #2

Nixon was honored and feared for keeping his word.

Which word? He said we need to keep attacking, but he also wanted to get the troops out.

The Vietnam War was an example of the president upholding a treaty.

Fine -- JFK's hands were tied. But did LBJ or Nixon decide that the war was becoming a problem and exit? No.

Clip #3

The interrogator was using statements from the antiwar protesters to say that we need to be punished. If we unilaterally withdrew from Vietnam, they would've killed us.

Wouldn't part of withdrawing be the rescuing of the P.O.W.'s?

If Kerry witnessed the supposed "war crimes," why didn't he stop them?

Kerry admitted to being involved. He saw the error after he came home. My question is not "why," but HOW was he supposed to stop them?

If you listen to Kerry long enough, you'll hear both sides of every issue.

If you listen to Bush long enough, you'll hear both sides as well. He campaigned in 2000 as a "peace president." Now look at where we stand. He now campaigns as a "war president." Looks like we've found Waffles' evil twin.

...

Besides, take a look at the poll on the movie's homepage. Isn't a poll meant to be an impartial response mechanism? A one-sided poll is a brazen display of manipulation, which is obviously the intent of its creators. And everyone thought Michael Moore was bad...

Come to grips with the facts

2004-08-27T12:02:00.000-04:00

Enough of the lies. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a Bush smear campaign.

Just connect the dots.

If you agree, sign the petition.

The census doesn't lie

2004-08-27T11:58:00.000-04:00

Kerry, in his latest press release, sheds some light on problems I've had with Bush's economic policy.

Perspectives: A vote for Kerry prevents bipartisan stupidity

2004-08-27T11:43:00.000-04:00

Spoons explains why a conservative can be against Bush:

"Got that? A conservative with reservations about a Repubican President who supports affirmative action, who wants the government to restrict political speech, who wants to open our borders and give amnesty to illegal aliens, who wants to pass restrictive gun laws, who resists arming pilots, who surrenders to Democrats on judicial appointments, who embraces liberal junk evirovoodo on the
myth of global warming, who lets Ted Kennedy write his Education bill, who spends more than any Democrat President we've ever had, who proposes and passes the largest entitlement expansion in the history of the Republic.... Need I go
on?
And any conservative upset that Bush is taking the liberal position on affirmative action political speech illegal immigration gun control arming pilots judicial appointments global warming education spending entitlements and free trade...is denounced as a "purist." Whatever...
As for the all-purpose "but there's a war on" defense of Bush, how much does that buy him? Are you willing for it to be illegal for you to criticize the President? Are you willing to give up on the First Amendment -- and don't kid yourself, that's exactly what Bush is trying to accomplish with his threatened lawsuit against the Swiftboat Veterans -- because you believe Bush might be better in the War? And what about that, anyway? Do we really think Bush is going to be that much better? Hell, he barely went into Iraq this time, and did so only after dicking around with the U.N. so long that all of Saddam's WMDs probably ended up in Syria. Do you think Bush is going to take on Iran in a second term? With half the country already thinking he's a warmonger and not believing what he says about threats, is Bush really going to pull the trigger on Iran? Could he even get the votesin Congress? Don't make me larf. Hell, Bush is already out there campaigning and promising, "I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years!" Or when Bush explains, "For a while, we were marching to war; now, we're marching to peace!" Hell, he's still trying to negotiate with Moqtada al-Sadr -- and he's killing people today. Bush had had his moments, sure, but he'd have to be a whole fucking lot better at the War on [Some] Terror (he only opposes Palestinian terrorism during alternate weeks) for me to put up with his other shit.
I know, I know, "But Kerry will be worse than Bush on most of the issues you care about, and the War on Terror." True enough. But he's a Democrat. He's supposed to be wrong about everything. Bush is the leader of the Republican Party. If he leads that party to the wrong position on everything, then both of our parties will be out to screw us. We'll have true bipartisan idiocy. Disastrous.

Accusing the opposing ideology as lethal to liberty sounds a bit self-righteous and perhaps even dangerous, but he has a point. Going along with the "checks and balances" theme, neither Democrats nor Republicans are complete liberals or conservatives. The two-party system has its own built-in protection from extremism. Their views seem to be split into two categories: social and economic. Democrats believe in liberal economic policy but conservative social policy. Republicans favor a more loosely regulated economy but a liberal enforcement of moral behavior. However, with Bush supporting liberal economic policy, he allows Hillary Clinton-style liberalism to flourish. More on why a Republican should vote for Kerry here.

