Working Late for the GOP

I'll be back soon with updates from Youngstown rally for President Bush. Right now, I'm slaving away at the Republican headquarters to secure the re-election of the President. If you live in Ohio, you are probably getting a few phone calls from similar GOP volunteers statewide. Friday kicks off the structured volunteer effort of the 72 hour taskforce to get out the vote for President Bush nationwide. So expect more phone calls. In the meantime, check out the Ranger for current political goings-on such as this post about "The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004."

Happy Birthday Ranger!!

That's right, today, October 26th, is the Ranger from the North's birthday.

Go say hello and send him your good wishes :)

He has good recent posts on Tora Bora, bunker busters, and the time-space continuum.


:)

Long day at the HQ

President Bush is coming to the Youngstown Airport on Wednesday. I stopped by the Mahoning County Republican Headquarters this afternoon to see what the ticket situation was. The place was a mad house. I was not there for 2 minutes before I started answering a randomly ringing phone and running around trying to find answers. I've done a lot of work there in the past few weeks, so from that point on, I went right to work, making calls, answering phones, and entering database information. I also signed up to volunteer at the event on Wednesday, so I will be able to give a first hand account :)

I only just got home a little bit ago, but at the end of the night, I had the happiness of knowing that a lot of great Bush supporters signed up to volunteer for the 72 hours task force. I also had a great new hat - Bush/Cheney with the Ohio State Flag.
woo-hoo :)

Go Bush!!
:)

The rest of the ABB mind

Shawna has posted the third and final part of her series: "Inside the mind of an ABB part 3".

Here's an interesting excerpt concerning the fear of the incohesive ABB movement:

The amusing part of their fear is what they theorize would happen if Bush were to be reelected. Abortion would be banned. Christianity would become a state-sponsored religion through the faith-based initiatives. Rational people know that these things will not be happening anytime in the near future, no matter how strong Bush's faith is. Lincoln was a God-fearing President, and I don't believe he passed any state-sponsored religious laws.

So what effect might the "ABBs" have on the election? As I said before, fear and hate will drive some of them to the polls, but not all of them. I suspect most of these people will wind up staying home, feeling that their vote doesn't count and that Bush will steal the election anyway (hah!) What if Bush wins? They'll scream he stole the election. It won't matter unless the election isn't even close.

And I don't think it will be close. Now that we know many pollsters are just trying to encourage Kerry's supporters by oversampling Democrats so close to the election, I think the ABB crowd will be surprised on November 2nd.

My prayer for them is that they realize that President Bush isn't the big scary figure and that he will do what's right for the country as a whole.

Great job on the whole series Shawna!! I really learned a lot from all your heard work :)

The Continuance of the Buzzword.

Jonah Goldberg chimed in yesterday on "The myth of the disenfranchised."

The article has important background information, but here's the highly telling conclusion:

Already, in state after state, the Democrats have said that voter confusion over how to vote constitutes voter disenfranchisement. But, as George Will recently noted, disenfranchisement is something the government does to you. It's not something you do to yourself. If you can't figure out how to fill in the ovals or punch the chads - and some minority of voters will always botch it - that doesn't mean your right to vote was rescinded. It means that you didn't take your right to vote seriously enough to pay attention to the instructions. Democracy requires two things: an electorate that takes its responsibilities seriously and small-d democrats of all parties who take the process seriously.

Judged on these two criteria, it's hard to see how the Democrats can call themselves democrats.

Frankly, this is all a little mind boggling to me. The vast majority of polls have the race as a tie or Bush ahead. If it was reversed and Kerry was ahead, but closely so, then I could understand the Democrats claiming that a Bush win on election day equal voter fraud. But with the consensus of polls placing Kerry behind, the Democrats are both insulting pollsters and ridiculously claiming fraud and disenfranchisement ahead of time. Jonah's right here. A voter's inability to successfully vote isn't disenfranchisement - it's disinterest or laziness because they have months, YEARS, to find out how to vote correctly. I'm sure the board of election would be happy to meet with voters and help them learn the ins and outs of the complicated voting process.

But this is just another incidence of Democrats inability to encourage personal responsibility on the part of America's citizens. Instead of empowering people and urging them to be completely informed on something as important as voting, they are preparing to claim that the responsibility lies with the elderly poll workers who are somehow "disenfranchising" other senior citizens on Election day.

Zell Miller Comes to Youngstown

He gave a press conference. I shook his hand and got to listen to his speech right there in the same room. It was quite an honor, the speech was great.

There was an interesting dynamic in the room though. I was referred to the event by a worker at the Republican HQ, but it was a Democrats for Bush event. Towards the end of the Q&A time, one of the local reporters wanted to know how many people standing behind the podium with Sen. Miller were actual registered Democrats. A few of the people raised their hands and Miller was quick to add, "You should really be asking how many of them used to be Democrats."

Now, Sen. Miller has a good point there, but the reporter asking the question seems to not understand how Ohio's party registration works. In Ohio you can change your registration during any primary election (and perhaps in a general election, but I'm not sure). In fact, though I consider myself a republican, I am currently a "registered" Democrat because I took a Democrat ballot in the spring Primary so that I could vote for the democrat presidential candidates. So, had I been standing behind the podium when the reporter asked the question, I could have raised my hand. But the point is, my registration doesn't relate directly to my true party affiliation here in Ohio. Many in attendance were angered at this reporter for trying to imply that they were presenting themselves falsely. One elderly couple even went over to chew the guy out for it. With party registration being so fluid here in Ohio, the guy was deliberately baiting these people.

But aside from all that, it was really great to get to hear him speak. It was well done and informative. Beverly, who came with me and had not been able to see Miller's speech at the Republican Convention, commented that his conviction was clear in everything he said. She's right. Zell Miller has been displaced by his party. The party of Kennedy and Scoop Jackson is no more. He was right to say that John Kerry does not take national security seriously. Zell cited John Kerry's vote against the 1991 Gulf War, as well as the various other weapons systems and defense initiatives.

If you're not sure about those John Kerry votes, tune in to Sean Hannity any day of the week and I'm sure he'll list them for you. Speaking of which, I heard radio host Mark Davis say on Hannity's show today that we are not focusing enough on John Kerry's preference for disbanding research for the bunker buster bomb. Well, I talked about it when it came up in the debates, but he's right to say that it deserves more attention. Kerry's plan is to stop that research, setting a precedent for North Korea. Then we would just trust North Korea to follow our path and disarm and stop nuclear weapon research.
Yeah...
Does anyone else think it's strange to plan to trust North Korea consider they flouted all previous non-proliferation agreements they have signed?


Again, a special thank you to Zell Miller for coming out to the Democratic Youngstown stronghold to show his support for the President. Whether the reporters want to admit it or not, Democrats are losing power in this area. Jim Traficant's family can put Kerry/Edwards' signs in his yard in Poland, but they can't make people forget the corruption of the party in this area.

Go Bush! :)

Democrats and the [Vanishing] Jewish Vote

Over at Shermblog, Jeff linked to a great National Review piece: "The Principled President: Bush has taken the heat in the way that American Jews can appreciate."

Anne Bayefsky presents a background of President Bush's position on the Israel-Palestine situation throughout his first term, starting with this:

President George W. Bush's foreign-policy record is plain. He was the first American president to sideline Yasser Arafat and to state unequivocally that support for terrorism could no longer coexist with the status of peace partner and entitlement to American largess. In a speech on June 24, 2002, the president said: "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

President Bush made it clear that the Israeli fight against terrorism is not a localized dilemma but rather part of the same war being waged by Americans against global terrorism.

First, this is correct - the War on Terror is a Global War and President Bush understands that. As John Kerry continues to focus his talk about the War on Terror on Osama bin Ladin he continues to marginalize the Jews years of suffering under Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups. These groups may have different names and different origins, but their goals are similar. We cannot wage a Global War on Terror and continue to conduct peace talks with Yasser Arafat, while Arafat refuses to condemn terror attacks in Israel by Palestinian bombers. I understand that condemning those attacks would be certain political suicide for Arafat, and might also genuinely endanger his life. He protects himself in this way, and that's fine, but the Palestinians need to understand that and realize that if they truly want a Palestinian state they need a leader who takes peace and coexistence seriously.

