3/21/2004
Yassin is Offed!
The Reuters is reporting tonight that Israeli helicopter gunships have killed the blind, paraplegic Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque in Gaza Monday morning.
Remnants of Yassin's blood-soaked wheel-chair were seen outside the mosque. Worshippers said he had been killed in the strike and his body had been evacuated to a different location. Israel has said it would step up operations to track and kill Islamic militants after a suicide bombing at a strategic port last week.Al Qaeda, as we knew it, is through. Hamas looks like it was just kicked squarely in the teeth.
0 comments
Dick Clarke, Rand Beers, and Joe Wilson
There is a connection. According to an article in the March 29 edition of Newsweek magazine, former Clinton terrorism advisor Richard Clarke's best friend, is none other than Kerry advisor Rand Beers. He's the one who contradicted his candidate on foreign endorsements after the ringing endorsement from anti-Semitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
From Newsweek:
All of this wrangling is sure to provide fodder for the presidential campaign. Clarke is perhaps not the most neutral source. Last year Clarke's best friend, Rand Beers, quit as the White House's counterterrorism chief after complaining—over glasses of wine on Clarke's front porch—about the wrong-headedness of Bush's plan to invade Iraq. Beers is now a principal foreign-policy adviser to Kerry.Both beers and Clarke, it should be noted, are former Clinton boyz who resigned from the Bush White House. (That they began with No. 41 is peripheral to the intervening eight years of Bubbification.)
I picked the following up from, of all places, a February 6 post on Daily Kos:
The close collaborator with Richard Clarke -- going back to Bush I at NSC was Rand Beers -- who quit last summer in disgust, and walked down the street and volunteered his services to Kerry, where he has been ever since. Beers eventually drew Joe Wilson into the Kerry camp.So we can link Clarke, through Beers, to Joe Wilson, the would-be frogmarcher and husband of that woman, Ms. Valerie Plame.
My friends, we are looking into the underbelly of candidate Kerry's underfunded cheap-smear machine. Connect the dots around the source of the bogus pabulum, and you have just sketched a sore but sure loser.
"tick... tick... tick... tick..."
0 comments
Gabba, Gabba, Hey!
I owe a tip of the hat and a blast-from-the-past to Bill Hobbs this evening, for a post about Punk Rock and politics. I'd heard of and posted about the Democrat 527 called Punk Voter Inc., made up of a bunch of 21st century punk rock record labels.
I'm listening, as I type, Book I of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, but it is time to confess. When I was a pre-teen/teenager, I was both a young Reaganite and an early connoisseur of punk rock. Not this new garbage, which sounds like putrid posing performed by apoplectic pantywaists, but the real stuff: The Clash, the Sex Pistols, Richard Hell, and The Ramones.
From the Washington Times article:
He was a rebel in a rebel's world, though. Johnny Ramone [vocalist of The Ramones] was a fiercely Republican-voting, NRA-supporting musician in a milieu that is remarkable for its embrace of all things left.Now this a good.
Johnny went worldwide public with his partisanship in 2002, when the Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. At the microphone to give props to the people who made it all possible, he offered his own version of a Michael Moore moment.
"God bless President Bush, and God bless America," he said, clad in his trademark T-shirt, ripped blue jeans and leather jacket.
The article closes:
Like so many other right-wingers. who are fed up with the media establishment, Johnny tunes in to the radio every day for some roiling rhetoric and to the Web for some news that doesn't seem to make the local newspaper.Now if we could only convince him to leave Newsmax.com aside and inhale the Blogosphere.
"Hey," he says, perusing Newsmax.com as he speaks on the phone, "what's going on with these illegal aliens now?"
But as the lyric went: "I don't wanna be a pinhead no more… gabba, gabba, hey!"
0 comments
Prominent Republicans/Dems Disagree
This cuts both ways. The press is fond of mentioning a prominent Republican who disagrees with the President or with his party's congressional leadership, taking it as a sign of inter-party dissent. Olympia Snowe or Linc Chafee disagree with the President. Happens all the time. Zell Miller or even Max Baucus disagree with their leadership. Sure. These are not an indication of widening fissures.
From NYTimes.com::
The harsh tone of the presidential campaign is threatening to alienate voters and undermine the perceived legitimacy of the winner, prominent members of both parties said today.The two "prominent members" who report that voters will stay home? McCain and Lieberman.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), something a maverick himself of late, also thinks the negative campaigning could hurt. Abroad.
"Kerry and Bush must conduct themselves in a way that when Nov. 2 comes, whoever wins, they are going to have to have legitimacy and the authority to govern this country and keep this coalition together for another four years," Mr. Hagel said on the ABC News program "This Week."The notion that generally negative campaigning correlates with low turnout is a popular one, but I've seen no credible prove of the translation. A percentage of the samples of people surveyed claim, within whatever margin of error, adjusted for age and sex differences, that negative campaigning either makes them not want to vote or gives them flu so they cannot crawl to the station.
"We may find ourselves over the next four years unable to sustain any of our policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and in our war against terrorism because the politics have so divided this country," Mr. Hagel added.
Despite the inevitable media clamor about negative campaigning, and the subsequent plaints from the polls, most credible campaigns for election in a large and competitive race are going to utilize campaign advertisements describing flaws are things credibly depicted as faults in the opponent. This is especially true of challengers. In most cases, the strategy of the campaign is not to turn off voters, have them stay home. The idea is to capture the minds of the potential voters with reasons to vote for your candidates or reasons not to vote for the opposition. This would not be done by a campaign if it is suspected that it will cost their candidate a significant number of votes. (Significant, here, is a relative term.)
Some may tire of the constant negative campaigning. Candidate Kerry, whom I cannot now refer to as "moneybags," may even call for a truce. It is Kerry who will have to break it, as he has to unseat an incumbent. If I were Ken Mehlman, I'd accept the pre-existing buzzword turnaround and ask the President to challenge Kerry to do so "unilaterally," pledging to follow suit if he's serious. Then I'd fill the airwaves with pro-Bush ads, invoking September 11 and the President's leadership thereafter. Kerry will squawk, and thus he'll have unilaterally broken the trace.
Excuse my wild-eyed digression. Negative campaigning will not hurt a candidate. Negative campaigning will not hurt the United States abroad, and I suspect Senator Hegel knows this. You see, challenging Kerry to cut out the negatives is challenging him to allow the President to lead without the background nattering.
Foreign campaigns are every bit as negative as and almost always more negative than ours in the States.
The prominent Republicans and Dems who disagree are almost certainly taking on high-minded airs for the press.
0 comments
Zapatero backs off,
While Bush empowers the World.THIS is incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, from Reuters, on March 15, the day following his Socialist Party's electoral victory in Spain:
"The second [consequence of the Socialists' victory] will be that the Spanish troops will come back," he told a Spanish radio station.And HERE is Zaptero, also from Reuters, today (Sunday):
"Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism... you can't organize a war with lies."
"A lot would have to change (in Iraq). The return of Spanish troops is a decision that will be difficult to avoid," Zapatero told El Pais newspaper, rebuffing U.S. government calls for Spain to stay in the Iraq "coalition of the willing."Here's what Zapatero wants, at least for today:
"The only viable form of occupation would be for the U.N. to take political control, for more multinational forces including many Arab countries led by the Arab League to be involved," Zapatero said.Contrary to the popular plaint, President Bush has granted relevance to nations which the world community might otherwise dismiss. Spain is one example, under Zapatero as under Asnar. Look at Poland and the rest of New Europe. Japan is proving herself to be an upstanding measure of the world community. Look at little Afghanistan, a nation the world ignored when the Soviets left.
Say nothing about the civilized world's newest state: Iraq.
President Bush has empowered the world. Unfortunately, this has been pretty much to the detriment of France's imagined global significance.
0 comments
The Ornstein Pledge
They put it onscreen during Steph's "foreign policy panel" on ABC's This Week, but I've found nothing of it on the 'Net.
It was a pledge that the candidate had to take, that the November election would take place even if the terrorists had destroyed half the country and rendered us helpless
Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) called it "mindless," saying that he did not want to come straight out and conceded that terrorists will successfully strike. Earlier, George Will had remarked that June 30 would be a great time for al Qaeda to strike, as things would be in flux, Iraq would be about to transition to their own (sort of) government, and we'd be starting the single greatest movement of troops (in the form of a troop rotation) in the history of mankind).
Senator Chuck Hegel (R-Nebraska) was also dismissive of the notion, adding that he admired Norm Ornstein.
I'll keep looking.
In the meantime, Steph's foreign policy roundtable had a few interesting moments, especially when Biden and Newsweek International's Fareed Zakaria began their "Seize the Moment and United with Europe," which made sense.
Read about it in the Rightsided Newsletter HERE. I like the idea of the President jetting over and taking control. It would be beneficial globally, and it would be a political masterstroke. Don't be shocked if something similar is already in the works.
0 comments
Ted Kennedy on MTP
While Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) was telling host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that the campaigns should stay away from the outright nastiness, Senator Teddy Kennedy was dishing it to host Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press.
He began by calling everything an example of "unilateralism," the number one cause of our nation's ills. We had the opportunity to lead the world against terrorism after September 11, but, he averred, we had blown that chance with our "unilateralism" in Iraq. The United States and France continued to cooperate on the war on terror apace regardless of what happened in Iraq, but Kennedy suggested otherwise.
Kennedy spoke of that familiar story of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, in Paris to convince French President Charles de Gaulle of the dangers involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy was going to pull out some maps, but de Gaulle allegedly told him not to bother; he trusted America. Forty years later -- after both Presidents have their names affixed to airports -- Senator Kennedy accused President Bush of smashing that relationship.
Kennedy knows, or he ought to, that this period of naïve, inter-global trust ended decades before President George W. Bush arrived in Washington. Perhaps it died with President Johnson and Vietnam. Kennedy is exploiting his slain brother's name for false political purposes, but nothing is new on that count.
In his infamous drunken interview with the Associated Press last September, Kennedy equated foreign assistance and bribery:
"My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops [to provide security in Iraq]."This morning, he stood by his comment, even after Russert goaded him away from the serious charge: "You can use whatever word you want, but I don't retreat from [the term] 'bribery.'"
I was watching a shameless old man, his voice sometimes rising, his hands sometimes trembling.
Kennedy was losing control, complaining of how the White House was criminal in its actions against Saddam Hussein, whom he never portrayed as personally the victim but also did not condemn.
He seemed possessed when he talked about how the White House "misrepresented the immediacy!… talked of mushroom clouds"… talked about the imminent threat!... tied it to al Qaeda!" It struck me that he must have been viewing his reality on a 3 AM movie, with villains rushing from pillar to post, screaming about the end of the world as we know it. As the FedEx commercial puts: "WE'RE DOOMED! (DOOMED!)"
None of this happened in the real world. I did not lose a moment's sleep over an imminent Iraqi attack about which I was never warned. Except by Kennedy and his clowns, ex post facto.
"That's the distortion! That's the misrepresentation! That's the lie!"
Russert began to talk of John Kerry's flip-flops, and he began by quoting a story in the Boston Herald. Kennedy interrupted dismissively: "That paper is not a friend of John Kerry!" Russert then talked of a piece in the Los Angeles Times, and Kennedy almost screamed that "this is all a part of the Bush misrepresentations!"
Kennedy was unglued. He began ranting about "elderly people: seniors!, seniors!, seniors!!!"
One of his handlers off camera may have then signaled for him to relax, because Kennedy then regained most of his composure.
Russert: "Are you a proud liberal?"
Kennedy: "Yes."
Russert: "Is John Kerry a proud liberal?"
Kennedy: "John Kerry believes, as I do, that labels are meaningless."
Okay. Kennedy added: "He is more liberal than George Bush is a compassionate conservative."
Russert asked him if he planned to run for another term. Kennedy answered: "I love the Senate. I plan to stay there until I get the hang of it."
By now, Kennedy was jovial and almost avuncular, as Russert played him a clip of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speculating on Meet the Press a few weeks ago about a possible Constitutional Amendment removing the birth requirement for the President.
Kennedy said he would probably support the amendment. He hedged on supporting Schwarzenegger, but allowed: "I hope Maria [niece Shriver] will have more influence on him."
He predicts that Kerry will win the election with 50-52%.
Hopefully when this ended, Ted went home, had a few cocktails, and relaxed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: The transcript be HERE.
0 comments
The RSN has been finished
This Sunday's ightsided Newsletter has been delivered to the various global Inboxes; if you've not yet subscribed, you can read it online HERE. This morning was an interesting one of the Sunday morning talkshows.
In this space a little later, I'll talking more about Teddy Kennedy's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, as well as a bizarre proposal from AEI's Norm Ornstein, mentioned briefly on ABC's This Week.
I think I felt my age when CNN newsgal Fredrica Whitfield referred to "MAYO-ist rebels" in Nepal. It brought to mind a hypoethietical Little Red Book of condiments.
0 comments
On the Sunday Morning Talk Shows
KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer
That's the KEY I use for the Sunday review and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, for the free Rightsided Newsletter. If you are interested, please visit our web site or send a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] tripod.com.
Let's start, as always, with MTP. Russert's guest for the entire show will be the endurable Teddy Kennedy. He's going to drone on and on and on, making little sense, and talking and talking and talking, saying this and that and this and that, and griping and complaining and griping and complaining. It's enough to drive me to drink, but he's already driven himself there with tragic results.
FNS takes an interesting turn, with Romano Prodi of the European Commission. (From their web site, here is a look at their "priorities for re-construction assistance [in Euros] to Iraq."] Host Wallace's next guest will be Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut). He is always a vibrant and exciting guest, but fortunately, the coffee will have kicked in by 9:20a.
On FTN, the guests will be Senator Dick Lugar (D-Indiana) and the inevitable Howard Dean. I'm sure Dean will talk about his new grassroots organization, United We Stand, America. No, that was Ross Perot's a dozen years ago. Whatever he called it, he'll talk about it. And maybe again about the President blowing up Spain.
TW. Host Steph talks to Senators Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska). Biden was the sponsor of that resolution which called for funding the troops and raising taxes to pay for it. Candidate Kerry voted for that, then when it failed, voted against funding the troops. Biden voted for his bill. When that failed, he voted to fund the troops as would any Senator who was not "reckless" and "irresponsible."
On LE, host Blitzer talks to Farah Pahlavi, the Shahstress. (Technically, she was the Shah's wife and the empress, but that's my new word for the day.) He'll have Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Then he'll have on the Two Stooges, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. I think they open in Vegas next month.
Those are the shows. I'll see you in a bit.
0 comments
3/20/2004
Clarke: 'Rumsfeld Wanted to Bomb Iraq"
I've seen this story floating around all day, and I'm driven to tears of annoyance.
That Clarke fellow will say on 60 Minutes Sunday night that Secretary of State wanted to bomb Afghanistan on September 12, 2003, instead of Afghanistan, because "[t]here aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."
It sounds so reckless, at least without context, that the veracity of Clarke's claim is dubious at best. If it is true, so what? Probably a lot of people wanted to bomb Iraq, but it was neither their call nor Rumsfeld's. The President made the decision, and he opted to go after the camps in Afghanistan.
If that statement is meant to indicate that the Bush Administration wanted to go after Saddam Hussein years before they began to make the case, there is nothing to that, either. Clinton wanted to go after Saddam Hussein for a month back in 1998. President Bush came into office know that Iraq was a problem, and he might have suggested an attack earlier had not September 11 thrust its ugly image upon humanity.
It's something to publish, I suppose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order has an excellent analysis of the current Clarke situation and the broader implications:
Saddam must still be laughing at all the free lawyers he is getting in the Western press. He'll parrot all of this at his trial, and the media will eat it up. You watch. There is a segment of this country that would vote for Saddam if he were running against Bush in November. Believe that.
0 comments
Richard C. Clarke's 15-minutes on 60 Minutes
Former freezedried nobody Richard C. Clarke burst onto the national stage tomorrow night for his fifteen-minutes of fame, attacking the Bush Administration on the CBS infotainment show. Yes, he's selling a book.
From the Washington Times piece on this matter:
Richard Clarke, a top advisor on terrorism for each administration since Ronald Reagan, resigned from the Bush White House last year. He criticizes the president's handling of intelligence reports before the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaida attacks on the United States, and the invasion of Iraq despite what he said was no evidence of a link with al Qaida. The criticism comes in a new book and on CBS' 60 minutes Sunday.You know, it would be nice if 60 Minutes produced an exposé on Richard C. Clark. I'm not waiting around.
Nor do I have to. Mark Noonan at BlogsforBush posted the goods on the guy yesterday.
0 comments
The Homeless in Washington, DC
Erich from Confessions of a Political Junkies, who has done a bang-up job of reporting, is blogging from DC for the next few weeks.
He's there today, and he is disconcerted by the homeless. ("They are everywhere mumbling to themselves and smelling.")
Check his blog often this week for a DC-outsider's view of the city itself. He is in my blogroll.
0 comments
Al Franken a diehard Dem, not a Lefty
A NYTimes throwaway by one Russell Shorto reveals that pseudo-comedic mumbler Al Franken is not a psychotic leftists; rather, he's a stalwart Democrat, a party man, a veritable Blue dog. (Franken "says, for example, that the Democratic Leadership Council is a moral force for good.")
The piece also tells the a version of the incident at the Howard Dean in Manchester, when he tried to rough-up some LaRouchie and managed to have his glasses split in two.
I cannot recall Franken doing the ideology thing, so it makes sense that he'd say he is a party dude.
0 comments
Britain needs "more American" economy
Accusing his country's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, of favoring a European-model economy, with its heavy regulation and high taxes. Instead of a flexible model of American capitalism, the leader of Britain's Conservative Party, Michael Howard, argued: "Our economy needs to become more like America's again." [From the BBC.]
0 comments
"Thirteen Reasons Republicans Will Lose"
I happened on this column in Canada's National Post, written by University of Toronto political science professor Clifford Orwin. His style and content, oddly enough, are reminiscent of what one might have expected if there were a kid named Clumsy from the Mickey Mouse Club.
The complete list and nonsense explanations can be found HERE, but we'll take a look in brief.
1.Because no Republican bigwig seems capable of defending the war in Iraq. - I refer Clumsy to the transcript of the President's Weekly Radio Address.
2. Because John Kerry was a war hero, and Mr. Bush just wasn't. - Candidate served bravely during his four (4) months in
3. Because the Bush administration has few friends abroad, and Americans are a gregarious bunch. - America is respected abroad, and Americans will not let the French President, the German Chancellor, or the King of Belgium select their President.
4. Because in so polarized a political environment, a jobless economic recovery won't suffice. - This recovery, though productivity-driven, is hardly "jobless." And job growth is expected to grow more rapidly in the coming months.
5. Because with the deficit soaring and the job rate stuttering, Mr. Bush's tax cuts don't look so good. - To whom? To the Canadians? Americans know that the government has no money other than that which the government tax from them. Tax cuts are always popular in a free society.
6. Because Mr. Bush is vulnerable even in the southern and border states, especially if Mr. Kerry picks the right running mate. - He offered nothing to support this contention, and perhaps this is why he teaches political science in Canada rather than practicing it in the United States. President Bush is not vulnerable in the South, and candidate Kerry knows this, speculating on how he would be President without touching that region.
It would seem that Clumsy's "right running mate" would be John Edwards of North Carolina, whose selection would probably serve only to force the Bush campaign to expend more resources in the South on the way to victory than they would otherwise have had to do.
7. Because Mr. Kerry will run against Mr. Bush's record as President, and Mr. Bush will run against Mr. Kerry's record as a Senator. - Clumsy missed this one big. Kerry's record as a Senator is probably his single greatest liability.
Clumsy's contention, however, is that Kerry can keep Bush on the defensive because of his "his training as a prosecutor." Let's see. Kerry was the First Assistant District Attorney for Middlesboro County, Massachusetts, from 1977-1982. That's it.
8. Because the gay marriage issue will benefit the Democrats. - Clumsy's thesis is that while most Americans oppose gay marriages, they also oppose a Constitutional Amendment outlawing it. The way our Constitution works, Clumsy, is that if most Americans oppose a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, there is very little chance that one will pass. Both houses of Congress would have to pass it by 2/3rds votes, then it would have to be ratified by the legislatures of the 3/4ths of the 50 States.
It is unlikely that the issue of a Constitutional Amendment will overtake the issue of these marriages.
9. Because Ralph Nader, who cost the Democrats dearly last time around, this year can count on no vote but his own. - Clumsy bases this statement on nothing, as well. He may think, with many of us, that Nader is yesterday's news, but he still has a following and his polling in the middle single digits.
Remember, many of Nader's votes will come from disaffected Democrats. If the Democrats had a strong candidate around whom Democrats could rally personally, that would limit Nader's votes. Instead, the Democrats have John Kerry. Nader could thus do even better this year than he did in 2000, The Dems are not exited about Kerry.
10. Because a party composed of people who applauded Mel Gibson's movie doesn't deserve the trust of the American public.… And no, I don't plan to see it. - Clumsy' complaint has something to do with mixing violence and religion. I hope he tacked this one on because he could think of nothing else and was in a foul mood. It is vacuous and not deserving of further comment.
He left 11 to 13 blank, as he wants his readers to fill in such.
Clumsy closes with this paragraph:
This election is no laughing matter. The threat of global Islamic terrorism and of the rogue states allied with it remains a grievous one, and the civilized world sorely needs to rally behind its only possible leader, the United States. Should Mr. Bush remain in office, this isn't likely to happen. I wish I could tell you that Mr. Kerry is capable of rising to this challenge. His record indicates no such thing. Nor, however, does it suggest that he is likely to self-destruct as a candidate. And he enjoys all the advantages of non-incumbency. If he's to lose, the Republicans will have to beat him.He here says that he does not think that Kerry is necessarily "up to the challenge" of defeating the President, but he says the Republicans "will have to beat" Kerry. Wrong. Bush is the incumbent, and Kerry has to defeat the President. Actually, it is the Democrats vrs. the President, not, as Clumsy has it, the Republicans vrs. Kerry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have a much more acceptable poli sci prof, this one of the American variety, in Steven Taylor at PoliBlog. This week's Toast-O-Meter is LIVE. Lots of linkage, but I note that he still hasn't linked to me. Sob, sob, sob, etc. I'll get over it.
0 comments
New Columns on the RSN site and on Watchblog
I put the new column by Dennis Campbell, Christianity vs. Islam: It is Time to Tell the Truth About This Conflict, on the Rightsided Newsletter web site:
Being President must be the most difficult job in the world. The responsibilities, pressures and conflicts are enormous, the consequences of actions staggering, the push and pull of myriad groups and ideologies and forces overwhelming.And this morning, my second bit for the Watchblog, Kerry's Coming Implosion, went live, as well:
To be a practicing Christian and be President must be enormously more difficult. For example, if one is a Democrat and wishes to be President he must support such non-Christian positions as abortion and homosexuality, while trafficking with those whose outright hostility to the faith is palpable. [MORE]
When will candidate John Kerry implode? It seems a matter of time, when the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed on the tea leaves, but another question stands in the way of our answer: Will the media let him fall apart? After all, Kerry was foisted upon the Democratic Party in a truncated, McAuliffe-ized nominating process wherein momentum was mistaken for electability. It was over after Iowa, but the nation's political press wants a race. This race could be over now… [MORE]The Watchblog is divided into three parts, all front-and-center: conservative, moderate, and leftist, and most posts draw a pretty good discussion in the comments section. I think it's a neat idea.
I'll post the article in here on Monday.
0 comments
Liberal University President?
Good morning. Central Connecticut State University President Richard L. Judd has resigned from the university after he was caught plagiarizing from three sources for a February 26 Harford Courant Op/Ed. This forced the paper's editorial page editor to publish his own Op/Ed in apology for having published the piece: "The Courant regrets publishing Judd's article."
Perhaps the Courant should lighten up. Plagiarism is an accepted mode of expression with certain classes of liberals, including Historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and 1988 Presidential candidates like Joe Biden, who lifted, word-for-word, a speech by British Labour [sic] Party Leader Neil Kinnock.
No, what frightens me most of Judd is contained in the following paragraph from Reuters:
Mr. Judd had an earlier run-in with university officials in March 2002, when he was reprimanded by the board after his arrest on charges of impersonating a police officer two months earlier. The board voted to express its "displeasure" with Mr. Judd, who admitted he used the oscillating headlights on his state car to pull over a motorist he believed was speeding.It's here that I roll my eyes and mutter a few epithets about "academia."
0 comments
3/19/2004
Kerry on CBS's Face the Nation
Here's the deal. On September 14 of last year, then-Senator John F Kerry went on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. Here is my blurb on this from the Rightsided Newsletter (Volume VII, NO. 109) of that date:
During his campaign stop on FTN, candidate John Kerry hinted that he will vote for the President’s $87-billion request but that he and Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will introduce an amendment linking the money with a repeal of the “Bush tax cuts, at the high end.” He called it a “shared sacrifice.” If it is going to be a repeal only at the high end -- “the very wealthy” -- why then is it a sacrifice in Kerry’s terms? According to the word of Kerry, the very wealthy sacrifice nothing in taxes. (Has he talked this over with his fantastically wealthy wife who has a pre-nup?)The RNC has dug up a Kerry quote from that appearance which has Kerry calling his future self "reckless" and "irresponsible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Worth noting: On LE, Senator Biden claimed complete credit for calling for the repeal of the tax cuts to pay for the $87-billion, excluding Kerry. He said that it would be a “delay in implementation” of the tax cuts for the “top one-percent,” which he defined as those making over $300,000 a year. Everyone has to sacrifice, he said, and “these people are patriotic.” That’s a sure way to be thrown out of his Senate Democratic Caucus, portraying the wealthiest 1% as patriots.