Aside from political theorizing, take a look at W.'s previous campaign promises:

In 2000, George W. Bush promised to provide affordable health insurance to every single American. Currently, 44% of Americans are uninsured.
In 2000, George W. Bush promised to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Now he's left the act behind with only 35% of its proposed budget.
~~In 2000, George W. Bush promised to protect unborn fetuses by outlawing partial-birth abortions. This never happened, even when Congress gained a Republican majority.~~ A bill banning partial-birth abortions was signed in 2003 (see comments for link). Nevermind.
~~In 2000, George W. Bush promised to end stem-cell research because of its moral implications. It's going on today with remarkable benefits.~~
In 2000, George W. Bush promised to protect the sanctity of marriage as an act between a man and a woman. When he went too far and tried to amend the Constitution, Bush was immediately shot down.
In 2000, George W. Bush campaigned as a "peace president," stating that "we cannont be the world's policemen." We now have troops throughout the Middle East watching for terrorism and spreading flawed democracy, because that became the popular thing to do after 9/11. If that isn't opportunism, I don't know what is.

How do we know he's telling the truth now? Doesn't this bear a frightening resemblance to Republican ads against Kerry?

There's what Bush says...and then there's what Bush does.

Kerry in 2004.

UPDATE:

Some of the arguments I made are the same ones I had in 2000, and they needed to be updated. It serves as a reminder to follow current events better. Thanks to Spoons for pointing out some things I missed.

The null argument

2004-08-27T00:53:00.000-04:00

Wonder why major media outlets won't cover the SwiftVets controversy? Well, wonder no more. The problem is that neither side of the argument is completely legitimate.

Kerry's statements about what he did during the Vietnam War match official records. However, the SwiftVets aren't actually attacking him. According to a letter addressed to Senator Kerry, they just want him to release these records.

Kerry, it's up to you now: Fill out the 180 form and get it over with. The sooner, the better, even if there's hell to pay, and you're exposed as a liar. We need honesty and accountability restored to Washington.

Until then, remember -- nobody "gives a rat's ass about what he did in Vietnam." It's about exposing an opportunist, and both candidates fit the bill. Look at the events this way:

Kerry protests the Vietnam War.
Kerry is drafted, serves in Vietnam on a Navy swiftboat.
Kerry requests early leave to become a politician.
Kerry is honorably discharged, protests the war again.
Kerry pretends to throw medals away in D.C. protest, only to hang them on his wall later.
Kerry the senator makes peace negotiations counter to the government's intentions.
Kerry, despite a strong peacetime record and obvious liberal bias, campaigns on the issues of national security, war in Iraq, and his questionable service in the U.S. Navy.
Kerry ignores his duties to the Senate while on the campaign trail, but makes bold promises for what he will do as president.

Now for Bush's history, in similar fashion:

Bush goes to college, fails to get a deferment from the draft.
Bush joins the National Guard in TX, where he serves with the elite.
Bush requests transfer, which is not approved for a year (the AWOL incident).
Bush, without orders from the National Guard, leaves to campaign for a fellow Republican.
Bush finally is transferred to a unit in CO, in which he is not required to train or even report for duty.
Bush begins a failed business career in the oil industry. Eventually, he will lump all of the failed companies into a single disaster.
Bush forms alleged ties with the Saudi Royal Family to attract new oil investors.
Bush's failed S&L business heavily fined for catering to criminals.
Bush owns baseball's Texas Rangers, failing to do anything to boost profits.
Bush becomes governor of TX, authorizes a record amount of executions, promises in presidential campaign to bring health insurance to every single American and fully fund education, two things which we have yet to witness.
Bush also presses the banning of stem-cell research and abortion, both of which remain legal.
Bush gives the tax cuts he promised, while the economy suffers a recession.
Bush remains at a photo-op to preserve his image -- while the nation is under attack.
Bush delays the hunt for the 9/11 culprits by nearly two months, then attempts to "liberate" Afghanistan in the process.
Bush, with tentative information, makes a case for war in nearby Iraq.
Bush fails to complete the war on time, and we still have troops in both countries.
Bush continues to press the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" to distract from his shortcomings.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to spot who isn't an opportunist.