But as far as this election is concerned, these final paragraphs makes the situation the most clear:

In a world in which the future of freedom-loving little guys everywhere depends on whether America understands the fight against terrorism to be a global war, violent Islamic fundamentalism and a nuclear Iran to be global threats, and winning European and U.N. friends by serving up Israel to be pouring fuel on the fire, one presidential candidate has a courageous and principled record. The other scores debating points.

So the question for American Jews deciding whether to vote for a Republican president, in Hillel's words, is, "If not now when?" If the answer for most American Jews is never, then make no mistake about it: No Democratic president will ever feel that protecting the state of Israel is necessary to win Jewish votes - and no future Republican president will ever take the heat as President Bush has done.

The Teen Vote

There has been a lot of talk lately about Rock the Vote and Adopt the Vote and Teen Choice etc. Much of this talk has essentially amounted to the fact that the "Too Young to Vote" crowd is slanting towards Kerry.

Well, the Ranger sent me an email with a link that says otherwise.

Apparently Channel One, the school news network that I watched from 6th grade through High School conducted its own poll. If I remember correctly, Channel One usually cuts a deal with schools that they will provide free TVs to the schools if the schools agree to make the kids watch 12 minutes of news in the morning, with commercials. Veterns of Channel One news include CNN's Anderson Cooper, Lisa Ling, Monica Novotny and others who I've seen around the major news channels but whose names I can't remember. So basically channel one has a captive audience for whatever slant it chooses to take. I remember it being a bit liberal, but I don't put a lot of stock in those fuzzy school morning memories.

In any case, the poll results were good news for the President, or probably moreso the future of the Republican party:

American teens have spoken, and they want George W. Bush for president. Nearly 1.4 million teens voted in the nation's largest mock election, and the Republican incumbent wound up with 393 electoral votes and 55 percent of the total votes cast.

Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry received 145 electoral votes, far short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election. Kerry received 40 percent of the total votes, while five percent of teens selected the third-party option, though no third-party presidential hopefuls managed to pick up any electoral votes.

In an exit poll taken after making their pick for president, teens weighed in on the issues most important to them. A majority of respondents-- 44 percent-- said that the war in Iraq was the most important issue facing the candidates today. The economy was the first priority in the minds of 22 percent of teens, followed by education (14 percent), national security (12 percent) and health care (8 percent).

I'm surprised that the War in Iraq is at the top, and national security is so much lower, however, I would guess this is a direct result of what Channel One has been covering lately.

If you're interesting in see what teens in your state think, follow the link so see a state by state breakdown. Though I would reiterate that this is another indication that the youth of today are not interested in following in the Anti-war hippy footsteps of the youth of the 60s.

Also of note, these results show a win of FORTY states for President Bush. Exactly what Hugh Hewitt has been predicting for weeks now.

A Scary Place, Part 2...

...or..."Inside the mind of an ABB part 2" by Shawna at Shouting into the Wind, is up. It's very interesting and ends with an intriguing twist! Stay tuned for Part 3. I'm seriously fascinated by this whole deconstruction. Especially after reading this part 2. It certainly is making me think about this all very differently, which makes me think differently about how to approach "Kerry" Supporters...

Less than 13 days to go. We all need to be on our toes and clear in our objective.

Go W.! :)

Setting the [Republican] Record Straight

I heard something else on the radio today, but was once again without a tangible source. Therefore, I thank HunterByrd for posting the link to this message - a full page ad in the Washington Post that Rush read over the air today.

It's very worthwhile to read the whole thing, but here are a few excerpts:

WHAT I AM … is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.

WHAT I AM … is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears…. and plenty of them…, made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.

WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country… and all for which it stands.

WHAT I AM … is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today’s world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them … and the eyes of those who give them.

WHAT I AM … is an American who’s proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted… and it must be defeated.

WHAT I AM … is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.

WHAT I AM … is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.

WHAT I AM … is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.

WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.

WHAT I AM … is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.

WHAT I AM … is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions…. much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.
...

WHAT I AM … is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith… and who’s been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what’s best for them … rather than what’s right … often times at the expense of many …. including our national security.

WHAT I AM … is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That’s why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.
...
WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.

WHAT I AM … is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state’s 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply ….as well it should you.

WHAT I AM … is a man who feels the need to spend, $104, 655.60,(tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world’s poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that… and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick….. and continue to do so… and I’m not alone in that work...

I could have easily quoted a lot more. It's amazingly well done. Please, I strongly encourage you to go and read the whole thing if you have not yet done so.

The Backpedaling begins

As an update to this post, I present a newer Teresa quote from this afternoon (via: KerrySpot):

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are. I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

Wow, that's a lot of stuff to forget...
Anyway, I trust it's real, but he doesn't have a link, so it might be just a really funny parody. On the other hand, if it is real, does that mean someone on the Kerry campaign is keeping up with the blogs and talk radio? If so, then they are finally starting to get smarter...

UPDATE: I've confirmed it with several sources that this was a real THK statement. HunterByrd adds his confirmation in a comment below and then adds this:
Any undecided voters reading this: if you still believe this woman (and by extension, her husband) has your interests in mind, you are on a very slippery slope. Their interests are in league with power and earning (at the least) an honorable mention in the History books of tomorrow. What has that to do with you?

Nothing. They are interested in themselves and their own legacy. They have no concern for ordinary Americans or what will happen to those of us without a billion dollars in our bank account if the economy crashes...

That's One from Ohio

I just finished casting my ballot for President Bush :)


I am signed up to be a Poll Observer on election day, so I was able to cast an Absentee Ballot. On it, they checked the box for "election official" so I made sure to clarify that I am going to be a poll observer and not a poll worker. The question was passed around to a few people, who all eventually agreed that was the right box to check. But here was the clincher quote:
"We're going to have a lot of challenges, so we need to have something checked on there."

I don't know how the second clause of that sentence follows directly from the first clause, but I definately suggest praying states don't go "challenge crazy" on November 2nd.

Yet again, she speaks

With all due respect to Ms. Heinz-Kerry, I don't know why the Kerry Campaign keeps letting her talk to the press. I just heard some quotes on the radio from her today, but didn't catch the source. Thankfully, Stones Cry Out has it covered with this Teresa quote:

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up."

And then Rick comments:

First we have Senator Kerry's x-ray vision at the debate where he could tell no one other than he, the President, and the moderator made more than $200,000. Then his wife admits to not knowing the first lady, but by looking at her she can tell that she's never had a "real job" since she's been grown up. Are these not examples of prejudice?

I suppose she should define two things before we are too harsh on the affable first-lady to be: What does she consider a "real job" and when is someone "grown up"?

I would also add that Laura Bush has had all sorts of jobs. She was a school teacher, a Librarian, First Lady of Texas and now First Lady of the United States. Is anyone willing to say that when Hillary Clinton was First Lady, the position wasn't actually a "real job"?

Moreover, even if Laura Bush had done none of those things, she was a mother to twin daughters. Implying that being a mother is "not a real job" is an insult to millions of women in America who choose that honorable and necessary profession every year.

UPDATE: Apparently THK released a new statement this afternoon.

Kerry and Taxes Side by Side

There has been an interesting thing happening here in Mahoning County with Issues 1 & 2 for the November election. A few months ago, huge bill boards went up all over town saying "Vote YES on Issue 1! Not a new Tax!"
I soon found out that Issue 1 concerned the defense of traditional marriage here in Ohio. I was surprised that the bill boards felt the need to tell me that if I voted Yes on Issue 1, I wouldn't get taxed, but alright, I'd take it.

Well, turns out that there is an issue on the ballot about renewing the .5% Mahoning County Sales tax. It was supposed to be issue 1, but when the state initiative for the marriage amendment got on the ballot, it became issue 1, trumping the county issue. So, now the signs have all been changed, they say "Vote Yes on Issue 2! Not a new tax!"

Does anyone else wonder where the money is coming for these bill boards? Not one, but two! Are there people privately funding this initiative to continue a tax that took at least two separate elections to pass? If so, then wouldn't these people be better off just giving that money to the county and leave the rest of us alone to shop in peace, with that extra .5% in our pockets?

Well, the bill boards aren't the only advertising going on - there are yard signs! That's right, yard signs! People have signs in their yards encouraging voters to renew a tax that may not be new this November, but it was new pretty recently and thus I would prefer not to be paying it.