Schieffer asked Kerry if he would vote to fund the troops even if the Biden did not pass. (Biden himself excluded Kerry from sponsorship of his y amendment.) Kerry responded:
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."From the RNC web site:
Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."ABC news political director Mark "Which is the Hole in the Ground?" Halperin lumped Kerry's recent statement about a still discussed appropriation in with anything Kerry might have ever said in his entire public career:
"John Kerry has years and years of public statements — including recent ones — that the Republicans seem to have more thoroughly catalogued and at-the-ready than the Kerry campaign does."Sorry, Mark, it does not work that way. How Senators voted on that $87-billion appropriations, and what they contemporarily said about it, are still very much in the public discourse. It cannot be blithely dismissed along with statements he made 20-years-ago about, say, vinyl record albums. This is not a matter of digging in his ancient lexicon of public misstatements for hidden bombs.
Kerry had a bad week, so he went snow boarding at one of former Pennsylvania Republican Senator John Heinz's (deceased) vacation houses. He is a man who should not have been nominated; in that sense, he is an aberration. It is as if the political world has forgotten about its axis and the universe has simply stopped expanding. Check your physics. Euclid has left the building.
0 comments
C-SPAN is 25
It was on this day in 1979 that Brian Lamb's dream of bringing Congress to our living rooms began. Our cable system began carrying it shortly thereafter, and I went away to school in the summer of 1985. The cable in Happy Valley carried C-SPAN2, as well.
C-SPAN is all -- in a temporal, carefully defined sense.
The last time I called C-SPAN was in 1987. President Reagan had nominated Judge Robert Bork to sit on the Supreme, and Arlen Specter had effectively pounded the last nail into his judicial coffin. Then he nominated Judge Robert Ginsberg, whose name was withdrawn when he turned out to be, in my Grammy Clinich's parlance, a "hop head."
Open C-SPAN phones, Lew Ketcham moderating: Who should the President nominate next?She got what she wanted. Anthony Kennedy. My argument, which I did not feel like explaining after a long day of classes, was that after what the left had done to Judge Bork, and after the embarrassment of the Harvard prof with the doobies, the President should nominate a conservative who could make it through Senate Judic. Hatch was the name which came to mind.
Lew: "Hello, you're on C-SPAN."
me: "He should nominate Orrin Hatch. [pause] The Senator from Utah." [pause]
Lew: "As the nominee?"
me: "Yes." [pause]
Lew: "Okay, next caller."
Female caller: "If it's Orrin Hatch, I'm against him. Same with Ted Kennedy. Orrin's too far to the right, Teddy's too far to the left."
That's my story.
After 25 years, "Thank you for C-SPAN!"
0 comments
Sandra Day O'Conner: More than a Jurist
The Justice is, it was announced today, an 2005 Arrid Total Woman of Today. Other award winners include: Colleen Barrett of Southwest Airlines, Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White of San Francisco, and golfer Suzy Whaley.
The slogan is: "Get a Little Closer… to falling off the cliff to the Left."
0 comments
The Taliban Flip-Flop
Evidently, the Taliban are ticked off about the Pakistani military action:
"We will attack American forces if they launch attacks in these areas, on both sides of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan," said the spokesman, identified as Mulla[h] Abdul Latif Hakimi.They might be planning to have Mullah Omar call us nasty names.
Then there's this from Reuters:
``I have not given any such interview,'' Abdul Latif Hakimi told Reuters after Al Jazeera television broadcast a video in which a man with the same name made the threats. The man's face was covered.Okay, the first Mullah Abdul Latif Hakimi made his threats on an al Jazeera vid and the other Mullah Abdul Latif Hakimi talked to Reuters.
``None of the Taliban spokesmen have issued any statement like that,'' Hakimi said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
``We do not interfere in other countries' affairs,'' said Hakimi. ``It is up to Pakistan wherever it wants to conduct an operation. What objection can we have? We have our own country.''
One of the Mullah Abdul Latif Hakimis can now saw: "I actually did not make that threat after I made it."
Then they can join that Howard Dean fringe group and speak out in support of candidate Kerry.
0 comments
New Column on RSN Site
I've put the new column by Jan Ireland, Second Amendment Set to Go Global With First Stop England, live on the Rightsided Newsletter web site.
When the British government took away all guns from law abiding citizens in 1997, they said it was for a safer England. The preceding first step of gun registration, that they assured the public had nothing to do with a plan to confiscate all guns, had been couched as for safety also.
Now guns in England are squarely in the hands of criminals. English citizens are subject to skyrocketing criminal assaults, and have no means to defend themselves in their homes or on the street. Guns have been criminalized, so only the criminals have guns. Seems the criminals didnt bother to obey the law, a fact that is always and ever a complete surprise to gun control proponents. [MORE]
0 comments
Priceless Kerry Line
From his [candidate Kerry's] statement on the one year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:
It's time for George Bush to start being consistent on Iraq.He voted against the Gulf War in 1991, for Clinton's bombing run, and for the war this time. Then he voted not to fund our troops:
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.The man is unfit.
0 comments
The poet de Villepin on Iraq and Terror
The poet Dominique de Villepin, foreign minister of France, told the French newspaper Le Monde on Friday [Boston Globe link] that he blamed the liberation of Iraq for the increase in global terror:
''Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before,'' [the poet] de Villepin said. ''Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism.''The world is not safer in the short term, and the poet de Villepin completely ignores the long term goal of defeating terror.
''We have to look reality in the face: we have entered into a more dangerous and unstable world, which requires the mobilization of the entire international community,'' [the poet] de Villepin said.By "international community," the poet de Villepin means France. Both he and his President, Jacques Chirac, see the world in a black and white manner. The United States is a superpower, and they believe that for the good of mankind, their must be another superpower to block the United States dominating all she views. That other superpower, in the French model, is a United Europe led by, of course, France.
The French Foreign Minister has published four books of his own poetry: The Cry of the Gargoyle, the 800-page Eulogy of the Fire Chiefs, The 100 Days: The Spirit of Sacrifice [about the same topic as was Beethoven's 3rd Symphony: Napoleon], and the 668-page Another World. The best review of the poet de Villepin's work which I could find comes from a June 12, 2002 entry in a weblog called Merde in France:
Villepin ™ writes poetry, but his poetry sucks. On top of it, he makes French taxpayers underwrite the promotion of his garbage. So this summer's burning question is: who will sell more books? Rumsfeld or Villepin ™? Rambo or Rimbaud? Villepin ™ can hang it up. His [expletive deleted] is too tired.The same could be said of his worldview.
0 comments
Move Over, Jayson…
Following the trail blazed by the New York Time's Jayson Blair and others, USA Today reporter Jack Kelley has been caught making stuff up.
The nationally distributed paper, based in McLean, said Jack Kelley, the reporter, "conspired to mislead" those who were investigating his work at USA Today, in part by using a snapshot of a Cuban hotel worker to authenticate a made up story about a woman who died fleeing Cuba by boat.The trail blazed by Blair and followed by Kelly is falling victim to the bullshit detector, not inventing news to meet his fancy.
I've published a free Internet Newsletter for seven years and I've blogged since last August, so I habitually blench when I hear "'net journalism" dismissed as half-truths and contrivances. The main example I've seen cited is Matt Drudge, who sometimes breaks a story which later appears not to be so.
With Drudge, we know who he is and the iffy nature of what he does. We know the he will run with a juicy lead. Like with the story of John Kerry and that woman, Miss Polier, Drudge reported that several major news outlets were investigating an illicit affair. He reported no details, and the story could be taken at face value. Every write-up I saw from bloggers bore the caveat: "If true…"
This is differs vastly from journalists making stuff up.
0 comments
Justice Ginsberg Told to Recuse Herself
Yesterday, thirteen members of Congress have called upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to rule on an abortion case, citing her ties to the pro-abort NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. It seems to be a case of: "Well, if you expect Justice Scalia to step aside for a case involving Vice President Cheney simply because the two men went duck hunting with the same group of people, then we think Ginsburg should do the same."
The case for Ginsburg stepping aside is much stronger, as her position with the pro-abort group is ideological while Justice Scalia went duck hunting with a bunch of guys, one of whom was the VPOTUS.
The 13 House Republicans who wrote Ginsburg are Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania; Dave Weldon of Florida; Walter B. Jones and Sue Wilkins Myrick of North Carolina; Kevin Brady of Texas; Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Paul Ryan of Wisconsin; W. Todd Akin of Missouri; Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; Mike Pence of Indiana; Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland; Steve King of Iowa, and Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey.As an aside, Representative Cubin holds the seat once occupied by the Vice President.
0 comments
New Column on RSN site
I have posted Jason E. High's new column, Where have all the jobs gone?, on the Rightsided Newsletter web site.
Where have all the jobs gone? Well... nowhere, really. There is much hysteria regarding current employment trends that are leading many to believe that we are losing significant numbers of jobs overseas. Even more frightening is the fact that these conclusions are leading many to believe that we should impose unjust and misguided trade restrictions.
As I am rather fond of doing, let's take a moment and look at the numbers. The number of private-sector jobs in the United States increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. This means that a grand total of 327.7 million jobs were added. However, an astonishing 309.9 million jobs were lost! [MORE]
0 comments
How Many Goats for Bin Laden?
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted, 414-0, to double the size of the reward offered from Osama bin Laden or his corpse when or if the State Departments sees fit to do so. Whereas, State was authorized to give the hypothetical Osama spotter $25-million, he could now get $50-million.
To better appeal to people in remote, rural areas, the bill says rewards could be paid in the form of vehicles, appliances, commodities and other goods instead of cash.On NPR yesterday, I heard the reward of livestock mentioned.
Now, it is a decidedly liberal trait to mock someone else's culture, but this could turn out to be a good deal for both sides: a flock of goats for information leading to OBL. They get their goats, which they need and value, and we would get the chief terrorist, which hopefully they only tolerate.
It's possible, you know, that he's been giving them goats and we'll have to give them more and better goasts. Perhaps Congress, in its wisdom, thought of this.
0 comments
3/18/2004
Kerry: No More Foreign Endorsements!
On Thursday, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed candidate John Kerry:
I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.So there is a world leader who endorses John Kerry. That's a face saver, right? Well, except for the bit about the "Jewish lobby," which inevitably dissembled into an anti-Semitic rant about "European Jewry" and suchlike. You can spot freaks like Mahathir a kilometer away.
"But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
Last October at the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference, Mahathir made news with this:
The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.Okay.
It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.
[. . .]
Of late because of their power and their apparent success they [Jews] have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think."
Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers reacted negatively to this endorsement. [Hat tip to PoliPundit.]
“John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable. The world needs leaders who seek to bring people together, not drive them apart with hateful and divisive rhetoric.I don't think even Kerry could have invented this one. It's too "perfect."
“This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America’s presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.”
0 comments
Two New Columns on the RSN site
On the Rightsided Newsletter, I've posted the latest column by Justin Darr, Do we have the will to win the War on Terror?
Osama Bin Laden sees the West as a soft, decadent society that is unwilling to stand up for any values it might still retain. He has no respect for our way of life, seeing us as immoral, greedy philanderers who will sacrifice anything so long as we can still make enough money to pay for our Internet porn site memberships. We are the modern day Rome, a shell of our former self and unable to stop our inevitable decline. We are weak. Unable to muster the resolve to stand up for what is right. A global bully, who if you slap in the face will run home crying to its mommy (i.e. the United Nations). The sad fact is Bin Laden is right in many ways, particularly in regard to our European allies. The Spanish peoples unconditional surrender to the forces of evil has punctuated this fact in stark reality. Now, since it is quite evident that we stand alone in the world in the fight for freedom, we Americans must look inside ourselves and decide if we actually have the will to win the War on Terror. Or are we, like the Europeans, going to bury our heads in the sand and hope that the problem of international terrorism just goes away. [MORE]Also posted is the latest Op/Ed by Stephen Erwin, Assault Weapons Proliferation:
Anti-gun Republicrats in the U.S. Senate have proved that they can pass an extension to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. They succeeded in part because most of the public and even the majority of its core supporters don't begin to understand the most important truths about the legislation. [MORE]Enjoy.
0 comments
In three hours…
…then level the place!Fox New foreign affairs and intelligence analyst Monssor Ijaz, who has contacts for which to die, told FNC's Brit Hume this evening that the goal is capture Ayman al-Zawahiri dead or alive. Zawahiri, he said, was "the most dangerous man on the face of the Earth." Whereas OBL is the symbol and the money, Zawahiri is the brains.
Zawahiri was behind Madrid, Ijaz is certain.
Ijaz said that in three hours, Pakistan will begin the aerial bombardment. His word is that they have asked for "U.S. air support," and that the aircraft will be helicopters rather than fixed wing.
The biggest day in the war on terror.
I don't want to diminish or trivialize this event by pulling politics onto the same stage, but that is what I do. Will Kerry accuse President Bush of exploiting the war on terror for political purposes by winning it??
0 comments
McCain Opens His Mouth
Senator John McCain, ever the maverick, took it upon himself to critique the Bush campaign this morning on CBS's The Early Show. Is Kerry soft on defense? Would he be harmful to national security if elected? Sayeth McCain:
This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice,” McCain said on “The Early Show” on CBS. “You know, it’s the most bitter and partisan campaign that I’ve ever observed. I think it’s because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it.”McCain loves down-the-middle, and one wonders if he seeks to be Kerry's running mate or to replace outgoing Senator John Breaux (D-Louisiana) as the "Sultan of the Centrists," the "Mullah of the Moderates."
Asked the same questions on NBC's Today Show, Kerry muttered:
“No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don’t agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that’s going on on both sides. The American people don’t need it.”So Kerry is not "necessarily weak on defense," per se. McCain, then, thinks Kerry is not weak on defense as a rule. He's not Dennis Kucinich, but then again, who is?
I think that there is a lot about which to admire Senator John McCain, both personally and politically. The extent to which he plays the careless maverick is not one of them, and if he turns into the next Breaux -- an unyielding centrist -- he'll become forgettable. That's why he won't do it.
0 comments
Zawahiri captured
There's a downside even to the best of news.
From Bloomberg.com
March 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury notes fell on reports that the top aide to terrorist Osama bin Laden was captured near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Demand for government debt weakened on optimism that the capture of Ayman al-Zawahiri as reported by Sky News may lead to fewer terrorist attacks.
`The threat doesn't go away, but as terrorism restricts growth, this will be good for growth and good for the world community,'' said Drew Forbes, head of government bond trading at Daiwa Securities America Inc. in New York. Terrorism ``creates uncertainty and hurts consumer confidence. Treasuries do poorly and we'll probably see stocks do extremely well.''
I added the link to the Sky News article.
Go figure on the Bloomberg piece.
0 comments
Kerry Voted For/Against funding our troops
The Bush campaign has released nationally an ad it had been running in West Virginia alone, in which viewers are reminded that then-Senator John Kerry voted against the $87-billion appropriations for funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had voted for a bastardized version, sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware), which called for a tax increase to pay for the bill. That failed, and he voted against funding the troops and furnishing them equipment. The national version of the commercial adds this Kerry explanation for his vote:
"I actually did vote for his $87-billion, before I voted against it."The AP's Ron Fornier tries to spin for the Kerry campaign:
Kerry's tortured response to the West Virginia ad underscored the difficulties of defending Senate votes on massive spending bills loaded with hundreds of unrelated provisions.That must be the nuanced explanation.
Again, Kerry voted to fund the troops if taxes were increased to do it. That failed. Kerry then voted against funding the troops.
You see, at the time of the votes, the Dems were being clobbered by one Howard Dean; they were playing catch-up. (Or, in Kerry's case, "catsup.") In order to compete with Dean, Kerry threw principle into the latrine and voted against funding the troops.
"I actually did vote for his $87-billion, before I voted against it."
"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments
Moveon.org versus Donald Rumsfeld
Yesterday evening, I wrote about a new MoveOn.org commercial. The URL to the commercial was sent to me by someone dear to me who has a few issues with the administration.
I explained that Secretary Rumsfeld did not say that Iraq or Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, taking it to both quotes used by MoveOn.org. My correspondent accused me of "parsing" and "squirming." That's not the case.
I found the transcript of Rumsfeld's remarks to the House Armed Services Committee last September 18, 2003, and I've put them on web alone HERE. (The portion relevant to the follow is in bold on that page.) It is more an argument in favor of preemption than for the threat's immediacy.
The following is from the message I wrote further attempting to explain this matter:
The second Rumsfeld quote misused by MoveOn.org, again, follows:
"No terrorist state poses a more immediate threat to the safety of our people and the security of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."The full quote, taken from the transcript of Rumsfeld's Prepared Remarks to the House Armed Services Committee - September 18, 2002, follows:
There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few.But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.MoveOn.org omitted the part of the quote [put in bold by me] which clearly indicated that he deemed Iraq to be further along in the development of WMD for use against us than the other States listed. He did not say that Iraq was an immediate threat, ready rain destruction upon us at any given second.
After the above paragraph, Rumsfeld continued:
No living dictator has shown the murderous combination of intent and capability -- of aggression against his neighbors; oppression of his own people; genocide; support of terrorism; pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; the use of weapons of mass destruction; and the most threatening hostility to its neighbors and to the United States, [other] than Saddam Hussein and his regime.He here explained what he meant when he said that Iraq was a more immediate threat than the other terrorist nations. Saddam, he said, has the "intent and capability" to pursue weapons of mass destruction and use them. Saddam, he added, was most threateningly hostile of those terrorist states to the region and to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, these facts about Saddam Hussein's regime should be part of this record and of our country's considerations:
He then gave the lengthy litany of reasons why Saddam was, indeed, dangerous. Following this, he said:
As the President warned the United Nations last week, "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." It is a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East, and to international peace and stability. It is a danger we do not have the option to ignore.In his U.N. address, the President explained why we should not allow the Iraqi regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- and issued a challenge to the international community: to enforce the numerous resolutions the U.N. has passed and Saddam Hussein has defied; to show that Security Council's decisions will not to be cast aside without cost or consequence; to show that the U.N. is up to the challenge of dealing with a dictator like Saddam Hussein; to show that the U.N. is determined not to become irrelevant.
The world has acquiesced in Saddam Hussein's aggression, abuses and defiance for more than a decade.
Note, he quoted the President's words, that "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." Not an "immediate threat." Rumsfeld cites the President explaining "why we should not allow the Iraqi regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction." He did not say even that Iraq possessed such WMD.
I've read the comments in response to yesterday evening's post, and I agree. Like Joe wrote, "I'm sure that the Kerry-DNC folks are privately embarrassed by this rag-tag group." Nevertheless, I read an article on the San Francisco Examiner site last night dealing with how both sides "mislead the public" while campaigning. As evidence of the White House misleading the public, the sloppy writer mentioned Donald Rumsfeld claiming that he had never called Iraq an "immediate threat." He didn't, but I have proof that even the brightest among us might believe them.
0 comments
Address Problem
My referrer logs show a greatly diminished activity today, and the problem is that my standard address - http://www.rightsided.org/ is returning a 404. This blog is still accessible at http://rightsided.blogspot.com/, which is, I suppose, the back door.
I'm doing what I can now to at least determine what is the problem. And I'll blame MoveOn.org for the lack of any realistic possible culprit.
0 comments
New Column on RSN site
I have just posted the new Isaiah G. Sterrett column, Have you no Shame, Senator Kerry?, on the Rightsided Newsletter web site. He looks at the constantly improving situation in Iraq then speculates about the leaders who might be members of Kerry's top secret global fan club:
CALL ME a crooked liar, but it seems to me that things are improving in Iraq. Consider, for example: [MORE]
0 comments
House GOP's Speak (of the) Spanish
Good morning. With the Senate in recess, House Republicans took to the floor to speak words of support for the President at what many perceive as a critical time, after the "fall of Spain." From the Washpost:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters, "If we follow the example of the new Spanish government, and we accept failure in Iraq and permit victory of the terrorists there, there will be no counting the number of people around the world who will suffer the consequences." He said he hoped the government of Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero "will realize we're all at war, and that Iraq is central to winning that war. Al Qaeda understands that, even if many in Europe and the United States prefer to ignore the fact that Iraq is the single most important battle that the war on terror will ever know."Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss were among those joining in this sentiment.
Is this what Limbaugh is calling the Spanish vote, or something?
They also passed, 327-93, a resolution praising our troops on the first anniversary of the start of action in Iraq. I'm curious about, and will be looking for, the names of the 93. Odd.
0 comments
3/17/2004
"And Yet We've Just Begun…
From the Associated Press, via Yahoo News:
White House political chief Karl Rove said Wednesday that President Bush had just begun to demonstrate the kind of targeted, multi-front campaign he plans against Democratic rival John Kerry.Get ready for the show. [LINK]
[. . .]
The Bush campaign has material ready to go on Kerry based on his votes and speeches, said a Republican who attended the session. Whenever Kerry raises an issue, the Bush-Cheney campaign will be prepared to hand out leaflets, and run ads on TV and radio.
0 comments
Dean does a Reverse-Perot
In 1992 -- seems like yesterday -- billionaire H. Ross Perot took his grassroots organization, United We Stand America, and essentially shaped it into his campaign outfit. (I think he did this on Larry King Live, as was his wont.)
Today, Howard Dean has taken his Deaniac campaign battery, Dean for America, and converted it into a grassroots org: Democracy for America.
From the Associated Press (via MSNBC):
Dean has been seeking to build excitement among those supporters with a promise to announce Thursday his plans “about the future grass-roots campaign built from the principles of Dean For America,” the former presidential campaign said in a posting to its own Web log. “We will show solidarity in our continued campaign to take back the core of power in American politics from back rooms and special interests to a political ethos based in, and built from, community.”So Dean's found some idolizing sycophants who will remain a steady cash stream for a while then become bored.
0 comments
MoveOn.org's Sloppy Commercial
MoveOn.org has released a commercial [HERE to view] which accuses Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of having asserted that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the United States.
It begins with a clip from CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer last Sunday, with Schieffer and NYTimes columnist Tom Friedman grilling Rumsfeld about whether he or anyone in the administration had spoken of an "immediate threat" from Iraq. Rumsfeld replied that neither he nor the President ever did, but that he could not speak for the rest of the administration
Friedman had a Rumsfeld quote, from September 18, 2002:
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat is not imminent, that Saddam was at least five to seven years from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."Friedman was careless to misuse that quote, and MoveOn.org put together an intellectually sloppy commercial.
Secretary Rumsfeld said only that he could not be certain that the nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein was not more immediate than the five to seven years cited by some. He did not say that the threat was currently immediate.
Friedman's second quote, same date:
"No terrorist state poses a more immediate threat to the safety of our people and the security of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."In 2002, the terrorist states would have included, probably, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and some African nations. Rumsfeld said that Iraq was more immediately dangerous than were the others. He did not say that Iraq posed an immediate threat.
MoveOn.org either has a collective serious comprehension deficit, or it just wanted to throw something together that would rally its addled supporters into think, "Yeah, man, f***ing d**n, man, that Rumsfeld, man…"
The MoveOn.org commercial ends with these words: "It's time for the deception to stop." Not for as long as the braindead continue to send them money for pure drivel.
0 comments
Cheney: Unwavering vrs. 'Nuanced'
Vice President Dick Cheney had a few words about candidate Kerry at the President Ronald Reagan's Library in Simi Valley, California [Reuters link].
Newsmarx.com, sometimes the next best thing to a transcript because of their ample use of quotes, posted what the Veep had to say about Kerry's circumlocutory waffling regarding Saddam Hussein:
Cheney said Kerry indicated his support for regime change in 1998, with ground troops if necessary, and even voted in October 2002 to authorize military action against Saddam if the dictator refused to comply with the resolutions.From Reuters:
Cheney said a neutral observer looking at Kerry's voting record on Iraq and his public support for past military action against Saddam Hussein, if necessary, means Kerry supported the war in Iraq.
"The senator himself now, tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was 'one of the anti-war candidates.' He replied, 'I am.' He now says he was voting only to 'threaten the use of force, not actually use force,'" Cheney said.
"Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be power today in Iraq. In fact, Saddam would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait," the vice president said.
Cheney rejected Kerry's criticism that the U.S.-led 34-nation coalition on Iraq -- which lacked some major traditional allies who refused to go along with the war -- was merely "window-dressing" and a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."This, Kerry's audience of supporters at The Library already knew, but it is a rallying point. And if the press Kerry's it, it ought to begin to sink into at least the periphery of the American psyche. Repeated, repeated, and repeated over 7 1/2 months, this image of Kerry ought highlight the contrast.
"If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we're left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition," Cheney said.
He said Kerry speaks "as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect."
Cheney said the November election offers a contrast like the 1984 election, when Reagan ran for re-election against Democrat Walter Mondale. He said the next president must be "unwavering until the danger to our people is fully and finally removed."Which begs the question: is there a 'nuanced' response to terrorism?
0 comments
The WashPost on WHY AZNAR LOST
Have you heard the one about the Spanish people panicking, running in fear of al Qaeda, and heaving Prime Minister José Maria Aznar's Popular Party into the electoral dungeon? That was a popular one. Still is: AL QAEDA WINS!
Have you heard the one about the Spanish election being a referendum on our President Bush, a reaction against Aznar's support of the invasion of Iraq? That was also popular and still is: BUSH LOSES!
Actually, as I've said, the Spanish government played politics, and the Spanish voters saw it. Aznar blew it.
With a tip of the hat to Steven Taylor at PoliBlog, the WashPost has published an article making the same statement. It details the Spanish government's efforts to pin the incident on the Basque separatists, and it concludes:
By Friday night, police found new leads -- the discovery of a sports bag containing undetonated explosives and a mobile telephone. At a news conference, however, Acebes continued to insist ETA was the main suspect. "How is it that after 30 years of attacks, they are not going to be the prime suspects?" Acebes said. Still, he said, "We haven't closed off any line of investigation."Read the WashPost piece, writ by Keith B. Richburg, HERE.
At the makeshift shrines set up to honor the victims, young people gathering to light candles and lay flowers were starting to voice skepticism about the ETA claim.
On Saturday night -- hours before the polls opened -- the government announced the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians, and the discovery of a videotape from a purported al Qaeda official asserting responsibility for the attacks. Thousands of Spaniards responded by taking to the streets, banging pots and pans in protests and denouncing the government.