(Hint: It sure isn't either one of these guys.)

UPDATE: Logic and our legal system advise us to dismiss the SwiftVets' charges.

Kerry's account matches the official records. The burden of proof remains on the accusers. If said accusers cannot prove their story, then the case should be dismissed.

Terrorism update: They're getting desperate

2004-08-26T15:37:00.000-04:00

Racial profiling alleged in Muslim arrest (via LGF)

The Jihadis are having a hard time justifying their actions these days. Paragraph #1 tells it all:

"The oldest daughter of a man described as a high-ranking Hamas operative said Wednesday that police used racial profiling when officers stopped her family’s sport utility vehicle while her mother made a home video of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge."

Or was it because she is the daughter of a Hamas operative taking pictures of a terrorist target? Did it ever occur to her that police can identify you by your license plate?

D'oh!

Political "playground battle" rages on

2004-08-26T15:16:00.000-04:00

What is the reasoning behind this?

Kerry calls for a halt to the attacks on his service (acceptable), but then he sends his minions out on his bad PR attacks (what he accused Bush of doing).

John Kerry, are you losing your mind?!?!

I, for one, have followed suit in his pledge to stop the smearing, but now I am seriously outraged. The man who was going to be America's positive message is now sending something to the effect of "Hell is on the way." The way he has handled this crisis with more crap-laden photo-ops, rather than brushing off the attacks by debunking the myths, has struck a nerve, not to mention the fact that five-month-old fetuses (the ones that are involved in partial-birth abortion) can go on to live healthy lives.

Kerry may be receiving a letter from me soon. I'll keep you posted if I decide to go through with it. In the meantime, INCITE has some laugh-your-ass-off posts about the appearance at Bush's TX ranch.

MoveOn.org needs to live up to its name

2004-08-26T13:08:00.000-04:00

Move the hell on, already! Many a person is complaining about the recent wave of anti-Kerry ads, but there has not been much attention has been given to MoveOn.org. For years, they have fueled the "rabid liberal socialist" stereotype with anti-Bush and anti-Republican ads. While well-meaning, their mission is not helping my efforts to restore thought and reason (that thing that separates us from monkeys) to political discourse.

Bad foreign relations blood

2004-08-26T13:02:00.000-04:00

Here is an example of why I'm not going to go to extremes and compare Bush to Hitler. Remember the analogy, "a vote for Kerry is a vote for al-Qaeda," back when they reportedly wanted W. out of office? If that is true, then "irrational hatred for Bush is support for military dictators."

Media dominance of the election

2004-08-25T18:34:00.000-04:00

Many liberals are resorting to arguments like "Bush lied," "Bush caused 9/11," "Bush should be impeached," etc., but without reason or supporting evidence. I refuse to go down that road. I believe that W. is a fellow man, with whom I happen to disagree, who has his own thoughts on our problems that are possible solutions. So where is that man?

Thanks to the obviously liberal media, finding the man behind the photo-ops is becoming a rather difficult task as of late. I'd love to point out some of Bush's strengths along with his weaknesses and give better information, but I simply don't have time to sift through every single news article ever written. My hope is that people will eventually recognize the press's hunger for conflict and stop the madness, redirecting discussion back toward where it was four years ago -- education, healthcare, Social Security, foreign policy, taxes, and everything else that actually applies to the job of a U.S. president.

This is an open call for anyone willing to help to point me toward news that portrays our current president in a positive light so I can cover both sides of each issue. I have a hard time believing that putting George W. Bush in office for another four years will spell doomsday.

Bush...WHAT???

2004-08-24T02:54:00.000-04:00

New raging liberal moonbat theory, c/o Janet Jackson, has gone from "Bush lied" to "Bush used Janet's boob to distract us from Iraq."

Enough already!

2004-08-24T02:34:00.000-04:00

I will no longer comment on Kerry's or Bush's war records.

Bush has had the same war record when he ran in 2000. I'll be damned if anyone should find a legitimate reason to bring it up now. Besides, he released his records. Anyone can find the truth for himself.

Kerry's campaign is being consumed by the SwiftVets controversy. He challenged Bush to discuss the issues, and Bush came back with an ad attacking his SIC attendance record. Then Bush made a blanket denouncement of 527's, hardly an apology to Kerry for the damage. Besides, a statement released by the SwiftVets indicated that they will continue their attacks regardless.