But here's the point. Today I saw one of these "Vote yes on the tax" yard signs...right next to a "Kerry/Edwards" sign.

At least this person understands that a vote for Kerry is a vote for more taxes, and apparently, they're ok with it.

But I'm not.

From the Buzzword File: "Disenfranchise"

There was an interesting discussion on Special Report tonight about "counting every vote" versus "counting every legally cast vote." I'm of course in favor of the latter, but being Fox News, they considered both issues equally, tossing various forms of the word "disenfranchise" around a lot. So, this seems like as good as time as any to quote this passage from Peace Kills by PJ O'Rourke.
On page 116, O'Rourke is in the midst of fisking a statement by a group of Nobel Laureates:

Why do political bien-pensants roll "dispossessed," "poor," and "disenfranchised" together, as if they have a natural correlation...? The Dalai Lama [Peace Prize 1989] is dispossessed. Your parish priest is poor. And Alan Greenspan, as a resident of the District of Columbia, is ineligible to vote in congressional elections.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but when people say that ineligible voters are "disenfranchised," I don't think they have Alan Greenspan in mind. But they should. People that are disenfranchised because they are legally made ineligible to vote, such as felons in states like Florida, should not garner our compassion and concern. They should either move to states where felons are eligible to vote, or stop complaining as if the government is doing something to hurt them personally.

I am willing to conceded that many voters are incorrectly "disenfranchised" every year due to legitimate mistakes. For example, while answering phones at the Republican HQ this week, a Florida resident, currently visiting Ohio, but about to depart for Europe, called to say that he never received the absentee ballot he requested from his local Board of Elections in Florida. He said that after several weeks went by and he did not receive the ballot, he actually took time to return to Florida and physically visit the Board of Elections to ask about the ballot. The B of E refused to give him another ballot, since their records showed that he was sent one in the mail.

Consequently, this man may not be able to cast his vote for the President. He told me that he is "sick about it" and quite frankly, I am too. There is no question that this man has been disenfranchised, as it looks like he will be prevented from voting. But, do I think it was deliberately done? No. Mistakes happen and this, regrettably, is one of them. I am sure there are other cases like this and surely it is cause for some reasonable level of concern. I also think there probably have always been mistakes of this nature.
However I do not think that this man's situation is part of an organized effort to disenfranchise Republican voters in Florida. Moreover, I think that claims of disenfranchisement on either side based on incidents like this one are out of line. Such claims serve only to foster small seeds of doubt already lurking in the minds of voters. It's like self-fulfilling prophecy and the power of suggestion.

Mort Kondracke had it right tonight when he said that the Bush Lawyers and the Kerry Lawyers need to sit down in a room agree to act responsibly rather than stage a war over ballots in 10 to 20 states that will make election night 2004 last until election night 2006. Brit Hume seemed skeptical that this would happen, and understandably so. But I think the first Lawyer team to publicly suggest this may gain some ground in the area of "voter confidence."

Back to Tora Bora

The Fourth Rail debunks "We lost Osama in Tora Bora" claims by John Kerry and the Left, using actual information and Tommy Franks quotes.
Here's one of the many important points found in this post:

Not only are the Tora Bora claims examples of the Left’s lack of understanding of the difficult political, geographical and logistical problems of fighting in Afghanistan, they are further examples of Senator Kerry’s willingness to denigrate our allies. The Afghans that fought side by side with Americans at Tora Bora are equated to thugs stealing American soldier’s jobs. The Pakistanis’ internal political risk of moving troops into their restive tribal regions is ignored, as is their significant contribution of troops. John Kerry does not view the bold actions by Afghani fighters and the Pakistani government as significant contributions to the war effort. John Kerry’s nuanced foreign policy of insulting allies at the expense of political gain is not likely to inspire confidence in the allies that have taken great risk to support the war effort.

Deconstructing the ABB Crowd

As promised, Shawna has already delivered Part 1 of her attempt to understand those who take the "Anybody but Bush" position: "Inside the mind of an ABB."

Check it out, and enjoy it all, including this amusing (yet true) sentence:

How can they hate Bush so much that you could run a single-celled organism against him and they would support it?

Desperate or Delusional? You decide.

Part of the All-Star discussion on Fox's Special Report tonight was about Kerry's recent talking points in his campaign speeches. Jeff Birnbaum posited that it was the "black & white" stage of the election where John Kerry would just try to take the opposite position of whatever President Bush said. Fred Barnes thinks that because Kerry is behind he has to be on the attack that the he has to defend his own ground, evidenced by his campaigning in Palm Beach while President Bush tries to break new ground in New Jersey.
On the issue of Kerry's recent catch phrases, Best of the Web Points out a post from Rodger Morrow:

In the past 10 days or so, the Kedwards campaign has:

Accused the Bush administration of planning to reinstitute a military draft.

Recycled the "no blood for oil" canard of the looney left.

Alleged that the Bush administration is somehow in the pocket of the Saudi royal family.

Told voters that, if they elect John Kerry, "people like
Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Suggested that President Bush was planning a "January surprise" to privatize Social Security.

Advised Democratic campaign workers to launch a pre-emptive strike" charging voter "intimidation" on election day even if no evidence exists.

Warned Florida voters that Republicans are "trying to keep people from voting."

Blamed the flu vaccine shortage on President Bush.

Twice called attention to the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

If you didn't know better, you might think they were getting desperate.

Desperate indeed.
I hope I don't need to say anything more about the draft. Even Mara Liasson admits that there is no potential for the draft. Kerry is indeed just exercising a scare tactic.
The same is true for Social Security. His plan to partially privatize Social Security is not a surprise, he campaigned on it in 2000. The President has insured that no senior citizens will lose their benefits under that plan. Social Security has to be fixed. It's just a matter of time.

Meanwhile, Best of the Web comments:

Of course, the problem with a Hail Mary pass is that there's always the danger of being intercepted, which is what appears to have happened with the Mary Cheney Hail Mary. On the surface, it was actually a very clever play, a way of gay-baiting while also appealing to gays (who saw it as a way of exposing what they see as Republican cruelty or hypocrisy on same-sex marriage).

The problem for Kerry is that a lot more Americans have children than have strong feelings about homosexuality one way or the other. People tend to be very protective of their own families and sympathetic to the protective instincts of others. It was the invasion of the Cheney family's privacy, not anything having to do with homosexuality per se, that got Kerry in trouble.

There has been so many polls and discussion over whether Kerry's Mary Cheney comment was right or wrong, whether he should have said it at all or said it a different way. Therefore, it seems that Kerry would have been better off to just apologize and end all the speculation because that speculation just keeps the comment in the headlines and forces the media to explain exactly why a majority of Americans think he shouldn't have said anything.

Cheering Australia

The Ranger discusses a recent Mark Steyn column that high-lights Australia's history of honorable American Support.

I heartily agree with his final paragraph:

I believe one can argue that Australia has been America's most reliable ally for the last one hundred years or so. PM Howard has honorably upheld that tradition and all Americans should greatly appreciate Australia's support and sacrifices in the Global War on Terror.

Two Important A's

Afghanistan and Abortion.

The Ranger posted about them both today.

First, a post linking to Rich Lowry's editorial exposing Kerry's inconsistent Social Policy as it relates to faith.

Second, his own well-written discussion of the MSM's coverage of the largely successful Afghan Elections.

Legitimate Factors in the "Pro" Column

When I started this blog, I said that I was working on a project to convince marginal supporters of Kerry that President Bush was the candidate who actually represented their views. I haven't exactly don't that in the direct way that I imagined, but I hope that I have managed to do it indirectly over these last two months. In either case, I think it is always important to remind people of the exact reasons why our President is more than worthy of re-election. To that end, Shawna has linked to Mark's great post on Sidesspot: "Why I am voting for President Bush." He covers the important issues of Leadership, Character, Core Values, Vision and the President's Team.
This is his conclusion:

As the election draws to a close, the case is clear. President Bush has ably led this country for the past four years. Has he made mistakes. He is a human. However, he has demonstrated the leadership and vision that will be necessary to face our challenges. This is an inflection point in our history. We can choose to continue on a path that will solve problems, or we can choose to go back to the tired old policies of the past--policies that did nothing to prevent September 11. We cannot let down our guard. We cannot afford to go with unproved leadership.