That voter anger swept the Socialists back to power for the first time in eight years.
Now let's see if Zapatero is ready to play ball, now that the campaign and its often-bogus rhetoric is out of the way.
0 comments
New Dennis Campbell Column
I just posted the new column Dennis Campbell column, Creating the Ideal Candidate for Democrats, on the Rightsided Newsletter web site. He examines the ideal qualities from a Dem candidate, and he finds someone who would be ideal. His answer might or might not be surprising.
Is John Kerry the ideal candidate for Democrats? Probably not, since he voted for the war in Iraq. Oops - of course, he did not mean it. He also voted in favor of free trade - um, but he did not mean that, either. As this could go on indefinitely, let's forget about Kerry and create a fictional ideal liberal candidate.
He (we will assume our candidate is a man) would not be captive to traditional morality - in fact, let's say that he once lived outside of wedlock with his "significant other." [MORE]
0 comments
Primary Day in Illinois
That was yesterday, and political abecedarian Jack Ryan, one of those who adores the label "conservative with a conscience," won the GOP nomination to challenge the Democrat in November for retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald's seat, which had before that been Carol Mosley Braun's seat before she was a Clinton ambassador to New Zealand and a laugh-a-minute candidate for the Dem Presidential nomination.
State senator Barack Obama took the Dem nomination. A black former civil rights agitator, Obama won big with both urban black liberals and suburban white liberals, uniting the Dem electorate in a way of which candidate Kerry might dream.
Candidate John F. "Ask What your Country Can Do for Me" Kerry won the Dem presidential primary with less that three-quarters of the vote.
Kerry - 71.8-percent
John Edwards - 10.9%
Carol Molsey Braun - 4.4%
Howard Dean - 3.9%
Al Sharpton - 3.0%
Dennis Kucinich - 2.3%
Joe Lieberman - 1.9%
Wesley Clark - 1.6%
Lyndon LaRouche - 0.3%
[official, with 11,574 of 11,745 precincts reporting]
One wonders why LaRouche is still running, unless he is positioning himself to be the number two man on the Kerry ticket. Kerry/LaRouche could work; after all, LaRouche would lend the ticket the consistency, seriousness, and gravitas it lacks with Kerry at the top.
0 comments
New SARTRE column
I just posted the new column, Two Elections - Different Results - Same Outcome, on the Rightsided Newsletter web site. This time, it's his personal take on the recent elections in Spain and Russia.
Elections in Spain and Russia - one a surprise, the other a forgone conclusion. The Spanish are ready to yell Yankee go home and Russians give the Kremlin the green light to expand their dominion. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, no household name, benefits from the Madrid bombings. Vladimir Putin, a known commodity, counts the returns with the backdrop burning of the Manege building. The Iberian peninsula turns toward socialism while Chechnya readies for a return to steps that are reminiscent of the past. [MORE]."
0 comments
Republicans for Nader
I'm not proposing any such organization, but I've found this story which suggests that President Bush and candidate Kerry, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, are tied in the key Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With candidate Ralph Nader thrown into the mix, President Bush is leading slightly, 44-percent to 40-percent, with Nader drawing 5-percent.
Polls, for what they be worth, probably show similar situations in other State, so it behooves us to see that Nader is on the ballot in as many States as possible. The Nader campaign has a page on their web site dealing with what you can do to get Nader's name of the ballot in your State.
Through the process of gathering signatures and overcoming the hurdles for ballot access we intend to build a grass roots foundation for the fall campaign. Ballot access, while a challenge, should not only be seen as an opportunity to make our democracy more vibrant, it should also be seen as an opportunity to organize your neighborhood, your community and your state.Yadda, yadda, yadda, we get the picture, blah, blah, blah.
I don't think the election will be close enough for Nader to make a difference, but the more we say is certain, the less we actually know. And one never knows. Every little bit helps
0 comments
"Wictory Wednesday" is today
Good morning, and Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Candidate John Kerry, despite his inferences on the Senate floor, is not Irish. But he has never been adverse to lying when he deems it to be politically expedient.
As the campaign progresses, the Bush/Cheney campaign has to respond to Kerry's lies and publish his abysmal record. The man is so utterly unqualified to be in a position of public trust, much less President of the United States, that the campaign will have to be trenchant and effective. Remember, it is not just Kerry that stands in the President's way, it is the opinion of scores of non-existent "WORLD LEADERS." Right?
Kerry has nothing positive on which to run, thus his message has to be negative. President Bush can run on his record, about which Kerry will continue to lie.
Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.
And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:
0 comments
3/16/2004
"That Kerry Don't Much Care for Soldiers"
Serving four (4) months in Vietnam was the brave and honorable thing to do. Of course, he did return home to curse those with whom he served, but he still, as we know, served in Vietnam.
At least the Congress voted to pay him. He voted not to pay today's soldiers.
Visit GeorgeWBush.com to view the ads. And to preempt any Kerry outcry, we have THIS from the AP:
The military has rules limiting troops in ads to avoid the appearance of an endorsement by a certain branch or a service member. But a Pentagon official who reviewed the ad said it doesn't appear to violate any Army regulations or Defense Department directives because the commercial does not clearly show the identity of the soldiers or any insignias of a branch.
0 comments
Iran is not quiet tonight
"The March 16 Riot has begun."Geopolitics. The reports I am getting from the expats paint a picture of a large riot in the Islamic Republic of Iran. But we're getting two stories.
This from the SMCCDI information service:
Noise of fire crackers' explosions and celebration have started to echo in most Iranian cities before the night fall. Millions of Iranians have come into the streets, in the late hours of the afternoon, in another show of defiance to the regime and its security forces which are staying, for right now, afar contenting to look the crowd.Yeah, but Reuters (via CNN) dishes a completely different brand:
In practically each street and avenue of main cities, such as, Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Mashad, Tabriz, Kermanshah, Hamadan, Oroomiah (former Rezai-e) large fire crackers are exploding as a prelude to a massive and unprecedented celebration of one of main Iranian cultural heritage and Islamic taboo breaking events.
Iranians danced in the street, threw firecrackers and jumped over bonfires Tuesday night as authorities openly tolerated an ancient fire festival for the first time in 25 years.That is not the same set of events genuinely interpreted differently; rather, someone is pulling the synthetic wool over our non-bionic eyes.
Halted each year since the 1979 Islamic revolution because hardliners considered it un-Islamic, the Chaharshanbeh Suri, or Red Wednesday, festival was officially recognized in Tehran where the city council set aside dozens of parks for people to enjoy the boisterous celebrations.
We've got more from SMCCDI:
The Islamic republic regime's anti-riot units and plainclothes men have opened the charge, at this time 21:35 local time, against the demonstrators in southern Tehran, Esfahan's Tchahr Bagh and the city of Mashad by using knives, clubs and chains. Unconfirmed reports are stating about the use of plastic bullets in Esfahan and the Sadeghieh square of Tehran.And:
Several have been badly wounded during the attacks but fierce resistance is being made by thousands of young Iranians, male and female, who are opposing the attacks by the use of all available tools and especially Molotov cocktails which were made for such eventuality.
Sporadic and minor clashes have started in several areas of the Iranian Capital, Tehran and its suburbs, especially in the southern, eastern and western areas as the night has fall and streets are enflame with thousands of fire set for celebrating the traditional but banned "Tchahar Shanbe Soori".No one else is carrying anything about this, as best I can tell.
This time is no more the security forces that are taking initiative of attack but young exasperated Iranians who are throwing hand made grenades and powerful fire crackers against them and forcing them take distance. Several security patrols cars and bikes caught in the middle of the crowd have been damaged by fire or abandoned as its occupants preferred to escape from crowd which is making use of the sirens and speakers of governmental confiscated repressive tools for broadcasting songs under the desperate eyes of the regime forces.
Here's a quote from the AFP in a similar vein:
"We have nothing against celebrations and merry-making," [Tehran] police chief Morteza Talaie was quoted as saying, "as long as the limits are not exceeded."Limits, indeed.
We'll see about Iran tomorrow, if more information circumnavigates the mullahs, but I now, as always, anathematize any affront to human freedom. And I think we could be observing a free Iran AND a free Syria by November. By November, hopefully, because the President deserves to be rewarded for his strong role.
0 comments
Libya Ticked Off
On Monday, the White House displayed parts of some dismantled Libyan missiles. It's good news/let's celebrate. Libya, on the other hand, is acting much as if their rights under the Geneva convention were violated.
They were building proscribed weapons, but the demand their dignity. [Reuters LINK]
0 comments
Tragic News
This from Bill Hobbs at Hobbs Online.
Blogger Scott Elliott lost both of his parents yesterday - Larry Thomas Elliott, 60, and Jean Dover Elliott, 58, of Cary, N.C., were two of the four Christian missionaries killed in Iraq, where they were doing humanitarian work. They were killed while scouting the best location for a water purification project. Islamist terrorists killed them while they were trying to help Muslims. Click here and also scroll up.May God hold dear these brave and wonderful people, and may He comfort their families. They are in our prayers.
Also killed in Iraq in recent days was blogger Bob Zangas, a Marine Corps Reservist working in a civilian capacity for the Coalition Provisional Authority.
All three died in the service of a great cause: bringing of democracy, freedom and hope to a people that have for centuries known only oppression and fear. Pray for God's blessings on their surviving family members and friends.
0 comments
South Dakota Abortion Ban
I reported here and here about South Dakota's H.B. 1911, a bill protect the right to life of an unborn human being. The bill was carefully crafted to call upon the Supreme Court to give a final yea/no on Roe v. Wade. Follow those links for more information. This post is a post mortem.
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, out of South Dakota, reports today that the bill failed in the South Dakota senate, 17-18, after Republican Governor Mike Rounds had forced changes which had passed the State house, 52-16.
The bill faced another vote in the Senate because Gov. Mike Rounds issued what is sometimes considered a technical veto. The style-and-form veto allows a governor to send a bill back to the Legislature with suggested revisions. If lawmakers agree with the suggestions, they vote and send it back. If they disagree, the bill dies.The SD senate, by one vote, disagreed.
0 comments
Who's to Poll the Pollsters?
Here are two from Britain's Independent news.
The first poll was one in which "[a] total of 2,500 Iraqis were questioned for a group of international broadcasting organisations [sic], including the BBC, in a poll to mark the first anniversary of the outbreak of war." This one showed that 57-percent of Iraqis surveyed thought life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein's scaly heel, compared to 19-percent: Ba'ath Party apologists who want to slither back under Saddam's soiled skirt. That's pretty good, considering that security (from crime, not the regime) was much better under the man loathed as a Stalinist by most Senate Democrats at one point or another.
That is a high percentage who think that life is better without the man-in-the-hole, especially given that 85% say security is the main problem in Iraq. Thirty-percent want their own government, while 28% say that their main concern is the economy, stupid.
Seventy-percent said that life was good, while 71% forecast that it would get even better. ("The future's so bright/ I've gotta wear shades.") Most of 'em trusted religious leaders (70-percent) and local police (68-percent), while confidence in coalition forces was at 25%. The police and clergy are going to have to help maintain public order
The other poll, of Britons taken for BBC2'sNewsnight, showed that 48-percent of those surveyed agree with their Prime Minister that the war was a good thing, while only 43-percent still opposed. That's not what the U.S. press tells us. They have the Brits ready to burn Blair and Bush in effigy. (Or burn a statue, as the case may be.) Forty-percent think Blair hyped the WMD, and 32-percent would trust Blair to make decisions on future military actions, nearly the combined total for Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat ("Lib Dem") Charles "F" Kennedy.
But another story in the same Brit paper has at our President:
The repudiation by a major ally of Mr Bush's war in Iraq has come at the worst possible moment for him: just as the White House attempts to use the first anniversary of the invasion to justify its policies.It's a repeated of the lazy myth that the Spanish election even vaguely resembled a referendum on the POTUS, and that President Bush is being forced to justify anything.
0 comments
The U.S. Economy Rocks!
I snagged this story from the Frenchies at Agence France-Presse (AFP):
US industry massively boosted production in February, Federal Reserve data showed Monday, reviving beaten-down hopes for an escape from years of labor market lethargy.They quote a senior economist, Sal Guatieri, of the Canadian BMO (Bank of Montreal) Financial Group:
Combined, the United States' factories, mines and utilities raised output 0. 7 percent in February, slightly higher than expected, following a 0.8-percent increase in January.
Critically, manufacturing output shot up 1.0 percent, with gains across a swathe of products.
Mining output crept up 0.1 percent.
Utilities cut output 0.7 percent as milder winter weather cut demand for power.
"It certainly indicates the economic recovery is sustainable at a strong pace. It should only be a matter of time before factories start to hire again."Economists have noted that this has been a productivity-driven, "jobless" recovery, but that looks likely to change.
We also have THIS from the Milwaukee Business Journal:
According to the Glendale-based global staffing firm's Manpower Employment Outlook Survey, 28 percent of U.S. employers expect to add jobs in the second quarter, compared with just 6 percent who expect to cut jobs. Sixty-two percent of employers see no change in employment levels, while 4 percent remained uncertain."McDonald's jobs"?
The improved employment outlook even includes the hard-hit durable goods manufacturing sector, where employers see a moderate increase in jobs over the previous quarter and significant growth compared with a year ago.We'll await candidate Kerry's nuance, but it looks as if he'll need to cast his eyes around the fertile American landscape for a trace of something dead or dying. He'll need new issues.
0 comments
Kerry's Cuban Lie
This is from the Miami Herald, later excerpted in the WashTimes:
[A] local television journalist [ posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:The Herald reporter, one Peter Wallsten, blamed Kerry's falsehood on "Republicans exploit[ing] his 19-year [Senate] voting history to paint the Massachusetts senator as a waffler."
What will you do about Cuba?
As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.
''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.
Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.
His 19-year Senate voting record provides ample proof that he is a waffler, but that was not the point. Kerry lied about voting for Helms-Burton. That's not waffling. It's lying.
0 comments
"You've gotta beat this guy…"
Jim Geraghty of the State News Service in Washington offers an answer to an important geopolitical question in this morning's NRO: "Does Blair prefer President Kerry?" My first thoughts went to domestic policy -- Blair is a quasi-socialist -- but Geraghty quotes Peter Riddell in the Times of London:
"The whole point of Tony Blair is that he's interested in who's in power. He's not particularly interested in ideology."Geraghty's article is an interesting piece which I commend to your attention, and I particularly liked his conclusion:
One wonders if that sharp divide might drive Blair to whisper to President Bush, "I can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, I look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy...."Read the piece: HERE.
0 comments
Boneheaded Statement
Geopolitics? This comes from MSNBC National affairs writer Tom Curry, who wrote a clownish piece confusing Spanish domestic politics and U.S. domestic politics.
WASHINGTON - Spanish voters rejected President Bush by proxy on Sunday, by ousting the party of his ally Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Will American voters be influenced to do likewise?I've talked about the election in Spain, holding that it was not al Qaeda or any other group of terrorist punks who determined the outcome. It was Aznar's laughable handling of the situation.
But even if you want to believe that al Qaeda won the election in Span, it was not a referendum on American President George W. Bush. Aznar's Popular Party was leading in the polls prior to the terrorist attack, so Aznar's alliance with the President was not enough to cost him the election. The Spaniards voted on Spanish issues, not on the President of the United States.
Curry's question showed either extreme geopolitical stupidity, or it was a bit of partisan sloganeering. You know, it did sound like a Kerry claim: "World leaders told me that they were pulling for me, and the Spanish election was a rejection of Bush's foreign policy."
It's a Presidential election year, not that this has changed the rhetoric of the Democrats. Including that of their apparant allies in the press.
0 comments
3/15/2004
Iraq to U.N.: 'STAY HOME!!!'
Geopolitics. There was a time, when France still thought itself a global player, when they argued for an immediate U.N. takeover in Iraq with an eventual turnover of sovereignty to the Iraqis by… last December [LINK]. Germany was with her. That proved to be impossible, of course, as the French try worm their way back onto the legitimate global stage by demanding regime change in Haiti.
American Democrats, and the Democrat candidates when the term was a plural one and candidate Kerry now, have argued for a greater role for the U.N. (The demanded role has, in most cases, diminished as the initial demands have proven asinine.) Spain's incoming Socialist Prime Minister Zapatero has pledged to withdraw all Spanish troops form Iraq on June 30 if the U.N. is not given a larger role.
Then there is THIS from the NYTimes:
Several members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which clamored for United Nations help on elections weeks ago, now say they are reluctant to give the organization a big role either in helping to prepare the Iraqi government to stand on its own or in readying the country for nationwide elections -- to take place as early as December.The problem, and it is an ironic one, is that the United States government now wants the U.N. to play a major role in the political reconstruction of Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan. However…
. . .
"We have had bad experiences with the U.N. in the past," said Yonadam Kanna, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. "There is a difference of opinion on what their role should be here."
But some Iraqi leaders continued to express deep skepticism about whether the United Nations should be allowed to return to take a role in Iraq. Intifad Qanbar, a spokesman for Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the council, said that while the United Nations might have a role in the country, it ought to be strictly limited.See also this AP article via al Jazeerah.
"There is a track record that shows the U.N. is not efficient in these things," Mr. Qanbar said. "We cannot have anyone overseeing or managing this Iraqi process from outside Iraq."
"[UN Envoy] Lakhdar Brahimi has achieved what the United States wanted from him," charged Hamed Al Bayati, a spokesman for the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Shiite political party. "I don't recall anything agreed that suggests that the UN will be invited back to help. It may be just a common presumption."If the U.N. will help the stubborn nations like France and Russia to recognize the new Iraqi government as legitimate, then by all means bring them in. They've never done an altogether shoddy job at such things.
For good measure, call in Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela for further legitimacy. Then Bill Clinton and Howard Dean to take it away.
It seems that anything regarding the United Nations is naught but a game.
0 comments
Spain Results: A Victory for Terrorists?
Nope. Geopolitics. There was a message from someone, purporting to be The Terrorists, thanking Spain for dumping the Aznar government, but it was a hindsight note from someone or other. It means nothing.
Aznar's Popular Party -- the ministers of which my wife reminded me this morning have fallen through the Earth's crust -- was leading before the blast. They lost. What transpired between A and B? The ten blasts.
What message did the blasts send to the Spanish electorate? Ask them. But they had a government screaming ETA at the top of their lungs when it was apparent that it was not the Basque separatist outfit. Aznar botched the post-attack reaction, and he paid the price. There could be no feeling of good will for or solidarity with the Aznar government after that nonsense.
Again, was it a victory for the terrorists? Again, no. What did they accomplish? They replaced one government which doesn't much like them with another government which, I have to assume, does not particularly care for them.
Does this harm "Bush's war on terror"? No. And it's not the President's war; it's the world's. Every nation from France to the Yemen has been cooperating in this war on terror apace, regardless of what was happening and had happened in Iraq. If anything, Spain will play a larger role. The Frenchies and the Belgians are among those pushing for the EU to work faster on anti-terror measures.
What about the mission in Iraq? The date given by the new Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero for withdrawing the troops, and he repeated that it was a firm date, is June 30. If the date seems familiar, that's because it is the same date the United States plans to turn over sovereignty in Iraq to their new government. And Zapatero has said he would consider keeping his troops there after that if the U.N. were given a larger role in Iraq. (At that point, it won't matter. The Iraqis will govern their own country anyway.)
Plus, as Erick Erickson at Confessions of a Political Junkie reports, the Poles have offered to add troops to make up for any loss from Spain. (Spain rejoins Old Europe.)
Do not make a bigger deal out of this election than it is. The President has seen a certain ally traded for a potential jerk, but this is a minor moment. The "major blow" nonsense is from the media types whose publishers know that histrionics and panic sell papers.
0 comments
Kerry's Foreign Leaders
Last Monday (3/8), I posted that:
John Kerry's campaign has taken on a Jayson Blair-like feel, with anonymous sources invented for convenience.I linked to a Reuters article which mentioned it only briefly:
Without naming anybody, Kerry said he had received words of encouragement from leaders abroad who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2.It's with a hat tip to PoliPundiit that I observe that incoming Spanish PM Jose Luiz Zapatero told the Majorca Daily Bulletin prior to Sunday's election:
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.
"The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry."That's an appeal to the anti-Bush sentiment amongst Zapatero's supporters and not to be taken literally, but the Bush/Cheney campaign might be thinking: "Bring it on!"
0 comments
Sharpton backs Kerry
Dem candidate John Kerry has at long last picked up the key endorsement of Al Sharpton for the Democrat nomination:
"It would be misleading and futile to campaign for the nomination, but it continues for the platform and direction of the party," Sharpton told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "My campaign continues now to pick up delegates so that we can go to the convention to coalesce with other delegates."That's as enthusiastic as it gets here.
Delicate rumor is that Kerry has purchased a Ouija board to seek the support of the Founding Fathers. He will refuse, of course, to tell us which of the dearly departed patriots have told him to oust President Bush at all costs.
0 comments
Kerry gives Bush Green Light…
…to use 9-11 at willWithout saying it explicitly, candidate Kerry has destroyed his opportunity to meaningfully criticize President Bush if the latter opts to use extensive footage from his actions in the aftermath of September 11 in his campaign. This extends to delivering his GOP nomination acceptance speech live from Ground Zero.
Said Kerry to the International Association of Fire Fighters' legislative conference in Washington today [UPI]:
" ... After September 11th, President Bush went to New York, stood at Ground Zero, stood with our firefighters. I wish the president would go back now and ask whether he has stood with you since that day."Kerry first invoked the President's leadership after the attacks, and now President Bush can stress it without fear of possibly valid complaint. Kerry has stripped that away from himself.
"You brought it up, John."
John Kerry is an unfit nominee.
0 comments
Putin Coasts to Victory
Geopolitics. I have been reluctant to mention this, because just the thought of it invariably triggers the onset of ennui. Putin won the election in the Russian Republic, and I wonder if he were playing one of Prokofiev's violin concerti while the historic Manezh burned near the infamous Kremlin building.
The KGB agent/Russian President -- you can take the man out of the agency… -- but Vladimir Putin's government owns the airwaves, and the news broadcasts began and ended with Putin's visage. Putin received 71-percent of the vote, with Nikolai Kharitonov of the Agrarian Deputy Group trailing in second place with 13.8-percent.
Putin won an ostensibly democratic election. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev should be proud that he managed such a total behind the façade of pluralism.
0 comments
Kerry's Veepstakes, Part ???
In today's NRO, David Hoberg looks at the names offered so far in candidate Kerry's Veepstake's -- Bayh, Edwards, Gephardt, and Rodham-Clinton -- and finds them, as I quote: "BORRRRRRING!"
In the spirit of the great campaign, he offers up a few names of his own: Dennis Kucinich, Lenora Fulani, Maxine Waters, Sean Penn, Matthew Lesko,, and -- Get this one! -- Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia). Read his article to see why.
As with any limited-space submission, Hoberg didn't list a few names, but we can fill in the remainder. I'll start:
Fritz Mondale - He would like to think he has the gravitas that sane people know Kerry lacks, He's the natural candidate. Twice, the Dems have relied on Fritz to fill in as the stand-in in a pre-lost election -- 1984 against President Reagan and 2002 after Paul Wellstone left the building -- so perhaps the third lost cause could be a charm.
0 comments
French almost catch bin Laden
Reuters reports that the French are boasting of having almost caught Osama bin Laden [link].
"Our men were not very far. On several occasions, I even think he slipped out of a net that was quite well closed," he [French defense chief General Henri Bentegeat] told Europe 1 radio. He did not specify a time frame.It is likely that the French opted instead to surrender.
In news sure to
"He [bin Laden] symbolizes September 11 and is certainly not completely innocent in what happened in Madrid," he said, making a link between the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington and the Spanish train bombings last Thursday.Remember, liberals don't much care for obvious links between bin Laden and global nastiness. At least not that sponsored by Saddam Hussein when he was a player in the network.
0 comments
New Column on RSN web site
The latest column by Judson Cox, The Destructive Nature of Homosexuality, is LIVE on the Rightsided Newsletter web site:
In last week's column, I urged the silent majority to take a vocal stand against gay marriage. Such a stand would be in opposition to the liberal media, activist judges and lawyers and lily-livered leaders who would prefer to issue statements of vague concern rather than taking substantial action. Courage is required, because anyone who criticizes any aspect of the gay agenda is labeled a bigot.
I am immune to accusations of bigotry, because I consider myself an equal opportunity bigot -- I expect the worst from everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or national origin. Like most Americans, I take a fairly libertarian view of sexual activities among consenting adults. I wouldn't even ask gays to stay closeted --call your self whatever you want -- but, keep sex in the bedroom; and for Pete's sake, close the doors and draw the shades! Don't try to force our nation to accept your sexual behaviors through judicial fiat (which is really what gay marriage is all about). Homosexuality is a destructive behavior and lifestyle that must be discouraged. [MORE]
0 comments
Spain's Contribution to the "Unilateral" Force
Incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero today tempered his vow to withdraw all 1,300 Spanish troops in the "unilateral" force helping to secure Iraq. A Socialist Party spokesman explained that Zapatero would keep the troops there if the U.N. were given a broader role in Iraq. (Another socialist waffler. Go figure.)
From the Drudge Report, here is a list of countries currently contributing to the "unilateral" force, along with the number of troops they have on the ground in Iraq:
1. United States: 130,000
2. Britain: 9,000
3. Italy: 3,000
4. Poland: 2,460
5. Ukraine: 1,600
6. Spain: 1,300
7. Netherlands: 1,100
8. Australia: 800
9. Romania: 700
10. Bulgaria: 480
11. Thailand: 440
12. Denmark: 420
13. Honduras: 368
14. El Salvador: 361
15. Dominican Republic: 302
16. Hungary: 300
17. Japan: 240 (rising to 550 by the end of March)
18. Norway: 179
19. Mongolia: 160
20. Azerbaijan: 150
21. Portugal: 128
22. Latvia: 120
23. Lithuania: 118
24. Nicaragua: 113
25. Slovakia: 102
26. Czech Republic: 80
27. Philippines: 80
28. Albania: 70
29. Georgia: 70
30. New Zealand: 61
31. Moldova: 50
32. Estonia: 31
33. Macedonia: 37
34. Kazakhstan: 25
On NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, Howard "Remember Me?" Dean declared that this force was unilateral, as the countries with a significant number of troops in the country were the United States, Great Britain, and Poland. He neglected Italy, which has more troops on the ground than does Poland (3,000 to 2,460).