Once Bob Dole suddenly decided to become involved again, I began to wonder about the magnitude of this entire controversy. What's the deal? I think I established earlier that Kerry's story regarding his Purple Heart medals checks out. Besides, how can you say a man who still carries shrapnel in his leg and suffers from partial hearing loss didn't make a sacrifice?

These are my final comments on the issue, no matter how many more times it surfaces. The press is following this immature, cheap-shot battle only for the ratings, and that is the only reason it will continue. What I need is more information about what's going on NOW.

The Iraq war, no matter how much you agree or disagree, must go on

2004-08-22T14:49:00.000-04:00

Osama's bodyguard speaks

Would the extreme left please stop arguing against the war that has already begun now? The goal is now to finish what has been started without creating an international disaster. The for / against stuff needs to stop so we can end this conflict cleanly, without allowing al-Qaeda and fellow Jihadists to flourish.

The Iraqi paradox continues

2004-08-21T15:23:00.000-04:00

Iraqis enjoy their freedom, but they continue to be upset with how it was won. One instance is where the Iraqi soccer team denounces Bush's use of them in a political ad.

Further proof of Kerry's thoughts that the war was acceptable but mishandled.

Reasons John Kerry has my support

2004-08-21T12:12:00.000-04:00

First, I'd like to mention that the so-called "facts" being brought out by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conflict with official records, and most of Kerry's story (excluding the Christmas in Cambodia lie) appears to check out. Also, the men behind these ads, despite their disclaimer, might as well wave a banner with the B-C '04 logo on it. In fact, Kerry's seemingly outrageous claim that Bush is supporting the SBVFT guys' attacks has some substance to it.

Michelle Malkin has found more stories on that.

Now, I know people out there are voting "against Bush," but don't actually support Kerry. This believing in the "wasted vote" for a third-party candidate, is perhaps the major cause for our two-party system. I, however, will not do such a thing. My vote goes with a person with whom I can agree. That man, for me, really is John Kerry. Three reasons why:

1. Kerry favors environmental protection. As a both a lifetime asthma sufferer sick of air pollution and a fisherman frustrated with the increasing amount of polluted waters, I support his work, especially his signing a letter to the EPA, asking for stronger action regarding mecury cleanup.

2. Kerry favors a decrease in oil dependency. I agree with him on all aspects of this issue, especially the vote to push the production of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

3. Kerry opposes increased funding to the "War on Drugs." This could be the topic of its own writing, but in short, I'd be glad to see my tax dollars spent elsewhere.

As for Kerry's poor attendance at Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, there is no doubt that he missed at least 76% of them. The open ones, at least. The attacks are off the mark -- they fail to consider the hearings that are not open to the public. The best thing for Kerry to do right now would be to ask the head of the SIC to release the attendance records for the closed hearings to set the record straight.

The truth: there is no reliable record for us to use.

Therefore, unless we can see the attendance records for the closed-door meetings, and prove that Kerry did not receive information from them, this is not a very credible attack.

"Thank goodness Iraq is a quagmire"

2004-08-21T04:11:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting thought on the war in Iraq -- the "flypaper hypothesis" :
"...the U.S. hangs out its flypaper far away from home, and also as far from Israel as possible, to collect as many as possible of the world's movable Jihadis in a place where the U.S. has installed the equipment to kill them."

Alan Keyes is nuts

2004-08-18T03:02:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you all knew this already, but just in case: Keyes supports slave reparations

As if we didn't have enough spiteful people running around saying society owes them something without a politician saying it.

Defending John Kerry

2004-08-17T08:02:00.000-04:00

Jay Tea at Wizbang has a rundown on his thoughts. I agree -- a man fighting a war shouldn't be accused of crimes if he's trying to defend himself. This line reflects a theme that's been brought up more than once here:

"Now, I'd really, REALLY like to put Vietnam and Bush's National Guard
service behind us, and focus on issues and more recent accomplishments."

Again I say, back to the issues, please. Speaking of issues, I'd like to point out the challenge:
"I hereby challenge Kerry's supporters to cite three major accomplishments of John Kerry's from the last 20 years. If ANYONE can point out a few positive things Kerry has done since getting to the elected, I'd be eternally grateful.