We need to re-elect George Bush in November.

Meanwhile, Shawna herself plans to attempt to understand why there are "Anybody but Bush people." I'm interested in this because I'm wondering if the "anybody but Bush" people were really that way before Kerry became the presumptive Democratic Nominee, or if they just became that way after they found out they were stuck with him as their alternative.

Carefully-Chosen Heroes

I'm looking for a transcript to link for this, but I just heard a report from a Kerry Campaign Correspondent on Fox News saying that, when asked who his heroes were, John Kerry listed Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Max Cleland, saying that they were all people who overcame difficult situations.

Hmm...pretty convenient that these are 3 well known liberals that support Kerry (of course, that is presumed about Christopher Reeve, I don't actually know that he supports Kerry, except that he supports Kerrys [current] position on stem cell research.)
What about Joni Erickson Tada, quadriplegic author, radio host, ministry director?
What about Charles Krauthammer, paralyzed columnist?
What about John McCain, multiple years as a prisoner of War?

Oh...right. Those are conservatives.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to cite Kerry's choices as heroes, I'm just saying that it seems to me that Kerry is exploiting their problems for his cause.

Kerry/Edwards "Anything for a vote" Policy

As an update to an earlier post discussing Charles Krauthammer's reaction John Edwards' Christopher Reeve Stem Cell comments, I point out Friday's Krauthammer Column: "An Edwards Outrage":

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word "plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan -- nay, a promise -- to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

Speaking as a doctor, Krauthammer goes on to discuss the biology of stem cell research and reiterates that President Bush was the first to approve federal funding for stem cell research.
Also:

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban" on stem cell research instituted by Bush.

After watching the recent debates, I thought that Kerry had finally giving up calling it a ban, choosing instead to call it a "restriction," which is a lot closer to what it is. But then just today Kerry went back to the "ban" talk in the Democratic Radio Address. He doesn't waste any time and invokes Christopher Reeve in the first sentence:

This past week, America lost one of its heroes and my friend, Christopher Reeve.

That at least, is a presumably true sentence, as opposed to this one a few lines later:

Three years ago, George W. Bush put in place a ban on federal funding for stem cell research - a ban that's tied the hands of our scientists and shut down some of our most promising work on spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, Diabetes, Parkinson's and other life-threatening diseases.

He tries to back track into "restriction" talk:

By restricting stem cell research, President Bush has turned his back on this hope. He's made the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology.

...but I don't think it works because he also delivers a blow to those who believe embyonic stem cell research destroys life by essentially calling them "right-wing ideologues" along with President Bush. All along, Kerry seems to be ignoring the amount of private research that is going on in private medical institutes and universities. Until this point anyway:

When I'm President, we're going to stop saying no. We're going to say yes. We're going to lift the ban on federal funding for stem cell research once and for all. We're going to make funding for this research a top priority in our government agencies, our universities, and our medical community. And we'll continue to lead the world in great discoveries - all while upholding the highest ethical standards. That's the right choice for America.

Except that here he goes back to talking about bans and seems to imply that the President is restricting universities and the medical community, which he isn't.

The sad part about this is that it is possible for Kerry to have a consistent position on this. He could just stand up and say that he disagrees with the President's restriction and he doesn't want to leave the research in the hands of private scientists because he wants the government to both fund and control it. But that doesn't sound good. So he doesn't say it. He also doesn't want to make a clear distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells because he knows that would put him in a tricky position with the Catholic Community. There is no way Kerry can claim to be honest and truthful and then makes statements like this on behalf of the entire Democratic Party.

As for Edwards, Krauthammer said this:

There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

Learning to Accept Reform

I could probably write a post about almost every Wall Street Journal opinion article from Friday's edition. But I am hesitant to do so. Thankfully, Hunterbyrd covered one of the best ones.

In the print edition, the title is "Why the Election is a Tough Call for Many Voters" which makes it sound like he author Daniel Henninger is going to give the "undecideds" an out. That's hard to believe though when you read the last paragraph:

Too bad. Amid war, terror and global economic upheaval, this election is a tough and too-sudden call for many voters. My guess is that the American electorate knows full well that the world is changing, and that come November 2, will decide the moment is now to change with it.

This implies that the choice is easier then the "undecided-panders" on the MSM news shows would like us to believe. Ironically, in this election voting for a change means voting for the Incumbent. The President actually has more plans for reform then Senator Kerry does.

The title of the online edition: "Change Is Inevitably Not Popular: Why many Americans hesitate to embrace the Bush revolution."
This title captures more of the point. We may hesitate and it may be unpopular, but embrace it we must for it is the only way America will continue to grow into the future.

UPDATE: Ranger has posted about another Opinion Journal article that speaks to Bush Reform vs. Kerry Inertia.

Issues of World Affairs

In an earlier post today I said that the choice this November can affect world affairs. This reminded me of an article I read in the WSJ last week, "Kerry's Favorite Hatian The Democrat wouldn't use U.S. troops to depose a dictator. But he would use them to impose one."

Mary Anastasia O'Grady begins the insightful piece this way:

John Kerry has now decided, retrospectively, that he would not have gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein. But he would have put U.S. troops in harm's way to shield Haitian strongman Jean Bertrand Aristide from a revolt of his own people in February. "I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period," Mr. Kerry told the New York Times on March 4.

This assertion from the would-be commander in chief seems to have had some unfortunate repercussions. Emboldened by a prominent champion in the U.S., the deposed Aristide's Lavalas Party thugs are committing mayhem again.

While rescuers were pulling the bodies of over 1,500 drowned victims of Hurricane Jeanne out of a flooded Gonaives last week and trying to ward off disease, Aristide supporters launched a wave of violence in Port-au-Prince. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday: "These are the old Aristide elements and some criminal elements who are trying to take advantage of the situation."

The opportunistic brutality included the beheading of three Haitian policemen. Haitian journalists are referring to the assault as "Operation Baghdad." The chaos, local observers maintain, is meant to demonstrate that Bush policy in Haiti is a failure. Any guess who the urban guerrillas are rooting for in the U.S. elections?

This is only part of the result of what is essentially John Kerry's "International Campaign" where he courts the voters of other countries.

The middle part of the article has an intriguing discussion of a Telecom situation in Haiti and then these are her final sentences:

A full report that clears up once and for all the truth about what happened under Aristide control may go a long way toward establishing the moral authority of the new government.
It might also stop John Kerry from using desperately poor Haiti as a weapon against his Washington opponents and instead put him on a more constructive path for helping a suffering people.

I talked yesterday about how President Bush has to be careful because his words have consequences. Apparently John Kerry's do as well and he has used his power and influence irresponsibly, at least in this case.

One if by land...

The Ranger has an important warning. Take heed as you read your mail. Don't be taken in by smarmy Brits :)

"The Lazy-Idiot Demographic"

Catherine Seipp has an amazingly funny, yet astute, article in today's Wall Street Journal, The Other Campaign: Why should we want lazy idiots to vote?.

With every election season comes yet another flurry of what I've come to think of as Nurse the Vote stories. You know the type: suggestions that democracy is undermined when people who can't figure out whom to vote for, or even how to get to the polls, choose to stay home. The solution, the voter-outreach panderers propose, is hand-holding and nagging. But why should the lazy-idiot demographic be encouraged to influence society even more than it already does?

To me, this kind of thing is worse than pandering to the undecideds because at least these "undecideds" are known for voting and are mostly undecided because they haven't had a chance to process all the information yet...or...something like that.

"I am not disengaged, I'm worn out," a Michigan State University senior named Traci E. Carpenter wrote in a Newsweek essay explaining why she and her peers are "not necessarily available Nov. 2."
...
"Sometimes I feel that no matter how I vote, there will still be war, crime and poverty," Traci continued in what read like a dead-on parody of adolescent cluelessness and self-absorption, except she wasn't kidding. "And I have other things on my mind. I am worried about skin cancer, drunken drivers, eating disorders . . ."

I saw the dimmest minds of Traci Carpenter's generation, destroyed by watching too much MTV, nodding their heads and thinking: "Dude, like, I know! They tell us to vote, but when we do, it still doesn't stop war and skin cancer and eating disorders. That's so totally harsh!"