Meanwhile, I've seen the possible withdrawal of the 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq portrayed as a significant setback to the "unilateral" coalition. Dean called any contribution of few troops than Poland, and Italy's greater contribution, as "insignificant." I assume he wants 50,000 French troops on the ground, forgetting that they're bogged down and asking for U.S. help in the Ivory Coast.
0 comments
Another Reason to Kill Babies?
Stem cells might cure baldness.
Not so fast.
Penn researchers hope to one day isolate stem cells in an adult scalp and transplant those cells to other areas of the scalp, generating new follicles and hair growth. Using the stem cell transplant as a treatment for hair loss, however, is at least 10 years away, says Cotsarelis.The research does not involve human embryonic stem cells; rather, these are hair stem cells, found in the hair follicles of adults. So the babies are spared, the abortionists slightly annoyed, and a few people might soon be able to enjoy a full head of hair.
I might protest this anyway, though.
0 comments
Spain Corrects Itself
The best theory I've heard for the defeat of the Aznar government in yesterday's Spanish elections is that Spanish voters did not like the manner in which the government tried to use Thursday's terrorist attacks for political purposes. As I wrote at the time, the Spanish government practically forced the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to include in their resolution condemning the attack language specifically blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. Why ETA? Well, the Aznar government was first elected, governed, and campaigned as the anti-ETA party.
The UNSC now expects Spain to write them a letter explaining why they had initially insisted that ETA be blamed, especially in light of evidence that the attack was perpetrated and carried out by Islamic extremists. [Reuters AlertNet LINK]
[T]he pressure from Spain [on the UNSC to name ETA] was constant, with diplomats reporting that then-Foreign Minister Ana Palacio even called German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer after the German delegation in the council questioned the wisdom of naming ETA.Embarrassing to the Aznar government, perhaps, but no more so than losing an election after holding an absolute parliamentary majority.
Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali said on Friday he thought it was important that the resolution condemned the attack. But, he said, "if it is established in two days that it was someone else, that would be really embarrassing."
America loses an ally in José Maria Aznar, but he was in place when it counted. The part for which we needed allies against old Europe is long finished,
0 comments
New Column on RSN Site…
The new Barbara J. Stock column, Blame Spain for the Next Terror Attack, blames Spanish Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar's Popular Party's electoral defeat on Spanish backlash from his support of the Americans in the Iraq battle. That vote, she writes, is turning tail from terrorists:
When the next bomb goes off--perhaps this time in Poland--the families of the dead should blame the people in Spain who voted to run from terrorists and cower before them instead of standing strong against them.
Sound cruel? Perhaps, but it is the sad truth. The majority of Spaniards decided to follow the illogical path of blaming their President for the attack in Madrid instead of the people who actually carried out mass murder. In doing so, they handed the butchers a victory. Terrorism and murder have been handsomely rewarded this day. [MORE]
0 comments
All the World Loves Kerry...?
The quote:
I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."I had suggested Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Viking Pundit suggested Robert Mugabe. Others have suggested Kerry-endorser Kim Jong-Il of North Korea.
Colin Powell, on FOX News Sunday, suggested that he name some names or shut up.
In a New York Times story on the matter, a small business owner named Cedric Brown asked:
"Were they people like Blair or were they people like the president of North Korea?" he asked, referring to the British prime minister, Tony Blair. "Why not tell us who it was? Senator, you're making yourself sound like a liar."Kerry, for his part, fumbled: "I can't violate any conversation because no one would share something with me again."
He stumbled: ""I think the quote, the quote in the comment I made publicly, I believe, was that I `heard from,' that's the direct quote. I've likewise had meetings. I've also had conversations. I said I've heard from, that was what I believe I said."
And, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, he mumbled: "The point is that all across the world Americans and America is meeting with a new level of hostility, and that there are relationships that have been broken, and everybody who follows the foreign policy of the United States understands that."
His point was that world leaders had walked up to him and told him that he had to replace President Bush for the good of the world and the freedom of mankind. It never happened. And Kerry's prev-ERRY-cation is getting some amusing press.
tick, tick, tick, tick…
0 comments
3/14/2004
The Truth behind the campaign claims…
TIME Magazine online has this little blurb from their March 22 edition, labeled: "A periodic look at the charges being made against the presidential candidates — and the facts behind them."
They look at two campaign claims, then the "actual facts."
The first is the Bush campaign's claim that Kerry would raise taxes by $900-million in the first 100 days of his hypothetical administration. The facts as TIME sees them, reading between the lines, is that candidate Kerry's health care plan would cost an estimated $895-million, and that Kerry's campaign says that it hasn't yet figured out how he would raise the money.
The second claim is Kerry's personal claim that the economy, under President Bush, is losing two (2) jobs each minute. The facts as TIME sees them are that, while this might have been true at one time, the economy is currently gaining 1.4 jobs per minute.
Kerry is misleading the American people again, lying about the President's record. His house is solid glass, so he'd better put down the rocks.
0 comments
New Government in Spain
Turnout was 63-percent of registered voters, up from 54-percent in 2000. The Socialist Party won 163 of the 350 seats in parliament, short of an outright majority, and the incoming Prime Minister is a socialist named José Lús Rodrguez Zapatero, who was not in a celebratory mood: "My first thought is for the lives that have been broken by Thursday's attacks."
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party took 148 seats, though he was no longer leading the party. Mariano Rajoy had just acceded to the position conceded the loss. [link]
Many in the American media, and a few Spaniards they've sought out, attribute Aznar's loss to his support for the unpopular (in Span) American invasion of Iraq. It may well be that, and it probably cost Aznar some votes, but he was slated to win this election until recently. The American press wants to turn the Spanish election into a referendum on the American president, which should be gravely insulting to the Spanish electorate.
More likely, it was voter dissatisfaction about the way in which the Aznar government handled Thursday's catastrophe on the rails in Madrid. The government's quick, forceful, and stubborn drive to blame the Basque separatist group ETA was seen as political manipulation by some Spanish voters.
The Socialists vowed to pull Spain's 1,300 troops if elected, and they were, but such campaign promises do not always look the same in the light.
You know, if Europeans are so averse to war after having endured the horrors of World War II, one would think they would be equally repelled by socialism, after having lived next door to the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for some many decades.
Then again, they didn't fight that war.
0 comments
2,000 (Count 'Em) Voted in Kansas' Dem Caucuses
My friend Steve Roberts tells me that the Kansas Democrat Party reports that turnout for yesterday's fifty caucuses was "about 2,000." (Steve thinks that figure might be high.) This is the Statewide turnout, "Unified Behind Kerry," out of 422,000 registered Dems in Kansas.
According to the Lawrence Journal, the two caucuses at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital drew 168 participants. Steve adds that turnout was high in the "very heavily Dem areas of Johnson County (Kansas City, KS)." These were identified yesterday as areas chock full of Deaniacs, lost souls who presumably wanted to make some sort of point. (A report yesterday had them getting at least one delegate for Dean, so that's something.)
The four-plus county caucus in Topeka drew 20 Dems. The print edition of this morning's Wichita Eagle, I'm told, contained no ink on the nine caucuses there. Nothing for the liberal paper to report?
Excitement and enthusiasm, Democrat Unity -- it may be time to begin referring to the "Kerry Juggernaut"!
0 comments
A Kerry Character 4 Late Night
According to an essay in today's NYTimes:
[T]he nation's late-night comedians still haven't quite pegged him. They haven't completed the ritual of turning a presidential candidate into a stock character like Bush the Dumb Frat Boy, Gore the Know-It-All Stiff, Clinton the Gluttonous Lecher or Reagan the Amiable Dunce.Note that conservatives, to the Times rag, must be caricatured as stupid: Bush as "dumb," President Reagan as a "Dunce." (That's not how I saw President Reagan caricatured, but it fits what the writer, John Tierney is into. Perhaps he was in diapers when President Reagan was in Washington.)
He mentions attempts at portraying Kerry as a "rich guy," a "gold digger," a "war bore" (repeats at regular intervals that he served in Vietnam), a "waffler," and as a dour "killjoy." They all work for me, better in a combination, but they evidently don't work for MTV-reject Colin Quinn:
"We're just starting to get a bead on Kerry," said Mr. Quinn, the host of "Tough Crowd," a daily comedians' roundtable on Comedy Central. "He should eventually be an improvement on Bush, who's getting played out, but right now Kerry is not a real lively one. We need more information on him. People are waiting for something funny to happen, like the choking-on-a-pretzel thing."It would seem, then, that high-brow political humor is lost on idiots like Quinn, who seek to program generations of young people, plugging in likes and dislikes to sell their warped brand. (Perhaps not Quinn, who may or not be an idiot, but I've had it in for the cultural degenerates at MTV since they showed up on my political radar screen. I wish they'd shut up and play music videos, leave the rest of us alone.)
A Kerry character would be "Mr. Nuance," an expressionless man in a torn military uniform, like the type Kerry and his friends with the VVAW. Throw in a little "Donald Trump" for the nuance of wealth, and have Mr. Nuance waffle and prevaricate, unable to make up his mind but detailing his everchanging moods in expansive and convoluted language.
That's the John F. Kerry we know.
0 comments
Candidate Kerry's Subtle Racism
Secretary of State Colin Powell is being called a puppet, doing the bidding of his White House puppeteers, his name and international reputation being used for by The Man for nefarious purposes.
From FOX News Sunday, with Christ Wallace [transcript]:
HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Hans Blix, the former head of U.N. weapons inspectors, has just written a new book, and I want to show you what he has to say about your presentation to the Security Council that day in February of 2003.Again, Blix and the press, though not per se Wallace, are accusing Powell of serving his master. I hate to phrase it that way. Blix, without being explicit, is ripping a page from entertainer Harry Belefonte in 2002, and calling the Secretary a "house negro." This is reprehensible, and Blix is joined by someone else of some promence.
"Much of the material in Powell's presentation had been made available to us by the U.S. and other countries. We had inspected most of the sites he described and taken samples from them for analysis that could detect traces of chemicals or biological agents if there were any. We had examined records and interviewed people at these sites. In no case had we found convincing evidence of any prohibited activity."
And then Blix concluded with this: "It is hard to avoid the reflection that Colin Powell had been charged with the thankless task of hauling out the smoking guns that, in January, were said to be irrelevant and that, after March, turned out to be nonexistent."
Mr. Secretary, Blix says that the White House was using your credibility to build its case.
SEC. OF STATE COLIN POWELL:Well, I disagree with Dr. Blix. And you can look at Dr. Blix's reports to the United Nations during this period — very extensive reporting. And you will see that he lists many, many unanswered questions that he couldn't answer with respect to what Saddam Hussein was doing.
He found the declaration that Saddam Hussein presented 30 days after the U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed that was so inadequate, there were questions that were unanswered. And so, Dr. Blix's own presentation to the U.N. left many, many unanswered questions. And so, I don't think...
WALLACE: Well, what about this argument that somehow the White House was using your credibility, your standing in the international community?
POWELL: Well, it's what you keep saying, Chris, because it's, you know, it's the story you want to keep putting out there and Dr. Blix wants to put out there. [ital. mine]
Writing in the New York Times last Sunday, candidate John Kerry declared that Secretary Powell is "never permitted to be fully a secretary of state in the way that I envision the secretary of state." From FNS:
WALLACE: Senator Kerry also has had something to say about you. He says that you've been undercut on a regular basis by the more hawkish members of the Bush administration. Here's what he said: "I think, simply, Powell, who I know, like and admire, has never been permitted to be fully secretary of state in a way that I envision the secretary of state."Same thing. Kerry is calling the Secretary of State of "house negro." This is disgusting. And the thing is, Kerry is too out-of-touch to realize how offensive his accusation is.
Does he have that right?
POWELL: No, I don't think he has that right. The president has me right now on the lead on so many issues, whether it has to do with our relations with China, what we're doing with the new Republic of Georgia, whether it has to do with Haiti, whether it has to do with Iraq, whether it has to do with negotiations with our European friends and the IAEA on Iran, whether it has to do with Russia, where I was last month. I'm on my way to the subcontinent now.
Name a specific issue where it looks like I have been marginalized. I was part of the team that took this case to the United Nations for Iraq. I am working on the North Korean issue. And so this is also an easy charge.
Are there differences of view within an administration? Sure. And we resolve those differences of view. But I know what the president wants, I know what his agenda is, and he knows that I am working his agenda. So these sorts of charges are always interesting to read and fun to gossip about, but don't have any standing in reality.
Confronted with the same Kerry quote by Wolfgang Blizer, host of CNN's Late Edition, Powell dismissed it as a "stereotype." He used the term twice, including his immediate reaction: "It has become something of a traditional, familiar Washington stereotype."
Democrats of all stripes love this line of though, that Powell is the "token black," putting a friendly face on a hard-line foreign policy. They insult a brilliant and talented man.
0 comments
The Sunday Rightsided Newsletter
The Sunday RSN is LIVE on the web site. It's a review and analysis of the Sunday shows, and this morning, we saw Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and a splendid performance by Howard Dean on NBC's Meet the Press. The man cannot escape being "Howard Dean," and he has become a caricature.
Something distressing occurred to me while watching the shows this morning, though. I hate to say this, but candidate John Kerry and a certain segment of the opinion press see Secretary of State Colin Powell as the Administrations "house negro." (He's taking a cue from Harry Belafonte. I'll have more on that later in here.
Today's Rightsided Newsletter is HERE.
0 comments
Kerry should be in Finland
Stan tells us that he is a New Jersey grad student studying now in Finland. A liberal, he recently wrote me asking about trading links. Sure.
He recently posted about how Fins are devoid of emotion, a stoic lot. I included in the comments that he ought to work on the Fins while we saw what we could do for candidate Kerry. (I even linked that Maureen Dowd column about JF's dourness.)
Stan posted his thoughts on the matter. He talks of how they overdub the English-speaking politicians with carefully selected Fin voices.
I am very sure that the Finns would have elected him [Gore]. They seem to like being bored to death by non-emotionalist leaders. I think I'm on to something. Maybe Gore could become the next President of Finland. He could show Tarja [Finnish President Tarja Halonen] a thing or two about who could look more unintersted and emotionally deviod. Thats it! We can ship all our failed politicians to Finland to continue their careers!Hey, they love Kerry in Europe, right?
[NOTE: Be careful on Stan's blog. His language and thoughts, though not in this particular post, are often that of a "college student." -g-]
0 comments
This Morning's Talk Shows
KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer
And that's the KEY I use for my Sunday review and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, for the free Rightsided Newsletter. If you are interested, please visit our web site or send a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] tripod.com.
The Bush Administration owns this morning, except for forgotten-but-not-gone Howard Dean's appearance on the latter half of MTP. Opening MTP, though, will be National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Secretary of State Colin Powell is the lone guest on FNS and on TW, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gets the full half-hour on FTN.
LE is a rather more complicated affair, and we'll get the first hour. We'll see Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Senator Joe Lieberman. It'll be interesting to see how Lieberman, generally supportive of the Iraq war until now, reacts now that he's probably taking party-orders from his party's nominee. Will he undergo a transformation into an attack dog (borrowing Kerry's term) now that he must unify (he's rarely united) behind the candidate? Rumsfeld will be on, as will his former assistant, Richard Pearle.
This looks to be a less-than-annoying week.
0 comments
3/13/2004
Kerry and the Patriot Act
Eric from Viking Pundit Blogs for Bush Saturday with a look at Kerry's lies and smears regarding the Patriot Act. The man has no argument!
He's unfit to run for President, and…
tick… tick… tick… tick…
0 comments
John Kerry Lied About Water Policy and Karl Rove
Put his "Attack Dogs" accusation aside. Candidate JF Kerry is careless, churlish liar.
Last year, then-Senator Kerry (D-Massachusetts) read an article in the Wall Street Journal alleging that White House senior political advisor Karl Rove had brief Interior Department managers before a 2002 decision to divert water from the Klamath River in Oregon to irrigate farms.
Being an angry Democrat, then-Senator Kerry demanded an investigation by the Interior Department's inspector general. Well, Inspector General Earl Devaney sent Kerry a letter last week.
From the AP:
A major fish kill and other problems in the drought-plagued region have "fueled the flames of suspicion and distrust," Devaney wrote in the letter dated March 1 and released Friday by the Interior Department.In response, now-candidate Kerry harrumphed, said okay, and complained that a political advisor was talking to the Interior Department.
"However, we conclude that the (Interior) Department conducted itself in keeping with the administrative process, that the science and information utilized supported the department's decisions, and that no political pressure was perceived by any of the key participants," Devaney's letter said.
Said Kerry: in a statement:
"There are too many examples in this administration of politics trumping science, not to be concerned."He did not name one. It was a face-saving bit o' slander from a candidate who is proving himself to be despicable.
I advise the Democrats to find some procedural way to choose another candidate to run against President Bush. This one is a loser.
0 comments
Kerry wins Kansas Caucuses
Pardon the alliteration.
With 49 of 50 caucus sites reporting, it looked like this to Dorothy and Toto:
Kerry - 71%
Dennis - 10%
Edwards - 9%
Dean - 7%
Clark - 1%
This is according tothe Associated Press.
So what happened? The people who showed up at the caucuses selected delegates to the April 3rd State convention, who select the 33 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Beantown. At least one of the to-be-selected 33 must vote for Howard Dean at the DNC because of his strong support in Bob Dole's home town of Lawrence and the Kansas portion of the KC metropolitan area. The rest must vote for Kerry.
Eight delegates are superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials -- who get to vote for whomever they want.
Kansas will vote Republican in the fall.
0 comments
Kerry's Debates: the deal
Enough. Kerry Challenges Bush to Monthly Debates (Reuters). He's not, per se, serious. He knows that the President cannot debate him monthly, and if he even if he did have time, he should not. An incumbent's record is known, and he can stand only to lose unless he absolutely mops the stage with the challenger. That won't happen in this case, as Kerry can nuance his way out of a lot of things.
The Kerry campaign wants to float the notion that the candidate wants to debate President Bush. The President can then be portrayed as afraid to debate the challenger. This works for the challenger to that extend, and it has been done often.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, if you want to get a review and analysis of tomorrow mornings talk shows, subscribe free to the Rightsided Newsletter. The last three editions are available on the RSN web site, and is a means to subscribe free: LINK. You can subscribe also by sending off a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] topica.com .
0 comments
Together Again, At Last
The French wire AP tells us this afternoon that the United States if going to deliver the corpse of dead terrorist Abu Abbas to the Palestinian Authority, who the French wire say are awaiting permission to give the bury him.
Abu Abbas. In his 1991 autobio Under Fire, Lt. Col. Oliver North wrote of the mutant: "I used to wonder: how many dead Americans will it take before we do something?"
Now the Palestinians are going to get his corpse. He was a registered "Palestinian citizen," which means nothing if, as they say, they don't have a country. I propose that they stuff him and prop him up next to Arafat, whom I suspect has seen the taxidermist himself.
0 comments
The Presidential Race
Kerry's boyz tell the world that they have raised $10-million via the Internet since Super Tuesday, March 2. (For the month of February, they raised only $8-million by any means.
``The pace of our Internet fundraising is encouraging,'' spokesman DavidWrong. George Bush's fundraising base is energized, which story is told by his figures. (He's raised $160-million towards his goal of $170-million by the RNC at the end of the summer.) Few folks are energized by or about Kerry. His fundraising base is mostly energized to give to the A.B.B. 527s.
Wade said in an interview in Boston while traveling with Kerry. ``Democrats will always be financial underdogs against George Bush, but our base is energized.''
~~~~~
Steven Taylor at PoliBlog has posted this week's Toast-O-Meter, his look at the state of the Democrat Party's contenders and situation. It's always spectacularly "fortified with linkage," and I'm off to read it now. Join me. (Then return right here!)
0 comments
Ockham's Razor: Bruckner, Scandals, and Nuance
Anton Bruckner was a composer with whom many people weren't very familiar, what with his 70-minutes symphonies. One just couldn't fit these things on two sides of a vinyl LP, which is what we had. But with CDs, Bruckner has been selling fine, I assume, and this week was my Bruckner Symphony week here. I started Tuesday, with No. 2 in C Minor, 72:10. Then 4, 5, and 6. Tonight, it is to be Bruckner's Symphony No. 7 in E. The moral is: Ockham's Razor.
Attributed to the great Franciscan philosopher, the Venerable Inceptor William of Ockham, who came down with the Black Death and died in 1347, the Razor reads: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. Latin's a fine thing, but it's not particularly useful in 21st century communication. Let's try: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Better: The simplest of two or more competing theories or solutions is preferable. It could even be Keep it Simple, Stupid.
A New York Post editorial today relates to the convoluted hijinks of the Dems on Senate Judiciary regarding their corrupt plot to derail the President's judicial nominees and the "MAJOR SCANDAL" involving how the Republicans found out about it. As we've discussed, the Dems deflected attention from their corruption and directed the attention towards the way the GOP staff lifted the Democrat communications from their computers. Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) allowed this to happen, virtually ignoring the transgressions of the Dems and focusing instead on how the information became known.
In the past several days, I've talked about the latest here and here. Wow!
The Post editorial applies Ockham's Razor, not by name, to this convoluted Democrat "scandal." They look at Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle's 65-page report on the matter and conclude that for the Republicans, "[r]eading the memos was likely unethical and certainly discourteous." But nothing of the sort about which folks like Senators *Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, et al. were freaking out.
Why such hysterical over-reaction? Maybe because Leahy and Schumer hope to distract attention from what actually was in those strategy memos.Of course. There is nothing about which for Dems to be indignant; rather, they were twisting and turning matters to put the hapless GOP on the defensive. Chairman Hatch has not served the Senate GOP or, especially, the President and his nominees well. Next year, we will be faced with a Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), if he's able to hold off what appears to be surge from his primary opponent, conservative Representative Pat Toomey, and then defeat Democrat Representative Joe Hoeffel in November. I don't want to think what Specter would have done. Perhaps forbid GOP staff henceforth from using computers. Get out your legal pads, boyz!
The Democrats simply didn't guard their stuff. They left it "lying out in the open" for Republican staff.
That's that. And John Kerry's nuance takes a hammer to Ockham's Razor.
From a TIME maq press release:
When asked by TIME about President Bush's hate of the word 'nuance' and his opinion of the word, Kerry says, "Some of these issues are very complicated and deserve more than a simplistic this or that," says Kerry. As he speaks, Kerry heats up, grows loud, almost angry. His message shifts: Don't for a moment think all that worldliness means he has no convictions."But, of course, there was candidate Kerry, from CNN.com:
"I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise."Nuanced about nuance. Go figure. Methinks both of us could use Ockham's Razor about now. (Where do I plug it in?)
0 comments
New Column on the RSN site
SARTRE's new column, Frank Rich vs. Bill O'Reilly, is LIVE on the Rightsided Newsletter web site. Their feud? Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
A seemingly personal dispute may not immediately identify a global conflict. But the recent feud between the New York Times critic Frank Rich and the Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly, points out why the world is so dysfunctional. On the Imus morning radio program, both men had an opportunity to make their case and present their viewpoint. What was this controversy all about? Depending on your values, is how the answer to this question may well be shaped.
Rich hates "The Passion of the Christ", as a movie - or so he says. O'Reilly wrote a "Talking Points" called - Defining the Elite Media, that excoriates Rich as the epitome of the secular media culture. Both men have a well defined public persona and staunch followers. Each have faultfinders who eagerly pounce on any opportunity to savage either news celebrity. In the world of open ideological warfare, the mainstream media seldom participated and rarely departed from the 'PC' path of content. The mere fact that such an intense dispute has become possible, illustrates that the strangle hold that media elites once held, is starting to unravel. [MORE]
0 comments
When the ACLU Sues
The notion of a group which sues the government to protect our civil rights is an important one. Perhaps we should start one.
The State of Tennessee plans to issue "Choose Life" vanity license plates, but the ACLU is filed suit to stop this. They argued that the State was acting unconstitutionally by choosing which type of speech it wished to sanction, "unbridled discretion" to take sides in the abortion debate. [Nashville Tennessean story story, Saturday]
The State sought to have the suit dismissed, asserting that the plaintiff had suffered no injury which the court could redress. (For instance, the court could not provide a pro-choice plate to take care of the other side."
The state had argued that the plaintiffs were free to find a legislator to sponsor a bill for a ''Pro-Choice'' license plate as the ''Pro-Life'' advocates had done. Until the plaintiffs did so, the state attorney general's office contended, they could not claim that they had been denied the opportunity.U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell ruled that the court could simply order the State to cease issuing pro-life plates.
The State legislature, it would seem, is fulfilling a constituent request for the pro-life plates. The pro-abort constituents could also request plates, both sides would be expressing themselves, and the State would pick up a few dollars for the special plates. The ACLU's position is to stifle all speech on the matter. There's not a heck of a lot of civil liberty in that.
0 comments
John Kerry: War Hero
Anything for the candidate.
Good morning. The lead story on the political page of this morning's LATimes.com deals with candidate JF Kerry's heroism, under the headline: Repaying a Big Debt to Lt. Kerry.
FLORENCE, Ore. — The eyes still get watery 35 years later, and Jim Rassmann — former Green Beret, retired California cop — doesn't want anybody to see. He turns away or uses his beefy hands to cover up.The story does a fine job of telling the tale of Kerry's lifesaving hand reaching out, etc. If it's how this is remembered by the people who were there… but not the embellishing writer, Tomas Alex Tizon, Times Staff Writer. We get the writer's account.
But he gets through it, recalling in vivid detail the day, March 13, 1969, when John F. Kerry snatched him out of a muddy brown river in Vietnam and saved him from a watery end.