Bonus points will be awarded to those who come up with the most plausible explanation why Kerry's missed 83% of all roll call votes in the Senate and 75% of all public hearings of the Intelligence Committee over the last year isn't more compelling evidence of his being "AWOL" from his duties as a Senator than were ever presented in regards to Bush's National Guard service."

Information will be forthcoming by the end of the week.

Christmas in Cambodia -- my final thoughts

2004-08-16T19:56:00.000-04:00

Just a thought:

The U.S. government, especially in the military, runs a mission of secrecy. The feds have been known to hide experiments, such as in this case, often at the risk of human lives, to preserve their missions.

So, what is the likelihood that Kerry really was in Cambodia, but he had to write a letter home from "Vietnam's most inland unit" so the rest of American never found out, and the case was handled internally, complete with cover story?

It seems just as plausible as calling Kerry a pathological liar. He told that story WAY too many times for one not to be suspicious.

I'm hoping this one blows over, like the AWOL Bush incident.

It's about damn time

2004-08-16T19:42:00.000-04:00

Bush announces troop realignment (via INCITE)

Newsflash: The Cold War ended only...oh, about 10-15 years ago.

Seems to me that the Dems are stuck in attack mode, even after the "positive messages" at the DNC. After they were embarassed by questioning the timing of the terror alerts, I can't really place blame on anyone.

Bush really is doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is always good, even if for the wrong reasons.

No surprise Kerry isn't talking

2004-08-15T16:27:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the media isn't being a friendly medium. Partisan news stories like these two and this one are becoming quite a problem.

Rest assured, however, that Kerry is running away with the electoral vote.

Party unity?

2004-08-15T16:06:00.000-04:00

This may be a problem for the upcoming RNC, and will ultimately serve as a reminder for us all to be tolerant of others' beliefs.

Iraqis losing $30 million a day

2004-08-15T14:24:00.000-04:00

If I didn't have to hear news like this about the mess Iraq has become, the ongoing war would seem much more justifiable.

So which one is it?

2004-08-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

Lately, I've heard a lot -- and agreed with -- claims that Kerry needs to reveal more information about his platform. But he isn't alone, and this shouldn't be used as Bush support material. Why?

Bush and Cheney are having a communication breakdown, too.

Faulty enhanced passports slated to be issued next spring anyway

2004-08-15T00:05:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports that the State Department has decided to carry on an error-prone project.

You have to be kidding me! There is no way that this could work as-is. Imagine this possiblity: while trying to verify the identity of someone who was a victim of a mistake, a real terrorist slips through the cracks. Or look at it from a more practical standpoint:

"Facial recognition isn't going to do it for us at large scale...If
there's a 10 percent error rate with 300 people on a 747, that's a
problem."

Newsflash: When something is a problem, you fix it.

Blogging the war

2004-08-14T21:43:00.000-04:00

Fear and Loathing in Iraq

The salute: Why anyone who uses it as support for Bush is nuts

2004-08-14T15:13:00.000-04:00

A picture really is worth a thousand words. Maybe an entire campaign, even.

Shocking news about our president?

2004-08-14T15:10:00.000-04:00

Bush using drugs to control depression, erratic behavior

Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write that headline. All I can say is: here is your "leader." If Kerry is unfit for office, what does that make Bush?

I don't find "keep those motherfuckers away from me" to be consistent with family values, either.

UPDATE:

This is an unconfirmed report. Don't believe everything you hear.

Gun control: hitting your target

2004-08-14T15:04:00.000-04:00

I'm moderate enough to realize that more gun control isn't the answer. Besides, it does nothing for the ones who obtain firearms illegally.

Translating Kerry's "politician-speak"

2004-08-14T15:00:00.000-04:00

From OTB -- Would Kerry vote for Iraq War?

Presenting: clear-cut answers from John Kerry

Well, not really. (Surprised?) Actually it's what he should've said, in plain English. At least this is more of a challenge than the last Slate article I mentioned here.

I admit, Kerry's language is very cryptic. I spent nearly an hour and a half reading and re-reading that article to decode the candidate's statements alone. Then I read the analysis. It begins like this:

"Last Friday, President Bush challenged Sen. John Kerry: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq." On Monday, pressed by a reporter to answer Bush, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Bush argues that this is yet another Kerry flip-flop and that Kerry now endorses Bush's war. At a campaign rally on Tuesday, Bush asserted,
'My opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpile of weapons we believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.' "

What's wrong with this picture? Kerry did not change his mind. He voted for the war as a senator, and now he is defending his vote. Kerry never questioned whether we should go to war; he questioned how the war was handled. W. still has a difficult time with this concept. Why should he fault Kerry when the problem is that he [Bush] just isn't listening?