Totally. Where does this idea come from? Is someone telling kids that "Your vote can change the world" and then not explaining the nature of the change? Yes, walking to the voting booth doesn't automatically equal world peace, but the eventual choice can and will alter world affairs. [Incidentally, earlier in the month I participated (through comments) in an interesting discussion about democracy and the voting process.]

More from Catherine:

It seemed that nothing could beat this for sheer dopiness, but then along came a toy creator named Ken Hakuta and his Adopt-a-Vote campaign, which aims to give the underage set a voice in the 2004 election. His idea: Parents could promise to vote according to their children's wishes as long as the kids have done their homework.

Right, that's what we need in this campaign--more bribery and condescension. A better lesson for parents to teach their children might be that, while many things in life are hard, voting is not one of them. Compared with getting your DSL or cable TV fixed, in fact, it's easy.

I've occasionally seen Dr. Phil, so I know there are parents who let their children watch 10 hours a day of TV or take over all the rooms in the house (including the parents' room) with their toys. However, if November comes and Dr. Phil has to have an intervention with parents whose desire to buy the kids' love resulted in turning their voting decision over to the Barbie/GI Joe set, then we must begin to prepare ourselves for what will surely be the brattiest generation yet to hit the college campi of America. If we marvel today at Traci C's award winning essay, then we will suffer morbid shock when pre-teen voters suffer mid-twenties meltdowns under the sheer responsibility of learning the presidential candidates full names.

The grande dame of shameless youth-vote pandering is Madonna, who in 1992 wrapped herself in an American flag for a Rock the Vote ad even though (as it turned out) she herself had never bothered to register. Still, voting is important, Madonna told the Rock the Vote Web site last year, especially now that "anybody who has anything to say against the war or against the president or whatever is punished." Punished? How? And for speaking out against the war and the president or for just, you know, whatever?

Oh man. How does it happen that we hear about all these people being punished for "speaking out" and yet, we don't actually hear about it...if you know what I mean.
It's like the liberal commercial playing on radio stations here in Ohio. There's a man saying something like "The economy in Ohio is in trouble. I still have a job, but there are a lot of people looking for work."
That's the kind of thing that happens. People who have a job keep talking about how the economy is bad and "people" are looking for work. We don't know who these people are, or even if they are "legally" looking for work...or even if they are unemployed and looking for work. They could be employed or restricted from working in the US.
This is just another example of people saying something enough to make everyone believe that it is the case, even if it is not the case.

Speaking of which:

Rock the Vote has now sunk even lower, with its current campaign to get out the hoax-believers demographic. Never mind that a stagnant bill to reinstate the draft was just rejected, 402 to 2, in the House and that neither President Bush nor Sen. Kerry supports conscription. Rock the Vote ads still insist that the draft is "one of the many issues that could be decided this election." In a similar spirit, a University of Southern California student told the Los Angeles Times this week that she thinks Mr. Bush might reinstate the draft even though he has repeatedly said otherwise. "People lie," she said. They sure do.

The draft. Riiiight. You'd think they'd give that up, but you see, this means that they know that the people they are targeting are uninformed and gullible, because otherwise they would have to respect their intelligence enough to STOP LYING ABOUT THE DRAFT SINCE NO ONE IS SAYING THERE WILL BE A DRAFT.

Arg.

We want people to vote, but we want people to be informed first, with...you know, actual information, not Rock the Vote* propaganda.

Silent Responsibility

Best of the Web comments on Lawrence Henry's article in the American Spectator:

By common consensus, last night's performance, in a debate supposedly devoted to domestic policy (though some foreign-policy questions did come up), was his best in any of the three debates. Many observers have also said that in the second debate, Bush performed better in the second, domestic half, than he did in the first half, which concentrated on foreign policy. Why would this be, given that foreign policy is supposed to be the president's strong point, while domestic issues purportedly favor Dems?
...
Lawrence Henry, an online columnist for The American Spectator, points to a reason why Bush's foreign-policy performance might have been weaker than his supporters would have liked: Because the president "actually is in the game of world politics," there are things he can't responsibly say. Examples:

When Senator Kerry insists that the United States is ignoring the threat of Iran, or that the United States is "distracted" in Iraq when the "real threat" is in Iran, could the President say this?

"What makes you think we're not doing anything about Iran? We already have special forces teams deployed all over Iran working with the democratic opposition to the mullahs. And we're already at war with Iran. It's a proxy war, going on right now in Iraq."

Nope. Can't say that.

Neither can President Bush make the obvious response to Senator Kerry's repeated accusation that the United States has "turned its back on its traditional alliances" and "failed to bring aboard our traditional allies" in the war on terror.

"What countries are you talking about there, Senator? France, maybe? Did you know that France was bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, to the tune of X billion dollars? And that France sold weapons to Saddam right through our war in 2003?"

Not when the United States still depends on French cooperation for fighting terrorism in North Africa.

This is true. There is only so much the President can say because when he does win, he still has to deal with the same world powers and he needs to maintain useful relations. He can't going around degrading alliances and calling the Iraqi PM a puppet. I would think that Kerry would feel this way too, but I guess he thinks that if he got into office he could blame all of his problems on President Bush rather than on his inability to be respectful of leaders in Englad, Australia and Poland.

Other looks at the debate

Stones Cry Out did all the hard work and has a round up of debate perspectives.
I may update this post with excerpts later, but I wanted to make sure to think to that for anyone looking for more persectives.

He also makes these astute observation himself:

- Gay Marriage and Abortion.

Kerry supposedly is against Gay Marriage because he "believes" marriage is between a man and a woman. Kerry also says that he "believes" abortion is wrong, but that he can't legislate what is an "article of faith" for him when others may not share that view. Does anyone see the glaring inconsistency here? Before I started a blog I sent out an e-log about this issue. But when the debate put the two questions side-by-side, the inconsistency is striking.

On the one hand he has no problem forcing his beliefs on others regarding gay marriage (civil unions are the way to go he says), but when it comes to abortion, he sings a different tune.
______
- Rights given by Courts or the Constitution?

Kerry: "I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution."

Nice catch Senator...

As to that second point, has Kerry been implying that abortion is a "constituional right" and if so, what is his basis for that? I don't get it.

The Third and Final Presidential Debate

Debate coverage is pretty exhausting...but this is a great note on which to end. This is by far a Victory for President Bush. Bill Kristol was even excited about it and he always has something he would like to see Bush say. In fact, after last time I said to Bill (through the TV of course) "Bill, you'll just never be happy, will you?" But tonight, he was. Hugh Hewitt agrees with using Kristol as a semi-metric in this regard and he has his scorecard up. And, here is the full debate transcript.

But here's my rundown:

1. Homeland Security Searches
Kerry/Edwards keeps talking about the amount of searches that are not conducted - either in travel or in the mail, ports, etc. Does any one really think that Bush is deliberately not searching these places and trying to make the country less safe? Things are improving in security, the lines at the airport tell you that. There will always be possible improvements, but to say that we will search every package is to grind the economy to a halt.

2. Bin Laden
Yup, it came up in the domestic debate in the first question. Kerry alluded to Tora Bora and said that Bush "outsourced the job." We've covered this over and over again. First, the Afghans worked with the American forces, which is admirable. Second, the war is not just about Osama bin Laden. It is about terrorists all over the world and the states that support them. President Bush said tonight that he has a comprehensive strategy for the safety of America and he is putting into practice right now.

3. Question the Ranger wanted to see...
"Senator Kerry, what is your plan to allow paralyzed people to walk again?"
No questions about Stem cells tonight. Was Schieffer protecting Kerry from falling into the trap of promising widespread healing?

[Real time sidenote: Quote from Don Evans Secretary of Commerce:
"President Bush wants to sign the front of your check, John Kerry wants to sign the back of your check" ]

4. Kerry's health care plan
Did you catch that it's not a government-run plan? Well, it's government something. EIther Government run or government sponsored or government directed. However he wants to phrase it, the government is involved. It's still 3rd party payment which, as the president stated tonight, is a major cause of the high health care prices. Moreover, Kerry talks about people buying in. So if people will have to pay for this, what is stopping from paying for it now? As a person who is just a couple years out of college I have met many people who have chosen not to have health insurance because they feel they don't need it. I am unemployed and I pay approx. 77 dollars a month for insurance. I have 1000 deductible but a main purpose of insurance is to bargin the health care providers to charge less money. People don't know that there is affordable health insurance availble. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that ignorance is due to the fact that democrats keep talking about the health insurance problem and how it's so expensive. It's time for them to be straight with the american people, not start a new government run/sponsored/directed program. Whichever term he uses...it's certainly subsidized by tax payers.