Either way, I'd like to register a complaint. This is a dead parrot! The article describes Rasmussen as a private man living his own life. His life has been somewhat disrupted by something which "grates against his nature." Because of the gratitude he feels for Kerry.
He spends his time "bags packed, waiting for a call from the Kerry people about the next leg [of campaigning]."
Kerry is using a man to exploit something as tragic to many Americans as the Vietnam. He's disgracing the memories of his "band of brothers" -- who cut off ears and wired genitals, he reported -- for a few votes.
Or is this unfair of me? Much less so than the opposite side attacking the President for mentioning the challenge of September 11.
0 comments
3/12/2004
Martha Stewart is a Democrat
No, it's pointless to try to do a "Guilt by Association" jig. Both parties have a few, and it turns out that some are better napkin folders than others. To wit, of Martha Stewart:
Besides the $1,000 that went to [Hillary Rodham] Clinton's Senate campaign, Stewart reportedly donated $157,000 to Democrats within the past few years.Of course, if Martha wants to vote these days, as a convicted felon, she will have to move to Vermont or Maine.
Records show that in all, $170,000 went to the party and its candidates, including $6,000 for President Clinton's two White House campaigns, $2,000 for Al Gore's presidential quest in 2000 and $75,000 -- the largest single donation -- to the Democrats' Unity campaign, $25,000 to the congressional campaign committee and $10,000 to the DNC.
A study by the Internet group TalkLeft -- which tracks crime-related political news -- claims that if felons were able to vote, 70 percent of them would vote Democratic.This TalkLeft organization is on the web HERE and describe themselves as "a unique voice in the 2000 and 2002 elections and will do the same in 2004, concentrating on exposing injustices in the criminal justice system and, in particular, those of the current administration." Not a particularly pro-GOP group describing convicted felons as Democrats.
0 comments
Don Rumsfeld's "Souvenir"
Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order links to a piece from the Associated Press which mentions that Don Rumsfeld keeps on a table in his office a shard of the airplane which brought death and destruction to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. He talks of the outrage of some of the anti-Administration families whose grief and loss are being used nefariously by the campaigning left.
Don Rumsfeld keeps a piece of that plane as a reminder of what happened. Should he, as Secretary of Defense, blot it from his mind? (The question should be rhetorical!)
Brian explains, then, why he sometimes eats grilled cheese sandwiches. He understands, and I commend you to read his post HERE.
0 comments
Living in China
Secretary of State Colin Powell has told Li Zhaoxing, foreign minister of the People's Republic of China (PRC) that the United States will sponsor a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting next week in Geneva which will be extremely critical of the PRC. According to US officials, the Chinese communist regime has been "backsliding" on human rights over the past several years.
The State Department's most recent global human rights report, issued last month and covering 2003, said China's human rights performance remained poor.Y'all forgot the Lao Gai! Seize the Chairman's rotting corpse and toss it ignominiously into the Yangtze. Such governments should not exist.
It cited among other things arrests of Internet essayists and labor protestors, harsh repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and a continuing crackdown on Muslim Uighurs under the guise anti-terrorism action.
0 comments
Bush "Attacks," Kerry "Challenges"
President Bush released an ad pointing to candidate Kerry's positions on taxes and defense, and the press has him going negative, attacking, and taking shots. Kerry puts out an ad calling the President a liar, and he is portrayed as challenging Bush, questioning Bush, criticizing Bush, and responding to negativity.
The media has too much at stake to sit in objective calm while Kerry plummets inward on himself. His vacillations and gaffes are thus attributed to an intellectual competence and all-devouring curiosity which voters are told they are too simple-minded to understand.
Maureen Dowd gushes that Kerry told her: "I love Keats." This is very good:
Of pale-mouth'd prophet dreaming.
tick… tick… tick… tick…
0 comments
Dennis is still a player
According to this piece from the Associated Press, to beat President Bush, candidate Kerry needs Ohio = Cuyahoga County = Cleveland = Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich agreed that Cleveland will play an important role in November and pointed to Democrat Al Gore's strong showing in that area before the former vice president decided to pull out of the state in the 2000 race.So Gore had the area lined up and quit If Dennis can secure the area early for Kerry, perhaps then we can be spared listening to the man's bitter drone.
"Historically, you've got to come out of Cuyahoga County with a huge vote," Kucinich said. "That's my back yard. That's me. That's where I'm working."
Not likely.
0 comments
Colorado Needs a Senator
Last week, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado) announced that he would not seek reelection this November, citing his health. As I reported then, Campbell mentioned his recent bout with prostate cancer:
"Doctors have assured me that after treatment for prostate cancer, the recovery rate is 98 percent. But I believe Coloradans deserve a 100 percent guarantee of service."I took that as a point for candidate Kerry to consider, what with his cancerous prostate gland.
Who to replace him? The first pick of Colorado Republicans was said to be conservative Governor Bill Owens On Tuesday, however, owens said nope for family reasons, putting his support behind Representative Bob Beauprez (R-Colorado), but he nixed it on Thursday:
"At some point in the future I may feel compelled to run for the U.S. Senate, but this is not the right time for me," Beauprez said from Washington.Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) isn't running.
Former Representative Ben Schaffer (R-Colorado) is seeking the nomination. I remember him as one of the Reps who boycotted Clinton's 1999 State of the Union, because, frankly, the guy had just been impeached. Schaffer's American Conservative Union (ACU) rating that year was 100 out of a perfect conservative 100. Unblemished on the ACU's issues. Looks good.
0 comments
The Senate Passes its Budget version
S. Con. Res. 95, the FY 2005 budget, passed the Senate at 1a this morning, 51-45. John Edwards did not vote, though he was in DC to meet with candidate Kerry, who did not vote either. Also not voting were Democrat Senators Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who is recovering from surgery to remove prostate cancer, and Harry Reid of Nevada, who had evidently gone home to Vegas.
The $2.39-trillion measure passed by an almost perfect party-line, save those not voting. Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia) voted for the Republican budget, the last budget vote of his relatively brief Senate career. He was offset by Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), no longer in a vote-for-it-to-help-the-President mood. Then there was technical independent Jim Jeffords of the great State of Vermont voting NOPE.
Before the measure passed, Senate Republicans had to fight off a barrage of Democrat nuisance amendments which would have raised taxes to one degree or another by removing part of the President's tax cuts to fund various, imaginative government activities.)
Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) said that he wants to attack the deficits, halving it in three years:
``The deficits are far too high,'' Nickles said during the debate on the Senate floor. ``We charted a path to bring it down and bring it down rather abruptly.''Now House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) has to do his thing and the two bodies must reconcile the two.
There's no election year drama.
0 comments
Kerry Wraps it UP!
Somehow, this one from Reuters yesterday did not wind its way into my psyche:
Both CNN and CBS said their tabulations show that Kerry has gathered the 2,162 delegates needed at the Democratic National Convention in July to win the nomination and face Republican President Bush in the general election.The dynamic, according to the "C" networks, is that many Democrat superdelegates are changing their minds to Kerry or finally deciding on for whom to vote: Kerry. The networks harass these superdelegates until they spit out a name.
CNN said on Thursday Kerry had collected exactly 2,162 with wins in all but three of the Democratic electoral contests so far. CBS previously said on Tuesday the four-term senator had passed the magic mark.
Kerry's boyz say that their candidate still needs about 100 delegates, but unless the Democrats suddenly have a massive change-of-heart and back candidate Lyndon LaRouche (on the ballot), for instance, Kerry will own the thing to everyone's satisfaction after Illinois vote on Tuesday.
I prefer to go with the CNN and CBS surveys and declare the race over. John F. Kerry is the Democrat nominee. In an editorial yesterday, the Washpost opined:
Mr. Kerry has a similar problem for a different reason: It's not always clear what, if anything, he's committed to. The senator's supporters say that what sometimes looks like indecision reflects his devotion to thinking through a problem, to weighing every nuance and potential consequence before leaping to a decision. That's an admirable trait in a world more complex than Mr. Bush at times seems to recognize. But the hedging and subsequent grandstanding on Haiti raise the same question as do Mr. Kerry's campaign-trail straddles on a wide range of issues (trade, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and more): Where are the bedrock principles that would guide him in office?Although the paper's editors dig that pseudo-intellectual "nuance" thaang Kerry has going -- it's a cover for intellectual sloppiness which implies a lack of positive intellect -- they aver that he has to settle down somewhere.
Congratulations on your certain nomination, John-John Kerry, wannabe scion of the President JFK. Let the ticking begin.
tick… tick… tick… tick…
0 comments
New Column on RSN site
I've put the new column by Dennis Campbell, The Bratty Behavior of the Inhabitants of the Left, LIVE on the Rightsided Newsletter:
My friend and prolific web-writer Jan Ireland likes to say that what liberals need is a good dose of parenting. A couple of recent items in the news proves her right -- the inhabitants of the left are just, well, self-centered, rude, disruptive and dominated by their emotions.
In other words, like your typical 2-year-old. [MORE]
0 comments
UNSC Resolution Condemns ETA for Spanish Blasts
Yesterday's terrorist strike in has drawn fierce condemnation from the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution. It was not only worded strongly in opposition to the strike, but according to UNSC President Jean Marc de La Sabliere of France, contained a sentence alleging that the attack was perpetrated by the Basque separatist outfit ETA. This was at the request of Spain. [Reuters, V.O.A.]
Germany, Russia, and others were hesitant to pass the resolution, but UNSC member Spain's view prevailed, and the motion passed, 15-0.
The resolution itself is irrelevant. The UNSC resolution is not an effective tool against terrorists, and neither is strong condemnation by U.N. Secretary General (General Secretary?) Kofi Annan… but this does leave on wondering: Why do the Spanish want to blame ETA? (Then: Why do some others want to blame al Qaeda or their affiliates?)
There name is Euskadi ta Askatasuna, which means "Basque Fatherland, and Liberty," and they seek independence for a small plot of land on the north Spanish border with France. The region is kind of stuck in Spain, with inhabitants having lived their since time immemorial, speaking their own language. They do enjoy a degree of autonomy.
ETA for ages has been killing a few people, blowing things up, always claiming credit and often warning of the blasts beforehand so as to evacuate innocents. Spain says this looks like the work of ETA, and one assumes that they are the experts. I don't think so.
The Spanish elections are to take place on Sunday. The government of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar might have wanted to keep this an internal, Spanish crisis rather than internationalizing it prior to the balloting. Also, Aznar has made it a political point over the years to warn against ETA strikes and using very harsh language against the group.
This cannot accurately be equated with 9-11 in the United States mainly because the Spanish know that they are not invulnerable to terrorists, having lived for decades with ETA, but it is still equally as tragic and evil. One cannot become blasé, as it is physically and emotionally impossible.
The mourning will certainly not have ended by Sunday, but the indignation and anger should be in full bloom by then. So Aznar's Party Populare (PP) should easily fend off the opposition Socialists. I think then you'll see some clarification as to who is responsible for the 10 bombs which simultaneously ripped through the rail service in Madrid.
If they seek outside assistance in this matter -- and they will, especially if, as many suspect, it turns out to be an al Qaeda-related operation -- they will not go to the UNSC and request peace-keeping blue helmets. They will seek and receive the help of the United States of America, which will be forthcoming upon request whether the threat is international or internal to Spain.
The UNSC resolution does work to keep things lighthearted in this time of gravity
0 comments
3/11/2004
Party Time at Judiciary
I mentioned it most recently on Wednesday:
Democrat staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee had plotted ways and strategies to block President Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats successfully turned the outrage away from their own malfeasance and to the identity of the people who discovered and leaked the Democrat staffers' computerized memos. Manuel Miranda was forced to resign.And this same Manuel Miranda wrote a piece for Thursday's NRO questioning whether there were any actual wrongdoing in the memo "scandal." ("Hate to say it, but: There is no there there.")
Now, as it happens, a federal probe into the matter fell by the wayside in the Judiciary Committee Thursday evening. After a day of trying to work an agreement, and with votes taking place on the Senate floor, committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) ended the matter:
With no Democrats and about a half-dozen Republicans present, committee chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, announced on Thursday evening the panel would not be able to reach agreement and he would leave it up to the Senate sergeant-at-arms William Pickle to decide what to do.Pickle has hinted that he would sooner take it directly to the U.S. Attorney's office, not to the entire Justice Department.
The Democrats are ticked, they're firing their own letters to the Justice Department demanding an investigation into the initial leak, and Miranda's attorneys are upset that a copy of Pickle's initial report on the leak was itself leaked.
Miranda has the right take on his discovery of the initial Democrat strategies to block the President's judicial nominees (from the NRO piece):
In fact, the Code of Ethics for Government Service states that it is a government employee's duty to "expose corruption wherever discovered." This is a whistleblower provision that eliminates any doubt as to the ethical obligations of Senate employees who read documentation of wrongdoing. How would corruption be otherwise discovered?I have been a student of politics and government, both in and out of school, for a while, and I cannot remember anything quite like this. This is "same old, same old" on steroids.
I need some more popcorn. Tomorrow is another Act.
0 comments
New Column on the RSN site
The latest column by Justin Darr, How to Lose the War on Terror, is LIVE on the Rightsided Newsletter site.
John Kerry gets mad enough to make his botox crinkle when he talks about President Bushs leadership in the War on Terror. According to Kerry, Bush has led the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history. So much for a positive campaign. However, Kerry must use fanatical, veins popping out of his neck rhetoric for him to have any chance of confusing some voters into not noticing that we are winning the War on Terror under Bush. Despite Mr. Kerrys tooth gnashing, he falls short on the specifics of exactly were President Bush has failed. Senator Kerry has a very good reason for this. On the official John Kerry for President website, you will find his Homeland Security Plan contains more distorted facts than the New York Times. [MORE]
0 comments
"Democrats United Around Kerry
So asserts the headline over a CBSNews.com story, but all they can offer as proof is a meeting between Kerry and Howard Dean. Dean won't give him the list of 700,000 cash contributing Deaniacs, though.
Here's the unity between Dean and Kerry:
"During the campaign, we often focused on what divided us, but the truth is we have much more in common, beginning with our fervent desire to send George Bush back to Crawford, Tex.," read a statement from Dean, released following the meeting.They're uniting behind the A.B.B. thaang, not around Kerry.
Kerry did get the backing of some Dem lawmakers:
On Thursday, Kerry went to Capital Hill to shore up support among key House and Senate Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former campaign rival Sen. John Edwards. He also met with both the congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses.This is more of the unification power of A.B.B., not Kerry. Many of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for instance, supported Wes Clark.
The politicians have to back the nominee, and that will soon be candidate Kerry.
The Democrats are not united behind or around Kerry. He is obnoxious and disliked.
0 comments
On-Air Decency
The House bill passed today, 391-22, and it empowers the FCC to fine offending broadcasters up to $500,000 per event. It also raises the stakes against on-air personalities who willfully, by the FEC's criteria, break the rules. [Reuters]
The Senates doing something similar, and the two have to match.
The National Association of Broadcasters ``believes that voluntary industry initiatives are far preferable to government regulation when dealing with programming issues,'' said Eddie Fritts, head of the radio and television broadcasters' group.Not if the government damn well wants to do something. (Remember, Senator Joe Biden wants to damn well do something about steroids and baseball, for the future and the freedom of mankind, or suchlike.
A government determined to make legislatorial mischief is infinitely more dangerous than a shock jock punk yuck-yucking about excretory noises.
0 comments
DeLay as Newton
A story in this morning's Washington Times brought to mind Newton Gingrich. What a different world this would be if Newton were principled, conservative, and had a spine. Then again, he and Mitch Gaylord helped shepherd the nation's dissatisfaction with his buddy Bill Clinton into a GOP House majority which few of us saw coming back in '84.
The WashTimes story (linked above) talks of a speech given by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, behind closed doors and to his GOP colleagues, called: "Conservative Blueprint of Success":
Mr. DeLay, Texas Republican, presented his vision for the party's future to colleagues in a closed-door meeting. The plan includes securing the country by winning the war on terror, doubling the size of the economy and strengthening the family.Those who heard it said that it was a great speech, "invigorating," and that he did not lay out specifics. That's for later.
DeLay also did not talk of reducing the size of government, something Gingrich stressed but never even attempted. Representative Tom Feeney (R-Florida) likened the speech, according to the paper, to one which could have been given by candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980. Not if the DeLay ignored the size of the federal government.
But it is promising and shows a party unity on issues which the Democrats lack. (Unless, of course, A.B.B. be an issue.)
From The Hill newspaper, though, we have word that House Democrats plan to "run against DeLay" in the same way that they ran against Gingrich in '96 and '98. In those two elections, if you'll recall, Dems painted each Republican in the House as a Newton clone. The GOP lost seats each time.
The details of the plan are still being fleshed out, but [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi told her colleagues that they should be prepared to implement a strategy that will erase all distinctions between centrists and right-wing Republicans, lumping them together as reliable votes for DeLay and casting them in high relief with Democratic challengers.There's a difference. In '94, Republicans won the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years, and they did it in part under Mitch Gaylord's banner. To the public, it was Newt's banner, and painting Newt as an extremist could be used to hurt GOP House members in general.
Tom DeLay's public profile is not what Gingrich's was. The Republicans were not seen as sweeping to power under the banner of an "energetic, young Tom DeLay." To put it simply, Tom DeLay is not the public story of the GOP Majority. Gingrich was.
But at least we know that Tom DeLay gave a speech helping to keep House Republicans united. There is a program.
0 comments
New Column
There's a new column by Isaiah Z. Sterrett on the Rightsided Newsletter site, Kerry and Intelligence:
THIS WEEK'S Reason to Support John Kerry is: He's smarter than you!
According to his vainglorious wife, TEH-RAY-ZAH, his interests are "insatiable," and according to the equally supercilious Maureen Dowd, he has a "vast palette of cultural preferences," in addition to "an almost comically vast palette of aggressive masculine sports and hobbies." (He married all members of the latter group.)
Apparently he has a "phantom Irish side," and he can even be a little "corny." He likes "The Deer Hunter"- I'm surprised he didn't say he was the movie's inspiration, as Al Gore said of "Love Story"-and he loves "Keats, Yeats, Shelley, and Kipling." [MORE]
0 comments
JF Kerry says...
To CNN: "I didn't say it about the Republicans, I said it about the attack dogs."tick... tick... tick... tick
~~~~~~
Addendum: From the Washpost:
"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks," Kerry told reporters as Senate Democratic leaders stood behind him. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country."Liars, crooks. The press is giving you a bye on this, painting it as "no big deal," basically accusing Republicans of belly-aching, but you are not up to running for President. You are a poor candidate, with you're only hope being that you have become A.B.B. to many Democrats. I have yet to see the party united behind you, Kerry.
tick... tick... tick... tick...
0 comments
Kerry not Electable?
John Sample of the CATO Institute writes in today's NRO that candidate Kerry is not electable this year, for a variety of historical and conventional wisdom reasons. It's a good read, especially if you're feeling any nagging doubts about this one, distraught by the insta-polls.
Conventional wisdom has not proven a reliable barometer this season, but I agree with the premise: Kerry is not electable. I'll articulate my reasoning in a later post -- I'm working on it! -- but it was nailed by Jim G., writing in the comment section after another post: "I'm just wondering when Kerry will reach his 'meltdown' stage."
The press wants to avoid this one, but it may be forced upon them.
More on that later.
~~~~~
BTW, I don't think it was ETA. I wrote a paper on that group of violent Basque separatists when I was in school some years ago, and this is not like them. Spain was one of our staunchest allies in liberating Iraq…
0 comments
John Kerry of the VVAW
Another time, another war. The same John Kerry, who rails with pride about what he said and did for his "band of brothers" when he returned home "to stop the war."
Candidate John Kerry was a leader of a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and HERE is a .pdf of one of their fliers.
The prose is hardly eloquent, but it is an ugly bit of obscene fiction -- a sentiment, a lie so egregious that it makes simple slander appear like poetic tribute. It reads:
He was talking about, of course, the American G.I. About his "band of brothers."A
If you have been Vietnamese --
U.S. INFANTRY
COMPANY JUST
CAME THROUGH
HERE!
We might have burned your house
We might have shot your dog
We might have shot you...
We might have raped your wife and daughter
We might have turned you over to your government for torture
We might have taken souvenirs from your property
We might have shot things up a bit...
We might have done ALL these things to you
and your whole TOWN!
If it doesn't bother you that American soldiers
do these things every day to the Vietnamese
simply because they are "Gooks", then picture YOURSELF
as one of the silent VICTIMS.HELP US TO END THE WAR BEFORE THEY TURN YOUR SON INTO A BUTCHER
or a corpse.VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR
These things a spun by the campaign. They'll get dizzy and they'll topple in a gust. Perhaps sooner than we think.
[Hat tip to Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush.]
0 comments
Baseball and Steroids: 'Oh the humanity!'
I caught a bit of Senator Joe Biden's emotional outburst as the Senate Commerce Committee discussed the unsportsmanlike dangers of steroids in the workplace of professional athletes, specifically baseball players. He was on about: "Oh, the horrors of our national pastime! Evil, rotten steroids eating away at the very fiber of our national being! This is an attack of America's values, and our children are being led to the evils of unrestrained capitalism!"
I jotted a note. This morning, I looked for an actual quote, and this is the best I could do:
"Baseball is the national pastime, but it's the repository of the values of this country," he intoned. "There's something simply un-American about this. This is about values, about culture, it's about who we define ourselves to be."And thus we need the Senate to regulate it.
It's a game. It is as American, to some, as athletes they feel are overpaid by owners they feel are too wealthy.
I propose that this over-energetic Congress select a few aspects of our lives and stay the hell out of them.
0 comments
Is Kerry Sorry?, II
Good morning. Yesterday, we asked if Kerry were sorry to veterans for his malicious 1971 testimony and blacks for claiming to be one of them. Also yesterday, we looked at Kerry's malicious mutterings concerning the Bush team being "liars" and "crooks." Now, as CNN reports, Republicans seek an apology from Kerry.
"Senator Kerry's statement ... was unbecoming of a candidate for the presidency of the United States," [Bush/Cheney Chairman Marc] Racicot said.In the piece just linked, CNN dwells on Cheney's less malicious lies in his talk about the Bush Administration: crony capitalism, exporting jobs, etc. They us their report on Kerry's less defamatory message:
Kerry has called for repeal of some of Bush's tax cuts, which Republicans insist would amount to tax increases. However, Kerry has said he wants to retain the tax cuts geared to people in the middle class, whom he says face burdens from higher property taxes and rising costs for health care and education.I have never liked whining about the media double-standard -- we know that exists, and there's not a darn thing we can do about it -- but sometimes it is just too irksome. If President Bush had said this about Kerry -- "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" -- the fan would have been struck and the Bush campaign would be spattered with waste.
Kerry is not sorry in the apologetic sense of the term.
0 comments
3/10/2004
The Rightsided Newsletter
Tomorrow's Rightsided Newsletter has been mailed out to the sundry, global Inboxes, and it is online on the site.
I opened with a bit about the Democrats' 527s, listing quite a few of them.
"I don't think the FEC can ignore this complaint for eight months." Here's this
IT IS NOT JUST THE KERRY. Aside from John Kerry and the DNC, campaigning against President Bush for the next eight months will be the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to defeat the President, which I'll call the VLWC. Unlike Hilary Rodham's VRWC, comprised mostly of small bands and freelancers, the VLWC is coordinated, organized, and well-funded. [MORE]
0 comments
New Column on the RSN Site
I've just put up Jason E. High's latest column, Abortion and You:
Abortion is on a lot of people's minds lately, even as other cultural issues have taken up the front-pages of our newspapers for weeks now. Abortion is still an issue that makes this nation divided. Many people have indicated that their decision about who our next President will be will at least take into consideration what that candidate's stance is on the abortion issue.
What is your stance? Are you adamantly pro-life because you believe what the Bible says about life beginning at conception? Or are you a "foaming at the mouth" defender of a "woman's right to choose"? Or do you fall somewhere in the middle? [MORE]
0 comments
When Kerry mutters…
Kerry was talking with Sheet Metal workers in Chicago after finishing a satellite address to the AFL-CIO executive council, doing a TV op. When he had finished with the made-for-TV banter, someone called to him: "Tell it like it is! Keep smiling."
Kerry turned to talk to the man, off-the-record, and solemnly stated (accidentally to the mic, as well): "Oh yeah, don't worry, man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here."
The Bush camp must be shaking in their shoes. But Kerry continued:
"These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."Perhaps Kerry feels paranoid, persecuted; I can think of no other way to explain such a mendacious misstatement. Who is crooked? Who is lying? What frightens you, oh petty, little man from Boston?
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt offered:
At every turn, John Kerry has claimed to be the victim of an imaginary smear machine. Today, John Kerry made a comment that showed his true colors: a relentlessly negative campaign that is negative and pessimistic and offers no positive plan or agenda."Kerry chatterbox Dave Wade later said that Kerry had been talking about the "Republican attack machine" which had "waged the most crooked, deceitful, personal attacks over the course of the last four years."
[Source: LATimes.]
I doubt Kerry believed a word of it. He was probably just talking, saying the little things that everyone in the room agreed upon even if it were nonsense. They talk in code, meaningless words and expressions which garner nods and a silent: "Here, here."
John Kerry is proving himself unfit to be President.
0 comments
Investigating the Leakers, etc.
Democrat staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee had plotted ways and strategies to block President Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats successfully turned the outrage away from their own malfeasance and to the identity of the people who discovered and leaked the Democrat staffers' computerized memos. Manuel Miranda was forced to resign.
Now, according to The Hill newspaper, Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle is to investigate who leaked the report on the initial leak.
Enraged Republicans suspect the unredacted version — intended only for senators’ eyes — was given to the press accidentally on purpose.Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) is angry:
Sessions sent a letter to Pickle demanding a full explanation of how the media obtained the sensitive file. As a result, the sergeant at arms is facing the oddly postmodern task of investigating a Senate leak of a report on the investigation of a Senate leak.Sessions and Pickle spoke via telephone, and it looks like there will be an investigation in the leak of the leak investigation report.