The article keeps goes on with:

"The answer, if you look closely at Kerry's statements over the past three years, is no. But Kerry refuses to make this clear, so let's go to the videotape..."

The link goes to a press release from Kerry's National Security Advisor:

" 'Mr. President, knowing what you know now, do you still believe that you made no mistakes in how you took this country to war? Do you really have no regrets about sending many of our troops into battle without body armor to save their lives? Do you believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq without a plan to win the peace? Do you wish you had done things differently so our troops and the
American people wouldn’t have to bear the burden in Iraq almost alone?'

'The issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, the issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. It’s time for George W. Bush to come clean with the American people about his Iraq policy.' ”

Translated: "We needed to go to war, but I would've handled the war much differently."

I don't know how much better you can do aside from risking political suicide or bringing back the partisan mudslinging. This is what I meant earlier by "attention to detail." Kerry is careful to answer questions completely, not a straight "yes" or "no." It's what we all want to hear, but is it appropriate?

Besides, the first question is flawed. Kerry didn't send troops to war without body armor. The issue was how the troops were to be funded. I thought we were over the political ad over which nearly everyone cried foul. Besides, the mere accusation of "Kerry sent the troops to war without armor" is ludicrous. The decision was made by a Congressional vote, not Kerry alone. It's like attributing our economic problems to Bush alone. His plans could've been shot down by Congress, but they weren't. So it's partly Congress' fault for passing them. The blame game is the beginnings of the fighting that has so often marred the political process and damaged our image of both candidates, and ultimately, politics in general. I think this is part of the reason we have so many apathetic citizens who refuse to vote. Let's end this self-destructive game.

I do, however, agree with the conclusion drawn here:

"The first significant clip shows Kerry on The O'Reilly Factor on Dec. 11, 2001. 'We ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein,' he says. Kerry adds that when U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler provided evidence that inspections should continue, 'I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections.'
Summary: Kerry wants pressure and inspections.

Translated: "We needed to let the U.N. weapons inspectors continue their work."

Continuing, the next clip is also agreeable:

"The next significant clip shows Kerry on Hardball on Feb. 5, 2002. The host, Chris Matthews, asks Kerry whether Iraq 'can be reduced to a diplomatic problem—can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?' Kerry answers: 'Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. He would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process?The answer is yes.'
Summary: Kerry doubts Iraq would comply with inspections, but he thinks
we have to go through the process of trying."

Translated: "I doubt we can resolve the situation in Iraq by simply sending inspectors over there. However, we need to give peace a chance."

Next up is Kerry's first clear endorsement of the war:

"Stephanopoulos' question, edited out of the video, was, 'On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen. Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?' Kerry takes the question in two parts: No to the timing ('I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity'), yes to the 'decision to disarm.' But in his final sentence, Kerry conveys that his agreement with Bush on the decision is more important than their disagreement on the timing: 'When the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam].'
This appears to be the first time Kerry endorses the war as Bush conducted it."

No, it doesn't. If Kerry endorsed the war as Bush conducted it, he would've agreed on the timing as well. He also makes no mention of how he would've disarmed Saddam.

Translated: "I support the Bush administration's disarming of Saddam Hussein. However, we could have given diplomacy a greater opportunity."

That mistake is why the rest of the article goes downhill, accusing Kerry of inconsistency and emphasizing the parts of his views that apply to the right or the left whenever necessary.

Kerry was guilty of no more than being aware of his audience and trying to win more votes, as any elected official should. (Keep in mind that the main goal of any campaign is to win.) He tells no lies, and makes known his complete thoughts, expressing all of their complexities. The only mistake the presidential hopeful makes is not translating these thoughts into something to which we can all relate and understand.

Had Kerry actually spoken in plain English, he might have had more support. Now only the people who take the time to decode his statements can really understand him. Just like a wealthy elitist to place himself above everyone. If one of the two presidential candidates could step down, speak plain English, AND not rely on the wealthy for campaign donations, the choice would be so much easier. But then it wouldn't be any fun to watch.

How long have we had a liberal media?