5. Jobs v. Education
This is (at least) the 3rd debate (including VP debate) where the Kerry/Edwards team seems surprised that the President talked about education when on the topic of jobs. Education leads to better jobs. I don't think that everyone is meant to go to college, some people just follow other career paths. But public education is also important either way and a reformed education system will help decrease unemployment.

6. Corporations
This came up in a question concerning the fact that the President does not have much control over jobs and the economy. I agree. However, after previously blasting President Bush for the recently passed corporation tax reductions he said that he would lower the corporate tax rates. This is new. What's up with that?
There was a good line by the President in this question
He said he wanted to "stand side by side with the citizens of America to help them realize their dreams."
Ownership society. Freedom through prosperity and democracy.

7. In Defense of Marriage...
The President was very strong in answer on this topic. He emphasize the need to treat people with tolerance, respect and dignity, but in that we shouldn't have to change our views on the sanctity of marriage. He mentioned the problem of activist judges and that we need to "allow citizens to participate in the process."
This is very important, especially after what happened in Lousiana when a single judged overruled something that was voted on by 80% of the people. The Consitution is a product of the citizens and their state legislatures, and it should continue to be so.
What's Kerry's response? "We are all God's children" and an outright mention of Dick Cheney's daughter. That move was reprehensible when John Edwards did it and it continues to be so tonight. Unbelievable.

In Ohio, Issue 1 is an amendment supporting the sancity of traditional marriage. If Kerry had his way, that vote would not matter because a few judges could decide instead.

8. Culture of Life and the Surpreme Court
Kerry invokes his Catholicism here and calls his position on abortion an "article of faith" which is odd because certainly people with no religious faith are also against abortion.
He flat out said that he disagreed with the Catholic church as being against politicians who are not against abortion.
He said he would defend Roe v. Wade and not allow judges to change it. What I find interesting about that is that judges decided Roe v. Wade in the first place, what makes the decision from that group of judges more valid than a decision from a future group of judges?
The President wants to reduce the number of abortions in America and support a culture of life.
Seven questions later, this came up again when Bush said that he would not have a litmus test and Kerry said about that he would not appoint a judge that is against Roe v. Wade. So, as I noted and the President said "[Kerry] does have a litmus test" for judicial appointments.
Also, Kerry thinks abortion is a Constitutional right?? What's up with that???

9. The Draft, Active Duty Forces, the National Guard
Kerry proposes to add 2 active duty divisions and double the number of special forces. How? Does he think that he will magically encourage people to join the military? Or...will he give them more incentives, which means more money...which means more taxes.
Kerry mentioned Osama again and pledged to form "real alliances" blah blah blah as if the alliances we have now are somehow artificial - does Spain think so? It was very real to Spain before they pulled out due to a terrorist attack!

The President does well here by reminding us about Kerry's "Global test" idea. Kerry weakly defends it, coining a new phrase "Truth Standard" and lays out his best hypothetical scenario for going to war.
Bush Response: We had this scenario in 1990 before the Persian Gulf War and Senator Kerry voted against it.
I completely agree.

10. Assault Weapons
Kerry said it was a "failure of Presidential Leadership to not re-authorize the assault weapons ban." Huh? He would have signed it. He said so then, and he said so tonight. But the Congress didn't want to pass it because it's a hot button issue that a lot of constituents in those congressional districts do not support.

11. Kerry Campaigns for Daschle
In a question about unification of the country he talks about a hug between President Bush and Tom Daschle, a hug that is playing on pro-Daschle in South Dakota in his Senate bid against John Thune. He follows that up by invoking John McCain.
To his credit, the President jumped on that and let everyone know that McCain may be Kerry's friend, but he's voting for President Bush because he knows that Kerry is about "retreat and defeat in Iraq."

12. Closing Statements
Kerry fought for our country as a young man.
President Bush believes in the "ability of liberty to transform societies, to convert a hostile world to a peaceful world."


This was meant to be a debate on domestic issues, and for large part, that's what it was. Kerry was presumed to be the favorite and everyone was concerned that ending on domestic issues would be a problem for the President. Those concerns were unnecessary. The President shined on domestic answers and gave great arguments for his positions. As Hugh says tonight,
Sleep easy, America. W for four more years.

:)

Democracy + Capitalism = Freedom

After the grand debate over at Stones Cry Out about the economy, Pawnking has contributed with his own post about the definition and purpose of wealth.

He starts with these 3 main points and continues the discussion from there:

1) Wealth is freedom. "The borrower is servant to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7). This is true for so many reasons I hesitate to make the case for it, it seems so obvious. Please post in comments if you feel this is in ANY way inaccurate.

2) Democracy and capitalism are the greatest wealth generators ever devised in history. Again, this is so inarguable I hesitate to waste time making the case.

3) QED, democracy and capitalism are the greatest generators of freedom ever devised.

And, his conclusion:

Wealth is not evil. The bible only states that the love of money is evil. Wealth is simple a means which allows those who possess it to make more choices than they otherwise would. More choices for more people generally leads to better decisions, which leads to more efficiencies, which leads to more wealth. Anything which gives the most number of people the greatest ability to generate wealth is a great good, not only for a country's prosperity, but morally.

Very Interesting.

Less than honorable discharge?

There's been a lot of controversy over President Bush's discharge from the National Guard. But what about Kerry's discharge from the Navy?

OneBigSwede links a New York Sun article: "Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge"



UPDATE: Rainey writes in with a comment about this post. It's quite an interesting comment and here is my response:

I linked to this story because it was interesting. After the vast number of stories defaming President Bush's National Guard service over the years, I thought it only fair to link to this one single story about Senator Kerry. That doesn't mean I completely believe the story or the implied allegations contained therein, it just means I am supplying it for informational purposes. I don't consider this to be "dealing in scurrilous lies."

As to this sentence:
Can you let more Americans be sent off to fight and die if what is happening to John Kerry in America will happen to them IF they survive Iraq or Afghanistan?

Considering that John Kerry was part of the post-Vietnam anti-war movement that discouraged and insulted those that served their country proudly in that war, this is an interesting comparison to make. But even if that had never happened, I would still support that President if he committed the troops of an all-volunteer military to fight a worthy cause, and I would respect and honor those troops that did so.

Next, For the record, President Bush has said that John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and acknowledged that Kerry's military record is in some ways more distinguished than his own. President Bush did not say anything in the above linked article and any statements he makes on the campaign trail create no more "enmity and rancor" then statements made by Kerry and Edwards in their campaign speeches or on the talk-show circuit.

This New York Sun article is interesting. That doesn't make it true and I doubt it is going to change anyone's mind about either Senator Kerry or President Bush. I certainly don't think that Bush is an "unfit leader" and even if the democrats had nominated a man like Senator Lieberman, who I find to have behaved more respectfully throughout the primary season regarding the War on Terror, I would still support President Bush as the most capable leader of our country on many different issues.

Lastly, as to prayer, I pray that God's will is done. I pray for discernment and wisdom so that we all can see the truth in information that is presented to us, including what I post here on this site. I have a "Pray the Vote" button and I wear it proudly because I think there should be prayer surrounding this election and everyone involved. I pray for the President. I pray for Senator Kerry. If Senator Kerry is elected on November 2nd, I will pray for him as President and respect him and his position of authority in this country.

The song remains the same...

The Kerry Spot has this Kerry quote from 1991, just before the Persian Gulf War. (It aired on Frontline and appeared in the Weekly Standard):

"Are we ready for the changes this war will bring?" Kerry asked then. "Changes in sons and daughters who return from combat never the same. . . . Are we ready for another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims?" "There is a rush to war here," Kerry went on. The United States was acting "with more bravado than patience." His view of intervention was grim. "It sounds like we are risking war for pride," he continued, "not vital interests!"

My reaction when I read that: Does he have the same speech writer he had 13 years ago? "Rush to war"? Kerry voted against this war in 1991, that needs to be discussed. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and even then it was a "rush" and "bravado" to invade Iraq.