“Some may say that this is just a mistake and it must be forgotten, but I don’t think so,” Sessions wrote in his letter. “I believe it was an error of major proportions and it should not be taken lightly.”
A negative reality inversion. Keep it funky. Proceed.
0 comments
Vice President McCain?, II
Last Sunday, I posted about McCain as Kerry's veep pick. I looked at McCain's response to This Week host George Stephanopoulos 15-months-ago versus his response on Sunday: "I have no view where I would leave the Republican Party." This leaves open the possibility of McCain running, as a Republican, on Kerry's undercard.
Kerry would be seen as crossing party lines and as selecting a "brother in arms," or whatever he calls his fellow Vietnam vets. He could claim that he is doing to because McCain is a good friend and this country would be decimated by another four years of George Bush.I just spotted the following on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, one of my favorite political sites for years:
The press would love it. McCain could recycle his old lines from 2000, but the GOP would be forced to attack their own chairman of Senate Commerce. Yikes!
Update: On Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked if he'd accept an offer to be Kerry's number two: "John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We have been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it. But I see no scenario, no scenario, no scenario where -- I foresee no scenario where that would happen."In the comments under my post last Sunday, Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush writes:
McCain would only do something like that if he was convinced that President Bush was going to lose the War on Terrorism and Senator Kerry was going to win it.He might be attributing too much principle to the Senator from Arizona, though.
Then again, to be a useful veep candidate to Kerry, McCain should be able to attack the President relentlessly. McCain has said too many positive things about the President which the Bush campaign could "use against him." But the "unity" line could trump all that.
You would have to think Kerry's veep boy, James Johnson, is looking into it.
0 comments
RNC Already Running Against Kerry/Edwards?
A mailing from the RNC today, undersigned by Chairman Ed Gillespie, show that the RNC is campaigning against not only John Kerry, but also John Edwards:
John Kerry's voting record has been rated the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. Following closely behind in a tie for fourth is Senator John Edwards. Both Senators outranked staunch liberals Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton on the National Journal's scores.Kerry, of course, ranked most liberal, while Edwards ranked fourth. (Kerry also ranked to the left of Dennis Kucinich.
They link to the old Washington Times story.
I questioned the judgment of their political folks when they started campaigning against Howard Dean last year, as Dean had little or no chance of actually winning the nomination and was merely the project of the myopic political press. I'd come to count on the stellar wisdom of the RNC and William F. Buckley's National Review.
0 comments
Rehnquist Backs Coin
Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a conservative hero before most commentators had even heard of Justices Scalia or Thomas, has endorsed a proposed $1 silver coin commemorating former Chief Justice John Marshall, who served from 1801-1825, on the 250th anniversary of his birth.. He was a Federalist and one of President John Adams's "Midnight Judges", whose appointment was signed just before midnight on the night before Thomas Jefferson replaced Adams as President.
This eventually led to the first case Marshall heard while on the Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), which created the process of judicial review, by which courts can review and strike laws enacted by Congress and actions of the executive as Unconstitutional. ("[A]n act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.")
There was one light moment. Rehnquist was barely audible when he began reading his prepared remarks [to the House Financial Services Committee], and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., interrupted to ask that Rehnquist adjust his microphone.
"I never thought I'd be interrupting a chief justice," King said by way of apology.
"You're lucky you're here and not in court," replied a smiling Rehnquist.
0 comments
Is Kerry Sorry?
Last week, candidate John F. Kerry told the American Urban Radio Network: "President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."
Diane Harris of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change would like an apology for the racist remark.
"John Kerry is not a black man — he is a privileged white man who has no idea what it is in this country to be a poor white in this country, let alone a black man," said Paula Diane Harris, founder of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change.From an article today in the San Antonio Express-News:
It was Toni Morrison, the first African American to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, who, tongue-in-cheek in a 1998 piece in the New Yorker, called Clinton "our first black president."By Ms.Morrison's description, candidate Kerry displays not a single "trope of blackness."
She wrote, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working class, saxophone playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."
The Express-News holds that Kerry can play pretend, but that does not constitute an extant reality.
Some Vietnam vets would like for candidate Kerry to apologize for this Statement before the Senate Armed Services committee in 1971:
"They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires with portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."From a story on FOXNews.com:
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
He is not sorry, at least not in the apologetic sense of the term.
0 comments
Kerry's Walk in the Sun
- Florida -
Kerry - 76.8% / Edwards - 9.9%
- Louisiana -
Kerry - 70% / Edwards - 16%
- Mississippi -
Karry - 77.9% / Edwards - 7.4%
- Texas -
Kerry - 67% / Edwards - 14.3%
The big story was candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who was unable to break into single digits. This may have been his last hurrah, as he'll be 86-years-old and -- given life-expectancy -- probably dead in 2008.
Kerry did better than he has, but he is still not the nearly unanimous choice of Southern Democrats, even when he is essentially the only choice.
He will almost definitely lose all four States in November, and he spent Tuesday in Chicago trying to convince local blacks that a wealthy, aloof, privileged, northeastern white guy really is potentially a black president.
He so wants to believe that someone is enthusiastic about him and his candidacy. CLUE: Not even his wife, Teresa Heinz, is very excited.
0 comments
"Wictory Wednesday"
It's now President Bush vrs. Any But Bush (A.B.B.). Mr. A.B.B., as almost selected via the Dem primary process, is candidate John Kerry, a man who is hard to pin down on much of anything other than that he is hard to pin down.
But he'll maybe soon settle on some positions, and that's what we have to beat in November.
Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.
And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:
0 comments
3/09/2004
Clinton Won't Run
Bill Clinton told some businessmen at breakfast that he was going to seek elected office:
"I can't imagine the circumstances under which it would be something I would consider," Clinton told business leaders at a breakfast meeting in Manhattan. "I think Hillary's doing a good job, and one of us in politics is probably more than enough."That's it. For now.
"I'd love to be mayor of New York. It's probably the second-best job in America, but there are lots of good people who want to be mayor of New York, and they should have their chance," Clinton said.That is awfully magnanimous of him, considering that he obviously believes the job is his for the taking.
It probably is.
Governor of Arkansas is the third-best job, I assume.
Make him General Secretary of the United Nations. It is the perfect position for a man of his relevance.
[NOTE: I referred to Clinton's potential position at the U.N. as "General Secretary," not "Secretary General," because G.S. is how we used to refer to the leader of teh Soviet Union, viz. "General Secretary Gorbachev, tear down this wall."]
0 comments
Euro-Fascists
Patriot Act-Schmatriot Act, to use the parlance.
If you lived in, say, Belgium, and managed to download Bruckner's 4th Symphony from some innocent-looking online music service, the Euro-cops could be at your door in an instant, ready to ransack your home.
From the British daily Independent:
Internet users who illegally download music face having their homes raided and properties seized under a crackdown on piracy backed yesterday by the European Parliament.This is not a case, on my part, of "Quit complaining, we have it easy"; rather, keep an eye on what they are doing an ocean away. They are creating a continental, one-size-fits-all socialist police-state, and they are doing it beneath the flag of democracy.
The new directive will create a single set of rules that will apply to the entire EU, including the 10 nations that join on 1 May.At least now that Michael Howard is heading Britain's Tory Party, that nation's Prime Minister Tony Blair is clinging to the Pound and backing off integration.
0 comments
Kerry's Cabinet
The Brits, in the guise of the lefty daily The Guardian Unlimited -- originally the Manchester Guardian have picked a cabinet for candidate John Kerry. Actually, the faux-cabinet was written by Guardian executive editor Albert Scardina and pr guy John Scardino (Scardino Associates), a Democrat candidate for a Congressional seat from Georgia in 1992. Albert used to work for the Georgia Gazette.
They start with Kerry's veep pick:
Hillary Clinton - "Save her for the supreme court, maybe even chief justice."
[Kerry wouldn't nominate her. There is no way she could be confirmed.]
Evan Bayh - "[C]ould help bring in the swing states of the Midwest."
[Indiana. Ohio? That's probably about it.]
John Edwards - "He could humiliate Dick Cheney in a debate."
[He knows neither policy nor government like the veep. Cheney would eat him alive.]
They go with Bill Richardson, Bob Graham, or Bayh.
For Secretary of State, "[u]nless Colin Powell wants to stay on in an administration that would pay attention to him for a change," they pick Gary Hart, if only because Richard Holbrooke is too brilliant.
Senator Olympia Snow (R-Maine) is their selection for Treasury Secretary.
They tab Edwards as Kerry's dreamland Attorney General: "Good holding pen while he awaits appointment to the supreme court."
Etc.
It's amateurish and kind of cute, and it does seem like they might have consulted heavily with the good folks at Buzzflash.com.
I read a Toe-Sucker column this morning in which he postulates that the President "can put this race away by the end of the spring."
- "All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream."
- E.A.Poe
0 comments
A Rube Goldberg Mind
Erick-Woods Erickson of Confessions of a Political Junkie has an excellent post up about John Kerry's "Rube Goldberg foreign policy." Kerry's convoluted mind wants something different than a foreign war to end terrorism.
0 comments
Gay Marriage: Advice from the Dutch
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, New Paltz (NY) Mayor Jason West, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles, and their sundry ilk have some advice from straight from Holland: Slow Down!
The political narrative of how the Netherlands came to accept the idea of gay marriage, and make it a legal reality for [Anne Marie] Thus and [Helene] Fassen and about 6,000 other gay couples since April 1, 2001, offers lessons for both sides of the emotional debate in the United States. Thus and Fassen, along with several prominent politicians who wrote the Dutch legislation, offer words of caution to U.S. advocates of gay marriage. They warn that America should not move too fast. As Thus put it: "Americans need to spend more time talking about it."This argument is similar to one offered by Representative Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) when arguing against the Newsome-approach and for a legal approach like what occurred and is happening in his home State.
.
These Dutch proponents of gay marriage recommend that their U.S. counterparts take more time to help the wider population see the issue from their perspective, and then let voters have their say. Otherwise, they say, the religious right will polarize the debate and tie it up for years. At the same time, some opponents have acknowledged that in the three years since gay marriage became a reality, the institution of marriage has not collapsed, as many warned it would.
This issue affects American society. Better to let us look at and stew in this concept, amply and dim it -- and it is 60,000 volts into our cultural norms -- that to shove the notion down our throats [sic]. The "LIKE IT OR NOT, SUCKAHS!" approach is offensive and bound to produce an angry backlash. Acceptance requires dialogue.
I would hope that the introduction period would allow for us to conceive of a suitable institution other than marriage, which is by definition between a man and a woman. Things have changed since God directed Moses to "cut them off from your people."
[NOTE: I am referring to a partnership institution for homsexuals provided by the state, not by any church.]
0 comments
Kerry and TIME Magazine
[Hat tip to Eric Lindholm at Viking Pundit.]
We've another John Kerry interview with TIME, and it is more of the same. The man has nuanced himself out of any solid stances. To wit:
TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?This is not nuanced; rather, it is convoluted and clueless. It's a clumsy exercise in linguistic gymnastics which cannot quite manage a roundoff-backtuck.
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.
TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.
Did he clearly state or suggest? He's torn. It might have been worthwhile to transform Iraq, but was it reason to go to war? Are wars not legitimate even if fought for worthwhile reasons? I know exactly what he is trying to say: It is fortunate that the war was fought, but not for the reasons that we were given for fighting it. That statement is false, but it is what Kerry was trying to say. He just could not find the words.
But then he turns around and talks about the lives lost and the damage done to international relations, so perhaps the war was not a fortunate thing. Perhaps he needs to make a little chart, and write down the good things on one side and the bad things on the other. He can weigh them that way, then do his 6th Grade math homework.
When someone tells you that candidate Kerry is "intellectually curious," or even simply "intellectual," understand that there is a certain fog of banality surrounding the entire operation.
0 comments
New Kerry Campaign Slogan
Candidate Kerry could haul this old slogan, from 1962, out of mothballs -- or off of mothballs, as the case may be -- to invoke and summarize his taxing and spending policies. (Wealth distribution can be considered "red magic" by some, in that it is not real and works only in illustrated storybooks.) Or it could be his plea to the "Red States," the ones which voted for George Bush in 2000.
Either way, it ties in nicely with Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, and her funding of the recent attacks on the President's campaign ads.
New slogan/Nifty Ad:

0 comments
The Dem Nomination
The race to the Democrat nomination continues today with primaries in Florida (177 of 201 delegates up for grabs), Louisiana (60 of 72), Mississippi (33 of 41), and Texas (127 at 232).
Among active Democrat candidates, John Kerry is expected to win, Al Sharpton may nor may not be about stop pretending to be his generation's Jesse Jackson (he's not), and Dennis Kucinich was in the hospital because his tummy hurt.
According to the count on The Green Papers, Kerry has 1,333.5 out of the 2,152 delegates needed to secure the nomination. (Kucinich and Sharpton each have 20 delegates.)
"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments
3/08/2004
Post-November Advice for Candidate Kerry
Dear Flabby, I was a Presidential candidate who offered voters nothing but anger, fear, and bitterness. I served in Vietnam. My opponent had the most inept, reckless, arrogant, and ideological foreign policy; meanwhile, I served in Vietnam.
The voters didn't pick me. I'm in despair. I served in Vietnam. What should I do?
- Bummed in Beantown
Advice for Candidate Kerry can be found: HERE.
0 comments
Kerry defeats Bush
That's if the election were held today, and if the Melbourne Herald Sun is telling the truth about the latest CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll of 1005 adults (not only registered voters or likely voters). (+/- 3-percent)
VOTE FOR: Kerry - 52-percent; Bush - 44-percent.
There's more. Who do these adults believe will win?
WILL WIN: Bush 52-percent; Kerry - 42-percent.
So much for "electability," which the political press told you was the primary (no pun) reason for the Dems voting to nominate Kerry.
If this is an actual dynamic on election day, it would hurt the President's chances, in that his voters who think he will win regardless might be more apt to say home than to venture out in the frigid, November temperatures or fight their way through Kerry's band of lawyers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: HERE is the same poll from CNN.com. It adds a job approval rating of 49% and the registered voters stats:
Among registered voters, Kerry's lead over Bush narrowed from 8 percentage points to 5 points in a two-way race and from 6 points to 2 points in a three-way race.The CNN story is more fortified with meaningless statistics than is the Aussie piece, for what that's worth.
0 comments
Heard on Special Report
On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume this evening, he began the "Fox All-Stars" roundtable -- NPR's Mara Liasson, Mort Kondracke of Roll Call, and Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes. They were discussing how the White House has kept quiet while the Democrats have hammered the President, the flap over the President's campaign ads being the lates example. The White House was compared to the 1988 campaign of Michael Dukakis, who got smashed-up pretty good with barely a peep in response.
Barnes said: "The White House communications team is incapable of that [responding to attacks] because they are weak and fearful." He sounded like one of the sheikdoms' state-run newspapers -- "Bush is crying and afraid" -- but he has a point."
He thinks the campaign will pick it up. Eventually.
0 comments
Prefab Christ?
My hat is tipped to Broken Masterpieces for a Detroit Free Press article regarding the Lord as a pop icon. The blogger, trogers, ponders: "[M]y hope is that people will see the pop culture Jesus and dig further." I share his hope. I assume that Jesus is fine as a poster or "'Jesus is my homeboy' T-shirts," but He cannot be a casual fad. There is a deep commitment involved, and my heartfelt hope is that we're up to it. Can a film help transfigure a society?
0 comments
Another New Column
I've just put a column by Sartre, Special Privileges for Feds, on the Rightsided Newsletter site:
If you believe that Martha Stewart is an enemy of the state, you are right. However, is she a desperado that deserves the fate of corporate plungers? Well, the art of stealing from public companies is often rewarded for the skilled crook; but if you are caught in a lie, you are the worst of the worse. The focal point in this soap opera is missed by the media. Back in June of 2002, in Steward of the Public Trust, we asked: "Should Ms. Stewart be tarred and feathered for using etiquette banned by the SEC? Or are we supposed to swing Martha's stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, from the highest tree for getting her out of a down market?"
In the rush for a hangmans noose, most forget securities fraud charges were dropped against Martha Stewart. U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum ruled: "I have concluded that no reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lied for the purpose of influencing the market for the securities of her company". Since this was the most serious charge, isnt it curious that Sam Waksal, the former ImClone CEO, didnt have his jail time interrupted to testify against Martha? If they were so close, why didnt Sam just give the heads-up to sell, and avoid the Bacanovic loop? [MORE]
0 comments
Kerry's Upcoming Election Lawsuits
At a town hall meeting in Hollywood, California, this morning, candidate John Kerry told 500 supporters that his campaign will be prepared to sue if the vote count looks like it might be close:
Kerry, a lawyer and former Massachusetts prosecutor, said his campaign was assembling a legal team to examine districts which had problems.He wants to take the elections away from the voters, and he wants to remove the secret ballot:
"We're going to pre-check it, we're going to have the legal team in place. ... We're going to take injunctions where necessary ahead of time. We'll pre-challenge if necessary," the four-term Massachusetts senator said.
"I don't think we ought to have any vote cast in America that cannot be traced and properly recounted," he said.He was either serious and not thinking before he spoke, or he was rah-rah'ing for funds. Either way, it's chilling.
0 comments
Kerry Cites Unnamed Leaders
John Kerry's campaign has taken on a Jayson Blair-like feel, with anonymous sources invented for convenience. To wit, from Reuters:
Without naming anybody, Kerry said he had received words of encouragement from leaders abroad who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2.Is it possible to assume that most of these world leaders backing Kerry, if extant, are thugs like Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Or maybe it's just punks like France's Chirac and Belgian
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.
0 comments
A New Column
The latest column by Judson Cox, The Silent Majority Must Be Silent No More, is up on the Rightsided Newsletter site.
If a Constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent the tide of gay marriages spreading across our nation like a disease, then I am going to have to support it. However, it is a bad option. There are better ways to stop this plague, but our "leaders" are too cowardly to pursue them. [READ MORE]
0 comments
Gore Watch
According to the LATimes this morning, Al Gore is still alive.
After Gore's endorsement of Dean, however, the Kerry camp has not reached out to him for advice or campaign help.Just checking.
0 comments
Signed as Read
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has put aside his initial objections, and the 25 members of Iraq's Governing Council have read and signed the interim constitution to which they had agreed.
"We must put the interests of our nation above all of our interests. The world is waiting and expecting us to work in the service of our nation," council president Mohammed Bahr al-Ulloum told the meeting before the show of hands.This is a sign that even the Shi'ite religious leaders are taking this grave process seriously.
This event, which it is moreso than a development, is a major setback and embarrassment to the enemies of the Bush Administration and of success in Iraq. As recently as this weekend, they were trumpeting what a significant setback and major discomfiture this was for the Bush Administration. They saw it in terms of the Bush Administration and its failure.
The step taken in Iraq seems plodding, and it is awkward, but here we are seeing something previously unimagineable, with huge consequences for the future of the civilized world. The world owes this to the men and women who gave their lives and limbs to make this possible. The President had the intellectual vision and foresight, but they were the ones who made it happen.
Congratulations, Iraq, and may God will it.
0 comments
3/07/2004
Chalabi Says Weapons Exist
Ahmad Chalabi, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress, told CBS's 60 Minutes Sunday evening that he his tales of Saddam Hussein's WMD were not to blame for the current situation, and that he was not simply inventing things for political reasons.
"This is a ridiculous situation. Every story that comes out in the press says: 'Defectors have an axe to grind, don't believe them'...Before the war, they kept saying that...So why did (the CIA) believe them so much?" Chalabi questioned.He challenged the Senate Intelligence Committee to grill him in open session. He also said the weapons will be found one day.
The INC gets paid 350,000 dollars a month by the United States to provide Iraqi intelligence and taxpayers also funded Chalabi's defectors program, according to CBS.The man is a weasel.
0 comments
Kerry's "unenthused" potential veeps
Here's an AP story about this mornings edition of CBS's Face the Nation by a reporter who did not watch the show:Kerry's Possible Running Mates Unenthused, by Darlene Superville.
Host Bob Schieffer's guests were Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), and Governors Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Fast Eddie Rendell of Pennsylvania. Of Bill Richardson, the smartest bestest fairest governor since Clinton, she wrote: "[W]hen asked whether he would turn down such an offer [veep] from Kerry, he said he was very happy in his current position." Really, though, as I wrote in today's Rightsided Newsletter:
Host Schieffer sat former Florida Governor (Senator) Bob Graham, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania down, via satellite from their home States, and said: Hands-up, who doesn't want to be vice president? Richardson raised his hand and waved it a little: "I love being governor of New Mexico. I'm very happy with my job."Richardson signaled physically that he did not want to be on the same ticket as Kerry.
She got it right on Rendell, though. Here's what I wrote of him in the RSN:
Rendell took an interesting tack. While he would accept the nod if asked, he said: "I think it should be someone who could be President." Someone with the foreign policy experience, he said, that he himself lacked. He thinks Kerry should pick someone from a "Red State" (voted for Bush in 2000), whereas his State (Commonwealth) of Pennsylvania went Blue in 2000. He suggested Graham, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, and Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri. When asked, he said that John Edwards was fine -- a little soft of foreign policy, but that could be learned. (Couldn't he, Rendell, then pick it up as well? Or is he a slow learner?)Graham was noncommittal, though I wonder if he jotted down the notion in one of those little notebooks he carries with him, probably even to bed.
Whomever Kerry picks, we can hope its someone in the proud tradition of Fritz Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, Lloyd Bensten, and Al Gore.
0 comments
Vice-President McCain
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is a maverick. James Garner played one on TV.
McCain was Steph's guest on ABC's This Week this morning, and the host began talking about a McCain appearance on the show back in back on November 24, 2002. Here's this from that days Rightsided Newsletter - Volume VI, NO. 139:
On TW, Senator John McCain told Steph that he would not run on a Presidential ticket with Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts). In fact, McCain seemed to found the suggestion exceedingly amusing.A throwaway comment. Steph showed the clip again this morning, and the Senator seemed more perplexed than amused. But he did not answer to Steph's satisfaction.
This morning on TW, McCain was unequivocal to Steph's satisfaction. Steph asked him if he would consider being Kerry's running mate, and McCain, after viewing his answer of over 15-months past, stated: "I have no view where I would leave the Republican Party."
This brought to mind Kerry deciding to nominate John McCain, a Republican, to be his running mate. Kerry would be seen as crossing party lines and as selecting a "brother in arms," or whatever he calls his fellow Vietnam vets. He could claim that he is doing to because McCain is a good friend and this country would be decimated by another four years of George Bush.
The press would love it. McCain could recycle his old lines from 2000, but the GOP would be forced to attack their own chairman of Senate Commerce. Yikes!
I'm reminded of something Jim McCaffrey told me a few years back: "McCain-Kerry/Kerry-McCain." He likened the two and thought that either could be the running mate for the other.
It's not going to happen. The Democrat faithful and the guys who butter Kerry's bread won't stand for it, and John McCain has spent a political lifetime as a proud Republican. If he were to accept such an offer, he'd spend the rest of his life in political limbo. (Then again, he was ready to retire.) McCain is up for reelection this year: would he win the Arizona election for that?
But if Kerry is desperate and McCain is disgruntled, on never knows.
0 comments
Wes Clark on CNN's Late Edition
It wasn't the same. Host Blitzer did not ask the retired general if he were going to run for President? No one asked him, like in the very early days, if he would challenge as a Democrat or as a Republican. (He said, at the time, that he wasn't sure.) It was the standard Clark pabulum without the sexiness of the unanswered question-on-everyone's-mind/
Of the situation in Iraq: "This is still very much an outcome in doubt." That's pretty much the "common knowledge" answer -- even McCain spouted it in a much milder form on ABC's This Week -- but "common knowledge" is nothing compared to uncommon wisdom.
On the Bush commercials, he was not as wild-eyed and rabid as some reflected in the press of late: "Well, I don't think it's right to use those images."
He thinks Kerry looks forward to using September 11 as a campaign them, because, he said, the "White House did not do everything it could to prevent 9-11."
This argument is annoying. To prevent the events of 9-11, the President and Congress would have had to enact the various post-9-11 measures which have prevented another such incident from happening again. This means the President would have had to convince Congress and the American people that a terrorist strike was imminent and the federal government would have to pass a lot of rules involving intrusive and cumbersome procedures. I daresay such rules could not have been passed prior to 9-11. The President would have had to have certain knowledge of an imminent tragedy, and frankly, he did not.
But because Clark thinks Kerry can pick the White House apart about this matter, he thinks that the use of the imagery in the commercials is a "loaded gun pointed right back at the White House." (Someone call the Secret Service!)
But Kerry will be able to offer an alternative, he assures us. He is "going to have very strong, consistent, forward policies." He doesn't know what they are yet. It will be interesting to see if Kerry can manage even consistent.
Wes Clark has been defanged, and he did it to himself. His preferred image is not on of a John Kerry tagalong, but that's what it now is.
0 comments
Matalin and Carville on Meet the Press
This was the usual routine from these two, nothing new. I suppose it passes for something else in certain circles, but I don't see it.
They had some interesting thoughts on Ralph Nader, though:
Carville: "Very good news for the Republican Party when Ralph Nader declared his candidacy."He might be trumping up Nader as a means to bolstering Kerry: 'A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,' etc. The more support Kerry is perceived as needing to win, the fewer people will stay home. And if this gets as nasty as the Dem primaries, the non-politically minded folks will tend to stay home. But I doubt an anti-Nader sentiment is going to stir enough of the blasé vote to make a difference.
Matalin: "He's not going to get 6-percent [of the vote]. It's not going to have a major impact on this race.Some of us think that is the correct assumption. After both candidates have run their campaigns, more voters will settle on voting for President Bush or against him. It's certainly not going to hurt Kerry much, in that most of his votes in the primaries were not for him, but rather for John Kerry as the ABB candidate. The most "electable," to borrow the sloppily used term. Nader's not going to beat the President.