2004-08-14T05:18:00.000-04:00

Forgotten Internees of World War II

Michelle Malkin reminds us that in the fight to end internment camps forever, we have lost sight of what really happened. Europeans were held, too.

Homeland security: opening the borders to the south wide, sending troops to Iraq, and talking like we're getting tough

2004-08-14T05:04:00.000-04:00

Call me a cynic. Even though I support Kerry, I still have little faith in our future. He can say "hope is on the way" until he's blue in the face, and I won't believe it. The reason I can stick with Kerry is that I am unsatisfied with the direction in which we're headed now, and you can be 100% sure that we get no change if we leave the same guy in office.

Bush has also fallen victim to the campaign incompetence bug. As Kerry insists on bringing up Vietnam, Bush insists on bringing up homeland security. The problem: our homeland isn't quite secure.

This has become more of a circus than a presidential election.

How not to campaign for president(Kerry's first bona fide flip-flop)

2004-08-14T04:34:00.000-04:00

What is wrong with the two major presidential candidates this year? Bush goes liberal and convinces people that he has a plan for illegal aliens, but ruins the logic so badly that it no longer makes sense. Kerry goes neo-con and harps on the War on Terror and Vietnam nearly as much as the government. It's no wonder that both look like complete idiots.

What's worse is that John Kerry may have just self-destructed. Remember the "Band of Brothers" ads, the salute, and the Swiftboat vets who followed him around? Now they're suddenly his enemies. Why?

"Because they're not puppets."

"Whoosh!"

That's the sound of Kerry's credibility being flushed down the toilet. Now the rest of his appearances are going to be harshly criticized as a manipulation for votes, damaging his ability to reach voters. This is without the media throwing a wrench in things.

What a waste of potential. The fact that Kerry is still leading means one of the following:

1. The general public agrees that Kerry should quit bringing up Vietnam, find no relevance to his policy, and subsequently ignore the attacks.

2. Bush is doing such a terrible job that Kerry still looks better.

3. The same logic that makes people support Bush after he made a mess of the Middle East and damaged the economy has infected Kerry supporters as well, making it a battle of morons, decided by morons.

Who came up with the genius idea that the people should choose candidates directly, regardless of competence and relevance to the party platform? That is why we keep fielding total fools.

Breaking news: veggies and exercise are good for you

2004-08-14T03:54:00.000-04:00

Get a load of this one (via INCITE):

"Americans need to spend more time working out and less time chowing
down.

That's the conclusion of a federal advisory panel looking at ways to
get people to adopt healthier eating and exercise habits."

We needed a federal advisory panel to say that? Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.

Sometimes I think government waste is as much to blame for the deficit as the Bush administration.

Retail is now a factor in campaigns

2004-08-14T03:27:00.000-04:00

Shop the Vote 2004

Costco = Kerry
Wal-Mart = Bush

Funny how I shop at Wal-Mart.

Still searching for intelligent life in the universe

2004-08-14T02:18:00.000-04:00

Logic and politics seem to be the Odd Couple of society. We need them both, but they never agree. Take this story for instance. Bush is attempting to steal Kerry voters with a plan to help illegal immigrants work inside the U.S. legitimately for 3-6 years. Kerry supports a massive effort to make illegal aliens legal.

Newsflash: they broke the law!

Illegal aliens are just that -- illegal. What do you do when somebody does something illegal? You dole out an appropriate punishment. What is the punishment for illegal entry? Deportation. It's that simple.

Once again, we find our two presidential candidates in a cartoon-like battle of stupidity:

1. How can Kerry let illegal immigrants who have unfairly benefitted from our tax dollars for years become citizens without punishment?

2. Did I just see Bush being a liberal loony? What makes him think that illegal immigrants will suddenly appear for his program, knowing that they could be deported when it ends?

3. What would these men have to say about letting murderers or others who break the law go free for a while and returning them to jail later on? Oh, wait...that already happened. Think "Willie Horton."

Because of Bush's blatant disregard for logic, my vote remains with Kerry.

Understanding foreign symbols

2004-08-14T02:09:00.000-04:00

This is why reporters should do their homework before they write:

"V isn't for peace in a palestinian's hand. It means
victory."

Of course, this is coming from Canada.

Invisible economics

2004-08-14T01:54:00.000-04:00

Not all aspects of economic policy are visible to the individual. Phelps links to two writings reminding us to consider the broader consequences of government actions.