These are the Kerry Spot's comments on the quote:

Is it any surprise that the antiwar movement is supporting John Kerry, despite his pledges to "finish the job" in Iraq and increase military spending?

Every military action, except for the Bill Clinton style of only using tomahawks and high-altitude bombing, runs the risk of "amputees, paraplegics, burn victims." And no military action comes with a deadline. The U.S. waited three weeks before bombing the Taliban. There is always more time for diplomacy, if you are willing to believe your opponent might budge.

Why do I suspect that an America under President Kerry would be eternally patient, always willing to give sanctions a little more time, always willing to wait to see if the situation improves or if a rogue state responds to one more diplomatic overture?

When one looks at Kerry's comments from the Gulf War, one recognizes that this man would never invade another country, no matter how much some contended there was a threat. In fact, it's hard to imagine Kerry approving the use of ground forces in combat anywhere in the world. Too much risk of burn victims and "sons and daughters who return from combat never the same."

He truly does see every U.S. military action through the lens of Vietnam.

This is true. Kerry has no intention of really hunting down terrorists in other countries. He has no intention of invading countries that harbor and fund the suicide bombers that want to blow up the local elementary school. Democrats can yell about how we should believe Kerry when he tells us he will hunt them down...but his past behavior says otherwise. However, I will say that if Kerry came out and said something like "I was wrong about 1991, I was wrong about the way I talked about it and I was wrong about the way I voted. 9/11 changed me and my ideas about terrorism in the World and the need of the United States to defend itself against it." But he won't say anything like that. In fact, just this week the New York Times Magazine quoted him, showing that he won't even admit to being changed by 9/11:

"It accelerated--" He paused. "I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it."

One or the Other

Hugh Hewitt has a growing list of responses to the question:
"What is the Choice on 11/2?"
The format of the answers? An "either/or" kind of thing. It's a wealth of funny-ness and hard-hitting commentary simultaneously. Here some prime examples:

Allawi in power v. Saddam in power
post 9/11 v. post-Cole
values of America at its founding v. the values of Europe today
limits on abortion v. no limits on abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions
cheeseburger v. escargot
"Let's roll" v. roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
Osama running from us v. Osama coming at us
steak v. pate (Lileks)
Laura v. Theresa
bazooka v. oompaloompa
victory v. Vichy
God Bless America v. God-less America
Captain Kirk v. Colonel Klink
man's man v. tan-in-a-can
shock and awe v. hem and haw
Semper Fi v. simpering

Trying to add clarity the Stem Cell issue

Last night, Charles Krauthammer, on Special Report w/Brit Hume, expressed his indignation that John Edwards would use the occasion of Christopher Reeve's death to imply that Mr. Reeve was kept paralyzed in a wheel chair because of the Bush Administration.

So, a couple points to clear up:

President Bush is the first President to approve federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Democrats like to say he "banned" it. He didn't. What he did was restrict it for the time being. He said that the currently existing 70 lines of embryonic stem cells could be used for federally funded research. He hasn't definitively said we couldn't get anymore, just that we are starting with these for now. It should be noted that there are only 22 lines being worked on, so it's not as if they are running out.
(This was Point #1 in my list of comments following the 2nd Presidential Debate)

Kerry Spot has Charles' Quote:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer: "I've heard a lot of hype over the last 30 years about the keys to the kingdom here in this issue. And all of them have proved false. For Edwards to make the claims he did is the worst demagoguery I've heard in Washington in a quarter century. To imply that Christopher Reeve was kept in the wheelchair because of the policies of the Bush administration on stem cells is ridiculous and insulting" ("Special Report," FNC, 10/11).

It's true of course that that doesn't mean nothing will come of it in the future, but it seems outrageous that John Edwards would say that people will walk again if we elect John Kerry as if throwing billions of dollars into destroying embryos for embryonic stem cell research is a sure way to cure them.

But I found something else interesting: Krauthammer said that there were thousands of stem cell lines waiting for research. The President has not restricted the abilities of private organizations to do research. Instead of spending so much money trying to get the government to do the research, where the levels of bureaucracy are amazingly complex, why not raise money for private funding? I'm solicited all the time for contributions to private research for heart disease and cancer, but I've never once been asked for money for stem cell research. If it is as well supported by Americans as television commentators claim and it is such a large election issue and if rich people like Michael J. Fox are so in favor of it, why can't they raise the money to do the research?

It's true that I don't have extensive knowledge about this issue - after all, I'm a physicist not a biologist. I'm just applying my common sense to the facts available. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction to help me answer these questions.

In the meantime, we need to remember the facts.
President Bush has not banned stem cell research of any kind.
He has limited the amount of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but he was the first president to provide any funding at all.
Most importantly: Private institutions are free to spend as much money and do as much embryonic stem cell research as they would like.

Not too proud to beg (or at least ask)

I just left a seminar for the Bush/Cheney 72 hour task force. I'll be manning some phones on election weekend, so if you live in NE Ohio and you get a phone call from a happy sounding Bush/Cheney volunteer, please be nice to her :)

In fact, if you live anywhere and you get any sort of phone call from a happy sounding Bush/Cheney 04 volunteer, be brief and polite. We like that :)

Now here's the thing, I'm at the library because my home keyboard died after being horrendously attacked by some milk last night :(
If anyone in the area has a key board collecting dust at their house and they are willing to donate it to an unemployed blogger, drop me an email and let me know...Please :)

abigail_patch@hotmail.com

Thanks much!

Econ 210

It's not the cliche "Econ 101" because the economic debate going on at Stone Cry Out is quite interesting and advanced - two characteristics that did not apply to my collge Econ 101 class. Rick started out with a great discussion of the "Ownership Society" and readers have added some highly detailed and informative comments. If you're at all interested in this topic and how it signals a great positive move forward for the American Economy and American residents, I highly recommend it.

What you've all been waiting for...

The infamous Ranger has finally started a blog! Woo-hoo!
His first post is one funny sentence, it's even funnier when you imagine what it would sound like....

:)

What else should I expect from the AP?

The Ranger sent me a Yahoo news Article with the message "Fair and balanced" which I knew he meant ironically after I saw the headline:
"Bush Rhetoric Becoming More Aggressive"

I read it. There's not a lot of fairness, and definitely no balance. Maybe writer Jennifer Loven is moonlighting for ABC news and thus does not feel compelled to cover the candidates in any sort of equal way.

Other AP headlines referenced in the side box of this article:
"Bush paints Kerry as dangerous leftist ahead of final debate "
"Kerry Vows to Fight for Middle Class "

Nope. No balance there.
And just to say, hasn't Kerry painted himself as a dangerous leftist?

*sigh*

The Terrorist "Nuisance"

Shouting into the Wind was all about the quotes yesterday with humorous results.

My favorite quote from Jesse Jackson (who is now part of Team Kerry): "November 2, the power is in your hands, hands that once picked cotton." Last I checked, cotton hasn't been handpicked since the 1930's, so unless most of these people are over 70, I don't think any of them have actually picked cotton. I could be wrong

The finale? This paragraph about a Kerry quote in New York Times Magazine:

The worst thing Kerry said in a New York Times Magazine article (need subscription to read): "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." If true, he has no clue how to fight the GWOT and he should under no circumstances be elected. He talks about terrorism like it is just a "small issue". How absurd. It is the central focus of our lives because the terrorists WANT TO KILL US and are trying to do it practically every day. I don't know about you, but until that stops, I'm going to consider them a bit more than a 'nuisance'. Idiot.

This is more evidence of Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the Global War on Terror.

(Shawna links the article and has more excerpts from it in this post.)

"Frenchmen would be involved"

That certainly got my attention. Which is why I had to quote Mark Steyn again from the article I linked in my last post:

But, on the other hand, not necessarily. That's the difference: Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them the events would end up shaping him. There would be lots of discussion. Frenchmen would be involved. And, in the end, President Kerry could claim that however things turned out was what he wanted all along because, on Saddam and Iran and North Korea and a whole lot more, who ... can say with confidence what Kerry wants anyway? How it would all turn out is anybody's guess. And on November 2 America won't be in a mood to vote for a guess.

(If you want to know what comes before the "but" you'll have to read the whole article, which is worthwhile.)