0 comments
Pause
The RSN is linked in the post below. I'll be back with more after I've purchased a snow blower (don't ask).
0 comments
The Rightsided Newsletter
The Sunday RSN, the review of the Sunday morning talk shows, has been delivered to the sundry Inboxes around the world, and it's available for your perusal online at the Rightsided Newsletter web site: HERE.
The Democrats, this week, were all on reasonably good behavior…
In this space later, I'll talk about Wes Clark on CNN's Late Edition and a bit about Matalin & Carville -- it's getting tired -- on MTP. Plus a Kerry/McCain ticket. Though it slipped under Steph's radar, McCain left the possibility open on This Week (see also the RSN).
(If you have a comment about what's in the RSN, use the comment section attached to this note.)
0 comments
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows
KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer
Good morning. The KEY for the review and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, for the free Rightsided Newsletter. If you are interested, please visit our web site or send a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] tripod.com.
MTP features pro-abortion former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani then the usual Matalin-Carville dustup.
FNS this week looks to be fairly straightforward. Paul Bremer first, thenBush/Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot.
On FTN, host Schieffer shows that he's really into Democrat governors. Former Florida Governor Bob Graham, now taking his notebooks away from his expiring seat in the U.S. Senate, will be there. New Mexico's "Smartest Governor Anywhere Since Clinton," Bill Richardson, shows up, as does Pennsylvania Governor Fast Eddie Rendell, former Al Gore DNC Chairman.
On TW, Steph talks to Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), then Matthew Dowd and Tad Devine do the Bush vrs. Kerry thaang as strategists cum surrogates.
LE has Bremer, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) vrs, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), and Teddy Kennedy. The Kennedy interview could be interesting, as I don't think host Blitzer drinks early Sunday afternoon. Ted will undoubtedly be well into his pints.
0 comments
3/06/2004
Strauss Opera Deemed a "goofy anti-abortion paean"…
…by the Los Angeles TimesMethinks the LATimes is goofy, if not downright clownish.
From this LifeNews.com story, we learn that a Los Angeles Times review of the Richard Strauss opera Die Frau Ohne Schatten referred to the 1919 opera as "an incomparably glorious and goofy anti-abortion paean." [New York Metropolitan Opera synopsis of the actual opera]
In Act III, unborn babies sing to be born. Times music critic Mark Sned had written that the opera was "pro-life," as in celebratory of life, but that lasted until an overzealous copy editor set his eyes on it. At that point, according to Sned, "[s]omebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications."
LATimes policy has banned the term "pro-life" as offensive to those who enthused by abortions, and thus they use the term "anti-abortion." This implied that either Strauss was writing about abortions or Sned was taking a position, and this is not what Sned wanted under his byline.
The LATimes correction:
"A review of Los Angeles Opera's 'Die Frau Ohne Schatten' in Tuesday's Calendar section incorrectly characterized the work as 'anti-abortion.' In fact, there is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation."The correction implied that Sned did not understand the opera and had made the mistake, a bad thing for a critic.
The paper issued another correction:
"As the correction should have made clear, the lead paragraph submitted by the reviewer was incorrectly changed to include the term ‘anti-abortion.’"And here's a Reuters cover of this same bit o' goofiness.
(Full disclosure, those who read in here often might know the type of music to which I prefer to listen. This has never, however, extended to opera, and I have neither seen nor heard this one. I have Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel, Don Quixote, and Also Sprach Zarathustra, but no one sings! I have read, though, that Strauss wrote the opera in reaction to fears that Germany's population would expand too rapidly after World War I.)
0 comments
MoveOn.Org Ads illegally funded
According to the Republican National Committee, the latest anti-Bush ads from the 527 coven MoveOn.org are illegally funded. According to the law, the group can fund the ads only with donations of less than $5,000, not the millions given them by George Soros, Steven Bing, et al.
"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.Here's a link to the CNN story.
"Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation."
This is an important move by the RNC. What MoveOn.org has been doing, and plans to continue doing, is to attack President Bush using large contributions from a few angry millionaires and billionaires, thus negating the President's huge fundraising advantage. This is, as expressed, violative of campaign law.
The shot has been fired.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note, if you would like to subscribe to the free Rightsided Newsletter, visit the web site just linked or send a blank e-mail to RSN-Subscribe [AT] topica.com. Tomorrow afternoon, after the Sunday shows, we'll send the special Sunday Talk Shows edition, with review and analysis of all five shows. You can find out what happened without having to watch what you don't want. Which is a fine thing.
0 comments
9-11 Families Support President Bush
I want some headlines. The Associated Press reported this afternoon that over a dozen families of September 11 victims have come out supporting the President and the way he used the tragic imagery.
"There is no better testament to the leadership of President Bush than Sept. 11," the letter [from the families] states. "In choosing our next leader we must not forget that day if we are to have a meaningful conversation."The italics are mine. The letter said: "We must not forget that day." John Kerry has, and this is dangerous. He wants to treat terrorism like a simple crime, Howard Dean, as you'll recall, argued that Osama bin Laden could well be innocent unless he was proven guilty by the U.N. boyz at the Hague.
The "Open Letter to America," signed by 22 people who lost loved ones in the trade center, comes as other victims' families asked that the ads be pulled from the airwaves. The spots also show firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher.
"In the November election we will have a clear choice laid before the American people," the letter reads. "President Bush is rightly offering us that choice and the images of Sept. 11, although painful, are fundamental to that choice. The images in President Bush's campaign television ads are respectful of the memories of Sept. 11."
Terrorism is not a political game. It's something which clicked a few switches in the national psyche to grave effect. This letter's undersigned this.
0 comments
Defying the Courts
I suppose it might just be a 14th Amendment Equal Protection thaang: LINK. No pictures, but:
[Topless Shirley] Mason, executive director of the pro-nude beach Beaches Foundation Institute, has battled other government agencies over their topless policies. She is one of 10 women suing Brevard County over its anti-nudity ordinance.We can assume that these women are entertained by the aforementioned Howard Stern.
0 comments
They'll cover Kerry no matter what
What is this nonsense?
He [candidate Kerry] called the president "a walking contradiction" who had also failed to make good on vows to change the tone in Washington.And he was not talking about Daschle, Gephardt, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Byrd, et al. Or even about the Democrat legislative lightweights like himself.
"It's the worst it's ever been. This is the biggest 'my way or the highway' group of people I've ever met in my life," Kerry said.
"As the phrase goes, Houston, we've got a problem." He was referring to the now-legendary report of trouble aboard the U.S. Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970.Well, ground control to Major John. You have a candidacy, but not as we know it. But the press will print dross if that is all you offer them.
0 comments
Martha Stewart (II)
As an addendum to my remarks on Stewart and her bath towels of yesterday, my wife tells me that the Food Channel did not air her show this morning, This is big news, she tells me.
It is. It is capitalism sorting itself out.
0 comments
The Interim Constitution of Doom
One mildly chuckles when reading this from Newsday:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a spectacular embarrassment to U.S. occupiers, Iraq's Governing Council postponed signing an interim constitution Friday because of last-minute objections by Shias that the charter would limit their sect's power."The story's pensperson, Letta Taylor, has the CPA and Sistani's boyz coming to blows at any time.
The problems, according to a saner source, are seemingly simple. Sistani does not care for a provision:
sought by the Kurds to ensure that the eventual permanent constitution, to be put to a national referendum, does not encroach on their self-rule zone in the north. The clause says that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces reject the permanent charter, it will not go into effect. The Kurd self-rule region includes three provinces in the north.This is similar to what we did with the ratification of our own Constitution, requiring the ratification of a certain number of the several States with their own interests. As the Kurds are more desirous of greater autonomy, though, they need what in essence is a veto.
The other problem is with the Presidency:
The draft approved Monday set up a single president with two deputies. But al-Bayati said the Shiites were reviving their demand for a five-person rotating presidency.This is important, as this interim constitution will probably be modified and reworked, perhaps rewritten, and will doubtless then be adopted as the final constitution when that process has wended its way to fruition.
Under that proposal, which was raised in the debate over the final accord, the presidency would rotate between three Shiites, a Kurd and a Sunni -- giving the Shiites a dominant role.
The Shi'ites are the majority, and a rotating presidency is weaker by its nature than one-person executive, thus this one should be solvable by adopting the rotating model and limiting the periods to six months. This will help to ensure that the president carries out the necessary functions of an executive in governance while not having time to implement any policy which would favor the particular group he represents.
Going with a Shi'a/Non-Shi'a/Shi'a/Non-Shi'a/Shia'a rotation in the five man presidency, with six month terms, there would be two years out of five in which there would be a Sh'ia president for the entire year. That sounds like an offer Bremer should suggest.
What does Sistani know of constitutional government, anyway?
0 comments
Howard Stern (II)
When I think of the name, I think of the drunken callers to C-SPAN over the years who have spat out his name for laughs or as a cry for pathos. And I think of how his radio show has been described. And he wore cutout pants, making an arse (hold the puns) at some celebrity 9-11 memorial TV show.
Clear Channel Communications, in a fit of capitalist rage (a business decision, actually), decided that they didn't want to carry his garbage. As I said previously, this is the magic of capitalism, and I hope that is all it was. I'd hate to think Clear Channel was running from Congressional extortion.
Stern sees something else afoot:
``The plug is about to be pulled on me,'' he told his audience, which he estimated at about 16 million listeners nationwide. ``I'm saying my goodbyes now. There's nothing you can do about it. . . . Vote George Bush out of office. That's all I ask. Remember me when you go to the voting booth.''So, in his first foray into the political realm, he blames President Bush for his own garbage, no doubt punctuating his remarks with flatulence.
Until recently, Stern has stayed away from politics. ``I just want to do fart jokes and have stripper chicks in here,'' he said Friday.
Stern thinks his show will be offed, according to THIS piece, "because of the threat of huge fines and possible loss of broadcast licenses. So Stern suggests government extortion.
By Stern's calculus, a vote for President Bush is a vote against Howard Stern. I will vote for the President anyway, but I suppose this is a bonus.
(Here is my first mention of Stern, from Thursday.)
0 comments
More Kerry Veepstakes
Eric at Vikingpundit places his marbles with North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. (He had suggested that Kerry would select a reasonably popular southern governor, and that moth-fancied hat fits Easley.)
It's too early for me to settle on a name for that, but I have suggested John Edwards as the next DNC chair (sooner rather than later).
This puts a nice twang on things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Taylor over at PoliBlog has posted this week's Toast-O-Meter. This week, it's Bush vrs. Kerry, with plenty of linkage.
0 comments
Has he no shame?
President Bush? [LINK]
And who are we, you and I, to profane the tragedy by mentioning or even thinking about it?
As Jewish groups take steps to be certain that no one can forget the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, no one should forget the dangers of terror. We must be rminded: NEVER AGAIN.
0 comments
3/05/2004
Surmountable Vulnerability
According to Saturday's Washpost, "Democratic strategists and outside experts" tell candidate JF Kerry that he must overcome "one glaring, though surmountable, vulnerability." They then list two glaring, though surmountable vulnerabilities: "a pedigree and stands on social issues that southerners have rejected in recent elections."
Let's take the second one. Stands on social issues which southerners have rejected in recent elections. WRONG. Southern rejection of Kerry's liberal social agenda is not limited to recent elections.
So if Kerry wants to surmount his vulnerability and win the South, he had better pretend that there are Two Americas. He's heard that one enough, right? One America in which a minority of the population is socially ultraliberal and the other in which the population is conservative. Now, he has to find a way to bend time and space so that these two Americas exist simultaneously.
But there's always this:
By effectively conceding the South to Bush, however, Kerry would be hurting the chances of the Democrats in key Senate races. Five Senate Democrats from the South, including John Breaux (La.), have announced their retirement.Kerry, according to the article linked above, is targeting States which Bill Clinton won many years ago, such as Louisiana (which Clinton won twice).
Kerry is not Clinton. He has one thing going for him in Louisiana: he speaks French. In that particular America, it might get him a vote or two. In the other, they'll run him out on a rail.
My wife asked me this afternoon, "But what if the economy starts losing jobs again?" I don't want to play "what ifs." I really don't.
0 comments
Kerry Endorsement
Ned Sebelius has worked for candidate John F. Kerry since last June. His mommy, Kansas Governor Kathy Sebelius, endorsed Kerry today in Topeka:
"We must have cooperation and support from the federal government," said Sebelius, flanked by state and local Democratic leaders.Here's a link, if you're into that sort of thing.
These cultural cretins are of no relation to Finnish composer Jean Sibelius (1865-1957), the man behind the tone poem Finlandia, op. 26. If you're into this type of music, you've heard it. If not, it won't matter unless or until you give it a shot.
What Sebelius thinks, it won't matter either way.
But these (Dem) Party people all seem to be getting on board the JF Kerry "Love Train." ("Don't need no ticket.")
0 comments
Martha Stewart
I am not going to burn my pillow bearing her name because of a $50,000 stock deal which is illegal only because our government has a tendency to regulate beyond the pale. I'm not going to toss out my bath towels because she lied to a government which asks too many questions anyway.
I am not a, per se, fan of Stewart, but our government is full of... well, craven ostentation.
0 comments
William Pfaff on Kerry's Foreign Policy
A fellow named William Pfaff -- who has written for, among other publications, Pravda -- has a piece in today's International Herald Tribune (owned by the New York Times) regarding candidate Kerry's possible foreign policy if elected. [LINK] He opens, of course, by using a few of the cheap arguments against the President, to wit:
Kerry's Vietnam service had demonstrated that he is a serious man who has experienced war, proved himself in battle, confronted war's moral and political dilemmas, and gone against the tide of convention and public opinion by condemning the war in which he had fought.He diminishes the election to a race between unilateral world domination and global leadership, and you can guess which side he puts where. His arguments are hollow (and his piece is linked above).
.
Nothing of this can be said of President George W. Bush. The dimensions of his evasion of active military service in the Vietnam War have yet to be clearly established, but the truth could prove devastating to his re-election campaign.
.
Bush nonetheless maintains that he is a "war president." Some of his followers, also military virgins, are all for still more war. In their book "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,"Richard Perle and David Frum write that we are all cowards if we don't overthrow the governments of North Korea and all the Arab states that look like they might make trouble. This neoconservative argument is not likely to help the Bush campaign.
One paragraph caught my attention especially:
There is a connection between Kerry's war and Bush's war. Intervention in Vietnam, like the invasion of Iraq, was something the Kennedy and Johnson governments owed to naïvely ideological thinking - about domino theories, the global menace of Chinese Communism, and all that.That is very dismissive and shows a tremendous amount of intellectual laziness.
First, the Vietnam conflicthad little or nothing to do with "the global menace of Chinese communism." North Korea was about the PRC. Vietnam was about Soviet Communism.
That's very basic stuff, Mr. Pfaff.
Vietnam, as originally envisioned by Kennedy, was about stopping the spread of Soviet communism. Our fight there showed the Soviets that they could not take any country they wanted on their whim. Combined with our efforts in subsequent administrations, the dominoes never fell. But it was a very real threat.
The Iraq war is not about the spread of any ideology. It is about destroying terrorism at its roots.
This was garbage. I'd like for Kerry himself to describe his brand of foreign policy, and I'd also like for him to agree with himself from week-to-week.
0 comments
Kerry's DNC Chairman
Terence McAuliffe is Clinton leftover, an officious and contentious drag on the Dem Party, and candidate JF Kerry will soon appoint his own DNC chair. I think he will do this pre-convention, as this summer's party had better more resemble a sing-along than a class riot.
Tony Snow on his radio show this afternoon forecast that Kerry's DNC Chairman will be John Edwards. This will not only put an ABB smiley face on the party, but it will also keep Edwards in public eye for a run at the nomination in '08.
0 comments
Democrat Unity!
An Associate Press writer named Nancy Benac has put together a nice article about:
The also-rans in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination have supplied plenty of rhetorical ammunition that Republicans could refire in the fall campaign, although the strategy is not without risks.She looks at some of the things said about the candidate by Wes Clark, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardts, and Joe Lieberman.
Here are the risks which she mentioned:
"The problem with the Republicans using it is that the Democrats agreed in every debate that anyone on the stage was better than George Bush," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Any time the Democrats' critical words are revived, the author of the words can step forward to explain them away and speak in praise of Kerry.There is no risk there, and there is nothing which can be explained away. The challenge for his former opponents will be to find a way to cozy to Kerry-ness the way the President's father came to embrace "voodoo economics" in 1980. That is unlikely.
For all that we can say about the disappointment of the first Bush Administration, I'm sure we can agree that the first President Bush was a statesman. The clowns who just finished seeking the Dem nomination, there is no one with an iota of his talent. They range from mealy-mouthed "nice guys" (Edwards) to lunatics (Dean). Ms. Cahill would best serve her boy by begging them to stay home and keep their mouths shut.
0 comments
Who is John Kerry?
The Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein asks and examines the clues [link], but he can't figure it out either.
Probably the most likely outcome is that Kerry will present an amalgam. He's offering neither a rejection nor a revival of Clinton's policies, but a more combative synthesis that reflects the country's new challenges and the demands of a party virtually unified in hostility to the Bush agenda.I'll keep looking for a plausible definition of the man sans ketchup references.
0 comments
Tony Blair's Speech
Geopolitics. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the Member of Parliament (MP) from Sedgefield, and he spoke to his home constituency of Friday morning. It was about the war and it's reasons, and HERE is the complete text.
He seemed to speak also for is wartime ally President Bush:
It is… my fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and round the world is real and existential and it is the task of leadership to expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true danger is not to any single politician's reputation, but to our country if we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at the difficulties it causes.He confronts the claim that he had told the British public that they were in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein and his WMD, using passages from his own speeches on the subject prior to the war.
The reason, he said, was WMD-related, via the sundry UNSC resolutions:
I accept, incidentally, that however abhorrent and foul the regime and however relevant that was for the reasons I set out before the war, for example in Glasgow in February 2003, regime change alone could not be and was not our justification for war. Our primary purpose was to enforce UN resolutions over Iraq and WMD.THE THREAT:
Of course the opponents are boosted by the fact that though we know Saddam had WMD; we haven't found the physical evidence of them in the 11 months since the war. But in fact, everyone thought he had them. That was the basis of UN Resolution 1441.
But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.And it is about September 11, not so much the horrible tragedy itself, but::
The characterisation [sic] of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live. Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living. If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed. But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it.
[W]hat galvanised [sic] me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.This is exactly what it is, and it is precisely what John Kerry dangerously fails to comprehend.
President Bush, you are not as eloquent as is the British Minister, but you have to deliver his speech to the American people. You need to enlist your best speechwriters, not that "limited" group who put together your last State of the Union, to craft something you can deliver. Deliver it in New York this summer for effect, if your campaign boyz think it worth the risk to wait. But do it when the press cannot deem you "on the defensive."
0 comments
Kerry's Veepstakes
PoliPundit has tossed an intriguing name into the speculative mix: Joltin' Joe Lieberman.
[LINK].
0 comments
The President's Ad Controversy
The enemies of the President are still spewing. Here's the opening paragraph from a piece in today's Toronto Globe and Mail:
George W. Bush tripped over the wreckage of the World Trade Center and stumbled into controversy yesterday as he tried to take the high road with an expensive advertising campaign for re-election but was immediately attacked for playing politics with tragedy.The President's campaign did not trip, stumble, or gaffe. For a brief second in a couple of ads, they showed quick scenes of what happened on September 11, 2001. The commercials praised the American people, not President Bush, for overcoming what happened.
From a CBSNews.com story:
Ignoring family pleas, White House officials defended the ads as highlighting a pivotal moment in the nation's history and suggested politics was behind some of the criticism, reports [CBS aging glamour boy/haircut John] Roberts."A few families of victims, associated with the Kerry campaign, made a political issue of this. They did not plea helplessly, as the Great Haircut claimed.
The Kerry camp is desperate. They have to create something, a reason for people not in the "A.B.B." camp to support their politically lifeless candidate. It's annoying, but that's entertainment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: Another thought has crossed my mind. There has been talk of the President accepting the Republican nomination from Ground Zero this summer. 'T would be a powerful image, and this might have been the Dems' pre-emptive strike against such a "show." (The word "show" is thusly punctuated because such a location for the speech would be protrayed as a political show.)
But like Mark Noonan mentioned in the comments, they want to play up Kerry's four (4) heroic months in Vietnam while seperating the PResident from his (and our nation's) triumphs as Commander-in-Chief.
0 comments
A New Column
A new Jan Ireland is up at the Rightsided Newsletter site, dealing with Black History Month. Jan mentions some great Americans, black, who were not remembered by the political machine moving Black History Month: Ward Connerly, Star Parker, Walter Williams, and their rare like
We like to celebrate the content of the character. Something a black conservative once recommended. The values of the Democrat party Martin Luther King, Jr., supported would be Republican today. Black history suffers immensely by pretending conservative blacks don't exist.
With luck, Black History Month 2005 will reflect the black experience all of it.
0 comments
Another National Poll: Associated Press
Good morning. National polls, especially at this stage, are meaningless snapshots of surveyed voters and their visceral reactions at a given moment in time. We've seen candidate Kerry leading such polls (with non-voters in the sample) by umpteen points. (Even the erstwhile Edwards was burying Bush in the doubles before he hitched a ride out of town.)
A new Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs poll shows the President at 46-percent, Kerry at 45-percent, and Ralph Nader at 6-percent.
The poll was conducted before, during, and after Kerry won everything but Vermont Tuesday night, so he got that boost. His overall good press is a boost.
According to the poll, for what it's worth, Kerry has to make himself out to be an attractive candidate. Depending on what happens, we know how high the President can soar in such polls. I doubt Kerry has that potential.
0 comments
3/04/2004
The "Jewish Vote"
This is a bloc which historically votes Democrat.
From Talon News: RJC Concerned over Kerry's 'Flip-Flops' on Israel:
The Republican Jewish Coalition, the main voice of Jewish Republicans to Republican decision makers and the Jewish community, expressed concern recently about Sen. John Kerry's stance on Israel, based on differing statements he has made at various times during his candidacy."Differing statements" is a very nice euphemism for Kerry-speak.
Though this was a GOP-aligned Jewish group, a secure state of Israel is of fundamental importance to Jewish voters. The President has a very public and enthusiastic record of support of Israel.
Said Bush/Cheney chairman Marc Racicot, from a story in The Jewish Journal:
"We understand they have been inclined to support Democrats," Racicot said of Jewish voters in an interview with the JTA. "But we feel the president’s policies and his values in regards to the Middle East lead to the possibility to be much more successful in the Jewish community."This is one demographic I'll be watching.
0 comments
Leadership vrs. Credibility
That is how the Frenchies say we see this Presidential race [Agence France-Presse (AFP) link].
The "credibility" question, raised by Kerry and the Dems, plays right for French ears. If that is going to be Kerry's them, he ought to pick as his running mate its loudest and most forceful advocate: Howard Dean. Kerry/Dean '04. I'm sure Bush, Mehlman, and Rove will take it.
0 comments
North Korea backs the Kerry candidacy
With a tip of the hat to Hugh Hewitt, I offer you THIS bit o' news from the Financial Times:
John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.I wonder how Kerry will use this endorsement on the campaign trail. Maybe as a fundraiser; after all, Kim has 22.5-million destitute slaves from whom to extract the literal last penny.
In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's [dictator Kim Jong-Il] communist regime.
Make checks payable to…
0 comments
The President's Enemies Unleashed
According to the Associated Press State Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) equated a vote against President Bush with a vote for Adolf Hitler. The real story, as reported in the same story, is this:
"What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944? He would have thought American resolve was" (weakening), Cole said, according to a spokeswoman.He later said that he was not trying to equate a vote against Bush and a vote for Hitler, and he clearly wasn't. In a time of war, an enemy will take the rejection of a leader as a sign of weakness. That's all he said.
He also said:
"[I]f George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election" since enemies of the United States would interpret it as a sign of weakness.The same thing, though it was interpreted by the President's enemies as equating a vote against Bush with a vote for Osama bin Laden.
These are the same clowns -- Kerry supporters all -- who are indignant about the new Bush/Cheney commercials. Literally:
California Rep. Robert Matsui, chairman of the Democrats' House campaign committee, compared Cole's comments to Bush's new campaign commercials that use images from the terrorist attacks.WRONG. The Kerry campaign's allies are attempting to politicize 9-11™ because the campaign is currently financially strapped and, either way, the President has to be stripped of his proven leadership artificially.
"The Republican Party's continuing attempt to politicize the 9/11 tragedy is an insult to the victims' families and our entire nation," Matsui said in a statement.
It's too bad the Kerry critters aren't having any fun. Miserable gits.
0 comments
Howard Stern Takes on President Bush
Far be it from me even to attempt to portray anything coming from Salon.com as serious political journalism, and I shan't begin doing so now. However, today they share their reasoning as to why Howard Stern was canned by Clear Channel Communication:
Stern's loyal listeners, Clear Channel foes and many Bush administration critics immediately reached the same conclusion: The notorious jock was yanked off the air because he had recently begun trashing Bush, and Bush-friendly Clear Channel used the guise of "indecency" to shut him up. That the content of Stern's crude show hadn't suddenly changed, but his stance on Bush had, gave the theory more heft. That, plus his being pulled off the air in key electoral swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania.But of course.
Eric Boehlert penned the scintillating schlock, scarcely e'en sophistic, for that sub-species of webzine, and if falls flat from advent to finish in pinning Stern's loss of face on the President.
Let's go through this slowly. Janet Jackson shows angry football fans her middle-aged boobie. Congress picks up righteous rocks and threatens to fling them at all and sundry. Clear Channel decides that Stern's crap isn't worth the pain, and they drop him.
Stern doesn't torture his fanatics or destroy infidels, so I doubt he's been captured on the President's radar. I'd assume that people who listen to his show would be Kerry voters anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: Thinking about this, I realize that I might have seemed to be saying that Stern can say whatever he wants and that those who object are in the midst of puritanical tizzies. Not at all. I have not ever heard Howard Stern's radio show, though I've heard his named mentioned by the occasional "clever" calerl to C-SPAN. No one should be forcibly subjected to things which do not meet contemporary community standards.