I think the involvement of Frenchmen is scary enough if you ask me. [No offense to the French, I have nothing against them, just their involvement.]

"Alright already! We believe you! You have a plan!!"

Is there anyone who doesn't know that John Kerry has a plan? Is there anything that John Kerry doesn't have a plan for?? Do you think if we all got together and signed a petition conceding the point about the plan, that he would stop talking about having a plan and starting talking about the actual plan?
You see, I've heard people say that John Kerry presented his plans for the future in Friday night's debate. Well, you can read the debate transcript and tell me what these "plans" are. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that John Kerry didn't tell us that he has a plan, or several plans, I'm just saying he didn't say what they are.

So this has been nagging at me and then I saw HunterByrd posted some other thoughts about the debate here and here including this quote from one of my favorites, Mark Steyn:

WINNER: BUSH! (and whoever loaded his percolator) The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?

[(sidenote)OH MAN!!! as I write this, a John Kerry Commercial comes on saying that he has a "specific plan" to help the economy and that he has "big plans" for a stronger America. He says that part of this "specific plan" is to "help small businesses and not get in their way." Well, I'd say that rolling back the $200,000+ tax cuts will surely get in the way of about 900,000 small business that file as Sub-Chapter S coporations as well as those small business that do business with those 900,000 small businesses. (/sidenote)]

And, connecting the $200,000+ tax cuts and Mark Steyn, I quote from this article of his:

At Friday's debate, the Senator pledged that he wouldn't raise taxes on families earning over $200,000. Then he gazed out over the audience and said: "And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the President, me, and Charlie, I'm sorry, you too," he added, chuckling clubbily with the debate moderator, big-time ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.

Well, he has a point. Bush is a millionaire, Gibson's a zillionaire, and Kerry's a multi-gazillionaire. But how can you tell by looking at people that they earn under 200 grand? And, even if you can, is it such a great idea to let 'em know they look like working stiffs and chain-store schlubs? But, when you've married two heiresses, it's kinda hard to tell where the losers with mere six-figure incomes begin: it's like the 97-year-old who calls the guys in late-middle age "sonny". In America, quite a few fairly regular families earn 200 grand and an awful lot more families hope to be in that bracket one day. And, more importantly, the sheer condescension of assuming that the room divides into the colossi of the politico-media ruling class and everyone else sums up everything that's wrong with the modern Democratic Party.

Presidential Debate: Round 2

This debate was a lot better. Senator Kerry said mostly the same things in regards to foreign policy and some devestating things came out about his domestic policy position. Of course, if you heard Mort Kondracke and Bill Kristol tonight, you'll know that the President missed some good opportunities. However, you'll notice that no one says that about Kerry. Is that because he makes all the good arguments? No. It's because either there aren't good arguments for his positions, or he's already made all the possible arguments from all the possible angles.
UPDATE: George Pataki just did it by saying that John Kerry had the opportunity to defend his mention of "Global Test" when the President mentioned it, and he didn't. Many Kerry-supporters have tried to defend away this mention of a Global Test, Kerry hasn't defended it because he still believes it.

As always, Hugh Hewitt has his scorecard up.

Here's my rundown:

1. The Culture of Life: Abortion and Stem Cells
This came up in some of the final questions of the night. The President pointed out that Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Kerry retorted that he wanted a caveat for the life and health of the mother. Well, life is one thing and I believe the bill allows for that. As to health, this was all covered in the 90s with Clinton in that health was so misconstrued that it allowed for doctors to make any excuse.
Kerry also implied that the government would pay for abortions for those who could not afford it by saying that we have to "make sure you don't deny a poor person the right they would have been afforded otherwise." The questioner in this case wanted to be assured that her tax dollars wouldn't be going to abortions. Kerry couldn't give her that assurance. President Bush could. He also emphasized adoption and support for maternity group homes, as well as his signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

As for Stem Cells, the questioner made the good point that cures have been found using adult and umbilical cord stem cells, but no cures found with all the research done so far using embryonic stem cells. It seems perfectly logical to wait to destroy more life until all 70 lines of embryonic stem cells have been used for research. That is, to see how the research turns out before killing more embryos. Kerry claimed that Bush made it impossible to pursue this reasearch, which is obviously wrong based on the fact that the President was the first to allow government funding for embryonic stem cell research.

2. Tax Cuts and Small Businesses
I mentioned before that rolling back the tax cuts on incomes of 200,000+ will hurt small businesses. Both Kerry and Edwards have both said over and over that they will do this, and I believe it to be true. Kerry said it multiple times just tonight and I was yelling at the TV for the President to talk about Small Businesses that file as subchapter S-corporations. He finally mentioned it, but a good time to mention it would have been when Kerry said that only 3 people in the room (Kerry, Bush, Charlie Gibson) would be affected by the rolling back of those cuts. This is wrong because of the small businesses filing under the income tax rules. People who work for those 900,000 small businesses will be affected. People who could potentially be hired by those business will be affected. People who rely on those businesses for their larger companies will be affected. People who BUY goods or services will be affected because that cost will most likely be passed on and prices will go up for the consumers. The effect is much broader than Kerry either realizes or is willing to admit.

3. The Threat of Saddam Hussein
Kerry seems to think the the Duelfer report says that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. This is wrong. Facts outside of the WMD constitute the "unique threat" that was posed by Iraq. For more, review this article about 11 reasons to support the war.

4. Homeland Security
I would have liked to see President Bush mention more of the terrorist threats that have been thwarted since 9/11 and the terror cells that have been rooted out (though he did mention that a bit in dealing with the Patriot Act). Also, Kerry showed that he does not have a good understanding of the history of terror attacks on Americans, both here and abroad by seeming to imply that the terrorists didn't do much between the first and second attacks on the world trade center. Embassies were bombed, the USS Cole, Khobar towers, etc etc. We have not been attacked because of advances in Homeland Security and the powers of the Patriot Act. Of course there is always more that can be done. It would be impossible to have done everything ever to make us safe in this amount of time. The county is enourmous, it has many airports and train stations, but we have done what is possible so far. I'm sure that everything Kerry talks about doing to advance Homeland Security is something that the Bush Administration has talked about doing.

5. Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs
If you read Hugh Hewitt you know that Kerry announcing the shut down of the development of Nuclear Bunker Buster bombs shows that he is not serious about stopping nuclear proliferation. Nuclear Bunker Busters serve the purpose of routing out hidden nuclear weapons and the hidden nuclear weapons production facilities. Nuclear Bunker busters are a deterrent. They deter nuclear proliferation because those that wish to secretly build weapons (North Korea, we're looking in your direction) will not be able to do so worry-free. With nuclear bunker busters, countries with secret weapons programs will certainly think twice about backing out of the non-proliferation agreements of which Kerry is so fond. Which brings us to...

6. North Korea
The President made the great point that Kerry wants unilateral talks with North Korea that will undermine the 6-party talks that are currently going on. I should have been marking down how many times Kerry said something about "bringing allies to our side." The President has brought allies to our side in North Korea, and Kerry wants nothing of it. Unilateral talks were a good idea at one time, for a time, with Clinton when we thought North Korea would actually pay attention. But they skirted those agreements and continued along in their plan to develop nuclear weapons. We can't sanction North Korea anymore and expect it to work. The people are already starving and the government just doesn't care. The pressure of the other countries is the thing that will affect change in North Korea.

7. President Bush's Timber Country
I wish Senator Kerry had given a website for that. Winter is coming and I need to make sure I have enough kindling for my fireplace and it would be nice to heat my house and support President Bush at the same time :)

8. Liability/Tort Reform
President Bush: If [Kerry] believes in capping he should have shown up to vote for it
Right.

9. Global Conflict
The President was correct to say that Kerry shows a misunderstanding of the War on Terror to think that it is only about Osama bin Laden. Kerry talks about "taking your eye" off Osama, as if we must just watch Osama all the time in this war. The President is right - Kerry fundamentally misunderstands that the Terrorists are all over the world. Kerry claims that he will "never stop at anything to hunt down and kill terrorists," but then implies that the President should only be hunting down Osama. This in itself is inconsistent. As I said about Edwards when he made a similar statement on Tuesday:
Kerry and Edwards will hunt down terrorists [though only those with the first name "Osama"] wherever they are [unless they are in Iraq].