When Clear Channel dropped Stern for crossing that sick line, this was an example of the perfection of capitalism. More will follow if you don't give him an excuse to cry "government censorship."
0 comments
Candidate Kerry's Issues
My friend Jim McCaffrey has a penchant for producing succinct and elucidating e-mail, to wit (with permission):
Hi Mark,The same people elected Kerry to the Senate as elected Teddy Kennedy, whose only excuse passing for a "qualification" is that he, like his more talented brothers, is Papa Joe's son. JF Kerry is a wannabe, and Jim captures the essence of Kerry and his politics. And what we're going to see over the next eight months.
Issues??? Here's the Dems strategy:
Bush is not allowed to mention or promote the leadership he has provided in the aftermath of the most serious attack and threat in our history.
But Lord Kerry is free to obscenely promote his 4 month tour in Vietnam.
They may question Bush's Guard service by innuendo and through subsidiary mouth-pieces.
But Kerry's post Vietnam treachery is off-limits.
Kerry's Senate record is to be written off as "history", or haughty reminders that we "don't understand the process", or that Kerry "grew", he, "was not inflexible like Bush".
The new Houdini will then try to convince he can do the following:
Reduce the deficit, but expand handouts. Remain strong while kneeling before Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac. Become stronger while lowering our defense. Oppose same sex marriage, but endorse its practice. Note: They are very skilled on this sort of "sleight of hand". It's the old, "I personally oppose abortion, but I support its practice."
And finally, you must not believe your lying eyes, and mind, when they tell you that Lord Kerry is a lame, disingenuous, opportunistic elitist geek. In other words please abandon the unavoidable conclusion that he is nothing more than a leftist con-man, who actually aspires to the Presidency. This despite the fact that he has done absolutely nothing to earn and hold a seat in the U.S. Senate, despite that body's very low standards for membership and performance.
Jim
0 comments
New Columns
Live now on the Rightsided Newsletter site are columns by:
Isaiah Z. Sterrett: Where do we go from Here, with a look at the upcoming campaign and some ideas for the Bush/Cheney campaign:
Thus I propose a bit of a radical plan. Instead of Bush campaigning sporadically in places like Pennsylvania and attending $2000-per-plate fundraisers in New York City, he ought to start at one corner of the country and campaign for weeks at a time, non-stop. It would be very Trumanesque.
Dennis Campbell: Are liberal all hat and no cattle?, that liberals are all talk with no action.
The challenge to them is this: Rather than looking to our cumbersome and monumentally inefficient federal bureaucracy to use money confiscated from others to solve these problems, use the considerable assets of liberals to do it.The links will take you there, and from there you can click a link and return.
0 comments
Electronic Hanging Chads
I've a question for the Deaniacs amongst us. Did the John Kerry Washington-insider, business-as-usual, fatcat machine STEAL the California primary election from your candidate?
0 comments
The Tony Snow Show
For those of you who wanted to listen to Tony Snow's new radio program but do not yet receive it in your market, I've found three radio stations from which you can listen to it over the Internet. Streaming audio is a fine thing.
Click on the links to be taken to the page. Once there, look for the words "LISTEN." (It's there.) Click that, and it will upoad to your Windoze Media player. You can snag it weekday afternoons:
From 1-4p CT (2-6p ET) on 1340 News Radio out of Beaumont, Texas.
From 2-4p PT (5-7p ET) on KXL in Portland, Oregon.
From 3-4p PT (6-7p ET) on KFMB out of San Diego.
NOTE: The Portland station has you automatically download a small plugin before listening. It seems to be more a nuisance than anything. One or two of the stations do a "best of" thing on the weekends, as well.
0 comments
"The universally agreed upon tenets of Islam."
Nina Shea of Freedom House makes a good point in an NRO piece this morning:
The proposed constitution does not indicate what those tenets are, or any source where they may be found. This vague formulation risks empowering unelected religious authorities to override basic rights in determining what is "Islamically correct." It could also lead to further sectarian violence in a struggle over interpretation.She might be thinking of the Governing Council in Iran, an unelected body of twelve people who can cast aside laws and candidates willy-nilly as not Islamic. One would think a Constitution in an Islamic society would call for an explicit "wall of separation between church and state," not just an offhand letter to the Danbury Baptists mentioning the concept. But, alas, that would not leave the tarmac in a country with a thousand mullahs finally permitted to act like their mullah brethren in other Islamic states.
She could also be thinking of the Ulema, a community of legal scholars of Islam and Sharia law. Then you have a dozen ulema issuing a million fatawa, and not one of them can render an opinion which clearly trumps the others.
Hers is, I think, a valid point. A vaguery in the hands of a band of mullahs is subject to vagary. It could be interpreted as anything. Destroy the infidels! (That is a universally agree upon tenet of Islam amongst many mullahs.)
This is something which has to be sorted out before a final constitution is ratified. For the interim document, it does not matter. Such questions will not be pondered unless or until Iraq becomes a serious country with a serious constitution.
Let them get started with something.
0 comments
George Mitchell is New Disney Chairman
Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) is the new Chairman of the Board at Disney, taking over half the job of CEO and former chairman Michael Eisner after what passed as a shareholders' revolt.
Mitchell is also known form negotiating Clinton's failed peace talks involving Northern Ireland and for heading negotiations for Clinton's disastrous" Middle East peace talks, the ones which began the current Palestinian Intifada.
They might have finally found a safe place for Mitchell to Mickey Mouse around and be Goofy. Although I'm not a qualified financial advisor, you would probably do best to sell your Disney stalk. What Mitchell touches inevitably backfires and falls apart.
0 comments
Angry Families of 9-11™ Victims
The new Bush/Cheney '04 commercials have generated a mini-outcry for their inclusion of brief images of Ground Zero in Manhattan.
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."Excuse me, but as personally traffic as September 11 was for the families, it affected almost every American apart from Michael Moore. It was the one defining moment for a generation, and the President's actions in that regard defined his Presidency. A campaign message without inclusion of this important part of the President's service would be incomplete. Why would anyone want anything different?
Motives.
Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.Osama bin Laden is still getting some political mileage out of the awful day he helped construct for both Monica Gabrielle and Mindy Kleinberg. And for all of us.
. . .
Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots."
Triumph over national tragedy is a valid part of a shared national experience. And surpassing that tragedy is part of a presidential legacy.
0 comments
3/03/2004
New Columns on RSN Site
Jason E. High's Why do we Care? is a very reasoned defense of marriage, as we know it.
There are many reasons that the government cares about marriage. One of the primary reasons is simple economics. The same Democrats now advocating gay marriage will be advocating "fighting poverty" in the next breath. But isn't there a connection here? Don't economics and marriage go hand-in-hand down the aisle of prosperity? They most certainly do.Stephen Erwin's Congressional Power Grabe is a look at some legislation Mr. Erwin finds dangerous:
Many people, I'm sure, are prepared to take issue with that assertion. These same people would be shocked to find out that only seven percent of children living in poverty live with parents that have been married to each other during the child's entire life. That means that ninety-three percent of children living in poverty come from what liberals love to refer to as a "broken home." Fifty-one percent of these children live with a mother that has never been married. Only twenty-seven percent of all children live in single-parent families. However, sixty-two percent of the children living in poverty live in a single-parent family. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. It must be simply a "quirk" of the numbers.
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads "In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." H.R. 3799 and S. 2082, titled "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004", uses this clause to ban the Supreme Court from reviewing cases that involve "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." It also denies district courts jurisdiction over any case the Supreme Court can't review.
The very worthy intent of the legislation is to use the "Exceptions" clause to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over Ten Commandment or Christmas displays, prayer by City Councils or school children, and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If passed and declared legal by the courts it would give Congress unlimited power to ignore the Constitution by simply adding a line to every bill denying to the federal courts the right to review the issue. If it wanted Congress could ban all political speech but its own before an election, ban all firearms ownership, or actually establish a religion. It would be an even more dangerous assault on the separation of powers than unconstitutionally allowing judges to legislate from the bench has become.
0 comments
Bush/Cheney '04 Commercials
The Bush/Cheney '04 campaign's first three television commercials come out of the can tomorrow, but you can preview them here.
The first is a 60-second spot called "Lead." It's an optimistic commercial, and the message is that the President, seated by his wife Laura, knows where to lead the country and the world.
The second commercial, "Tested," talked about the various tests which have hit America over the past several years. The President is "steady leadership in times of change."
The third, also available in Spanish, is called "Safer, Stronger." It goes through the various tests America has faced and how we've met the challenge. We're now safer and stronger.
This President's view of the country is sharply different from that of candidate Kerry. It's a good start.
0 comments
Reggie the Registration Rig
No kidding. From an RNC press release:
Today, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie officially kicked off National Voter Registration Week at a news conference from the helm an 18-wheeler named "Reggie the Registration Rig" that was parked out in front of RNC headquarters.The mission is: 1-million new Republican voters in one week, beginning: Saturday. (They want 2-million more by election day.)
"There are millions of unregistered Republicans all across America," said Chairman Gillespie.
"The President's steady leadership in these changing times is exciting more Americans to participate and when more Americans participate that is good news for Republicans from the State House to the White House."
The 56 foot, 80,000 pound, 18-wheeler, designed expressly for registering voters, is fully equipped with interactive multimedia capabilities, Xbox systems, a sound stage and much more. Today's debut of Reggie the Registration Rig begins a nationwide voter registration tour as Reggie stops at college campuses, NASCAR and other sporting events, parades, ethnic festivals, and many other public events until Election Day 2004.
The RNC has set up a Reggie the Registration Rig web site: HERE, including a "Reggie Cam" with two views.
As a registration gimmick, it sounds like a neat idea. Remember, it is to appeal to those not registered to vote. It captures a mini-movement, and it will be fun to hear the peudo-intellectual lefi(ish) press attack it is not their cup o' tea. That is all the press they'll need.
0 comments
The Wrong Choice Too Early
The toe-sucker agrees with what I have been saying all along. THIS crawled into my Inbox from an RSN subscriber who knows what I think of Dick Morris…
Once the Democratic voters had discarded Howard Dean and embraced Kerry, they did not have the dexterity to rethink Kerry in the light of the Edwards alternative.I barely could believe it was a Morris opinion piece, for he mentioned Clinton only once, and not in paranoid terms of the man and his wife controlling all and sundry from a shed behind the Bill Clinton Memorial Presidential Library and Amusement Park.
Too bad for the Democrats: Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be.
. . .
In the coming weeks, Bush will hammer at Kerry until we look back and wonder why we ever thought the Massachusetts senator could have won in the first place.
By then, of course, it will be too late. The nominating process is so frontloaded that the Democrats will be stuck with the flawed Kerry candidacy for months as he slowly twists in the wind.
Edwards was the alternative the Dems should have grabbed. He was the only one of the lot who stood a chance at all against the President. And now, with the Terence McAuliffe-orchestrated rush-to-the-nominee, the Dems are left with a candidate full of hidden warts, a closet crowded with bones.
There is a strong possibility that the Dem convention in July could have undertones far more bleak than '84 Fritz's DNC in San Francisco. (Mario Cuomo was their self-described high point!)
0 comments
Senator Campbell calls it quits. Should Kerry?
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado) announced today that he will not seek reelection, citing his health. Senator Campbell was elected to the Senate in 1992 as a Democrat but switched parties in 1995. The seat should be safe for Republicans.
Last year, Senator Campbell acknowledged that he was undergoing treatments for a prostate cancer of which he is in remission. In his statement today, he wrote: "Doctors have assured me that after treatment for prostate cancer, the recovery rate is 98 percent. But I believe Coloradans deserve a 100 percent guarantee of service."
In February of 2003, Candidate JF Kerry had his cancerous prostate gland removed. He does not share Senator Campell's sentiment concerning what his potential constituents deserve.
Do I think that part of Campbell's statement was a reference to Kerry? Almost definitely. The timing is exquisite.
0 comments
Dennis wins Primary
Further Demonstrating candidate Kerry's innate weakness, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean won that State's presidential primary with 58-percent of the vote despite having long since departed the race.
Candidate Dennis Kucinich also won a primary, Tuesday [AP link]. Dennis held off primary challenger George Pulling to win his party's nomination for his own Congressional seat (Ohio's 10th), 85-percent to 15-percent.
According to the Associated Press, though, Kucinich is staying in the hunt for the Dem presidential nomination:
Kucinich didn't win a single one of the 30 state contests, including the ten on Super Tuesday. He's collected just 18 delegates, compared to more than 11-hundred amassed by John Kerry. Still, Kucinich tells The Associated Press he wants to force a debate within the party on such issues as Iraq, health care and trade. And he says that debate will occur only if he stays in the race.It appears that Cleveland's former boy-mayor has been sipping the waters of the flaming Cuyahoga River.
It's not clear how Kucinich plans to get his message out, but he is due to get federal matching funds this week.
0 comments
Rohrabacher defeats Dornan
Former conservative Congressman Bob Dornan missed in his bed to return to the United States Congress after eight years, losing in his primary bid to defeat Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in California's 46th district, 83-percent to 17-percent. [AP link] Dornan conceded the race but vowed to continue to rant about his issues.
Rohrabacher, also a conservative, once considered Dornan to be a friend. What with the primary challenge, his opinion changed.
"The vote today indicates that most people believe that Bob Dornan is a self indulgent, arrogant bigot, and that's not the type of person they want representing them in Washington," the incumbent said.I love Bob Dornan -- my wife an I named our first cat after the man! -- but this struck me as more of a stunt on his part than anything else.
0 comments
Notes from Tuesday Night
What I scribbled after I had vowed to stop pondering last night's non-event:
Vanessa Kerry is a blonde, 20-something who looks an awful lot like her father. Chris Matthews asked her to tell the country something about her father that people watching him behind a podium might not know.
Vanessa went through the idealism and vision for the future bit, then added as an afterthought when she realized she hadn't answered the question: "Maybe the side that people don't see is the goofy man that is my father, in his quiet time."
Kerry himself said that he will be relying heavily on big spending by outside Democrat groups, such as the Soros-funded MoveOn.org. This could backfire. The MoveOn.org ads are essentially funny novelty items right now, but in Presidential politics, the standards are different. A certain amount of professionalism is expected, and MoveOn.org's childish slander will look amateurish and even pathetic. Kerry needs to get his own money.
His victory speech last night was a regurgitation of his stump speeches, and perhaps he was copying a candidate John Edwards tactic. If you'll remember, after his strong second-place finish in Iowa, Edwards received high marks from the media for… well, regurgitating his stump speech. However, when Edwards did it, he did so because it was essentially the first time to get his stump speech heard around the country, in future primary/caucus States. With Kerry, it was simply the regurgitation of his stump speech because he had nothing new to say.
In one line from his stump/victory speech, he said that he would be a leader not only for the United States, but also for the "other 96-percent of humankind waiting for American leadership." I am not sure what his view of American leadership is when he wants to follow the United Nations, and any actual leadership from America is called unilateralism.
Now, the visible electorate will be larger than the pool of Democrat primary voters. When we'd read, "Voters in Ohio said that they didn't want President Bush," they weren't talking about all voters in Ohio. The group about which they were speaking were only Dem Primary voters in Ohio, a group bound to be pessimistic about the President. This is good news for those of you who, like my wife, were just sick to death of hearing the President trashed from all directions with little or no return fire.
0 comments
Post-Democrat Party "Wictory Wednesday"
The Dems are all but done, they've had their free ride, and candidate John Kerry now has to answer a few questions. You can help the President ask them:
Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.
And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:
0 comments
3/02/2004
L'Extrémité
That is one way to say it in French.
Candidate Edwards said some nice things about candidate Kerry, and he will be saying "bye-bye" tomorrow. Teddy Kennedy introduced candidate Kerry: "He's a super nominee! And he'll be a super President of the United States!" (These clowns did the same stuff for Fritz when he won the nomination in '84.)
The President called Kerry earlier to congratulate him on a nice victory. (No hard feelings, John.)
"Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!" (And in floats Sissy Spacek.)
Is this the stuff political junkies eat up? Not necessarily. For some of us, it is too contrived, predicted too many times and for too long. We talked gleefully of our Anti-Deans and our Anti-Kerrys, and there were neither. Dean was as close to an Anti-Dean as materialized, and once Kerry started winning, a desperate Dem Party latched onto him, stuck with him as inevitable.
Now what? We've a show to watch.
President Nixon ran for reelection in '72, and he won in a landslide.
President Carter ran for reelection in '80, and he lost to a revolution.
President Reagan ran for reelection in '84, and the Earth shook.
President GHW Bush ran for reelection in '92, and he lost to a candidate who received only 43-percent of the vote.
Clinton ran for reelection in '96, and he received 49% of the vote.
This might be the third consecutive close reelection campaign, and it depends on whether or not candidate Kerry can somehow pull the Democrat Party together.
His speech was a yawner. Methinks he needs to call Naomi Wolf; that gal will make an Alpha Male of the candidate if anyone can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Mehlman: "Let's begin a dialogue. The American people have had enough of a monologue."
0 comments
NBC Projections
Kerry wins Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
Is there any point to this?
The big story is Vermont, and the Deaniacs are going to demand that he take advantage of his Ho-mentum and get back in the race. On his blog, someone will demand that they "put up a bat."
Does anyone remember the excitment with which we looked up Iowa and New Hampshire? South Carolina and those States?
Where have all the fun songs gone?
This nomination race has been what Terence McAuliffe wanted, in tenure, but was he counting on a dud race to select a dud candidate? No one is excited about Kerry.
This election will be the President vrs. A.B.B. Someone find where we put the truncheons.
0 comments
Fox Projections
Georgia - Kerry defeats Edwards.
Vermont - "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
I think:
Edwards back Kerry tomorrow after starting to make nice this evening.
0 comments
NY mayor charged after breaking the law
What is Arnold up to?
Jason West, the 26-year-old Greenie mayor of New Paltz, NY, had been marrying homosexual couples. Groovy. Today, according to Newsday, West "was ordered to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges that he broke state law by solomizing about two dozen weddings without a marriage license."
He faces up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.
What, then, of San Francisco's lawbreaking Mayor Gavin Newsome?
Mars is Wet
Per Reuters"
"Opportunity has landed in an area of Mars where liquid water once drenched the surface," NASA associate administrator Ed Weiler told a news conference.I suppose I was with thousands of other four-year-olds in the summer of '69, watching Uncle Walter show me the moon on my parents' TV screen. It was so far away, and I knew this, yet it seemed almost conterminous. But then again, where on Earth could it be?
"Moreover, this area would have been good habitable environment."
That does not mean that evidence of life has been found -- but it suggests that life could have evolved on Mars just as it did on Earth, NASA said.
It does mean NASA can go ahead with a plan to eventually send people to Mars.
Opportunity landed on Jan. 24 in a small crater on the vast flat Meridiani.
In January, because I could, I put myself through something similar. The Mars rover Spirit had snapped a photo of a football-sized rock dubbed Adirondack. The picture had been radioed back to terra firma as a signal, the computers had worked their digital wonders, and I had downloaded it from a NASA site. Adirondack was my computer's desktop wallpaper for about a week that month, while our probe was exploring the rock, drilling into it, some 143-million miles away. For some reason I knew then to be misguided, I felt like a somehow controlling citizen of the solar system.
Water on Mars. Who'd have thunk it? If you are situated on Mars tonight -- "alone and palely loitering" -- have a drink on me.
CAVEAT: The digital age is in its infancy.
0 comments
More Phony Gun Control Mania
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: The Senate rejected S. 1085 -- the bill to shield gunmakers from liabity -- as amended, 90-8. The amendments, tacked on by anti-gun Senators, are what killed it, and their passage is reported below. Though the amendments were initially passed, they then died with the rest of the bill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By a vote of 53-46 early this afternoon, the Senate voted an Amendment which would require backgrounds checks for all firearms sold at gun shows ("gun show loophole"). Those Republican Senators voting for the restriction and limitation on the Second Amendment rights were Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Pete Voinovich of Ohio, and John Warner of Virginia. The amendment was styled "McCain Amendment" likes being thought of as a maverick. Of late, Hagel has seemingly striven incessantly to achieve the media's maverick modality.
Fitzgerald is not coming back next year.
The Senate also voted, 52-47, to extend the ban on weapons of which they do not like the looks ("military-style assault weapons"). Those Republican Senators voting for the ban were Chafee, Susie Collins of Maine, DeWine, Fitzgerald, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith or Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Voinovich, and Warner. Collins and Snow are, along with Chafee and sometimes Voinovich, part of the "MODerate" GOP Mod Squad. (One Mod Squad member voting against both amendments was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who faces conservative opposition in his April primary in a pro-gun State.)
Smith is from Oregon, where he might be the only Republican.
The amendments were to S. 1805, a bill to immunize the gun industry from liability lawsuits. The gun ban extension is likely to be removed from the bill by the House later this year.
Dem candidates John Kerry and John Edwards interrupted their Super Tuesday campaigning to play Senator for a few hours, both voting for the offending amendments.
No surprises.
0 comments
Will Kerry Select a Veep?
Probably. It would be overkill if, despite his preference, he partnered with himself to comprise this November's Dem ticket.
It is no longer too early to speculate, I think. The Democrat primaries have yielded every last bit of information useful to John Kerry's programmers (and to observers), so now they have to find the best candidate who is willing to accept the dubitable dishonor of playing someone else's second fiddle in the Orchestra of the Electorally Damned.
My early pick was Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). One qualification, oddly enough, is that he is the fruit of his father's loins. Birch Evans Bayh III (Evan Bayh) is the son of Birch Evans Bayh, Jr. (Birch Bayh), one of Indiana's U.S. Senators from 1963 to 1981. His 1976 bid from the Democrat Presidential nomination stalled when the saying "Birch Who?" failed to steal the eye of the political press. (kidding)
Bayh is from the MidWest, which is what Kerry needs if he's looking for geography. His tone is very moderated and reassuring, he's (relatively) young, and his national persona is that of a vice president. So he'd balance Kerry's ideology in the south as much as would a non-conservative southernor. His drawback would be that some pro-abort groups seem no to think that Bayh is "pro-choice enough," but he's become increasingly pro-abort as his ambitions have increased.
Another drawback could be his youth (49), but that last time a non-incumbent candidate ran with a young Indiana Senator on his undercard was1998, and Bush the elder won that election.
In a comment attached to a post below, Brian of Tomfoolery of the Highest Order suggests New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, an erstwhile Clinton boy. He points out that the Dems could play on Richardson's Hispanic origins and his former post as U.N. Ambassador.
The Media love Bill Richardson. Bob Schieffer, I think it was, once asked him if he though Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham were "up to the job." (Richardson was, for a time, Clinton's Secretary of Energy. He's the media's gold standard.) When they need an "expert" on virtually anything, they'll summon Richardson, whose profile is thus kept constantly above the groundwater.
Eric at Viking Pundit suggested "a reasonably popular Southern Democratic Governor. Any will do." There are not that many of them. I have heard talk, mostly from Virginians, about the chances of Virginia Governor Mark Warner. There's Mike Easley of North Carolina, and Edwards would be insane to keep him off any shortlist.
New Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco is pro-life. Disqualified. Plus, she's bound to be overshadowed by Louisiana Senator Mary Landieu, who shouldn't make the short list either. (Outgoing Senator John Breaux -- the Sultan of the Centrists, the Mullah of the Moderates, the Baron of Bipartisanship -- would be on a preferred short list, but I can foresee no way in which he would accept the nomination.)
Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen doesn't strike me as vice presidential, let alone presidential, and Tennessee is not a swing State. Sans Gore topping the Dem ticket in 2000, President Bush would have won the State in a walk. Bredesen has been described as "greatly popular and influential," thus meeting another of the Viking Pundit's criteria, but that descriptions come to us courtesy of the Nashville Tennessean.
What about Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry? He'll be 41 in June, but give him a few wrinkles and he could pass for a decade over that:

He's pro-gun rights, though I haven't found to what extent. His approval rating is 68% as the Democrat Governor of a "Red State."
You know, this is as tepid a trivial pursuit as one will find anywhere short of speculating about Nader's No. 2. Peter Camejo?
But at least includes a picture.
0 comments
Rupert Murdoch becoming Conservative?
Geopolitics. News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, an Australian subject of the British Queen, owns FOX News Channel (FNC) here in the States. In Britain, he owns the conservative broadsheet Times of London. The BBC, however, credits British Prime Minister Tony Blair with winning "Rupert Murdoch and his Sun newspaper over to New Labour." [LINK] (The Sun is Murdoch's British tabloid newspaper, the one with bare-breasted beauties on Page 3.)
"New Labour" is Blair's "third way" version of Neil Kinnock's old Labour [sic] Party. It's policy which smells like Bill Clinton, if not his cigars. And that is what FNC owner Murdoch was into, according to the BBC.
The BBC story linked above reports that Murdoch has invited Tory leader Michael Howard to address a meeting of News Corp executives in Mexico.
The latest development comes just a couple of months after Mr Murdoch publicly declared he may be willing to back Mr Howard at the next election.So it looks like the Sun and the Times will revert to backing Britain's Conservative Party.
He said he was still worried about more power being given to Europe and wanted to see if Mr Howard could turn Tory fortunes around.
The BBC further speculates that Blair will "rule out joining the single [European] currency in this parliament," one of Murdoch's biggest concerns.
Either way, with one simple invitation to speak, Mr Murdoch has again displayed just how central he and his newspapers can be on the British political scene.As Americans, we should applaud anything which might slow the creep of Eurosocialism.
0 comments
Long GOP History of opposing freaky marriage
In his 3rd message to Congress, on December 3, 1906, President Republican Theodore Roosevelt proposed a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage from polygamy and quickie divorce, to federally "safeguard the home life of the average citizen." (HERE is a post from lesbian-ophile historian Kathleen Dalton.)
From a Scripps-Howard piece"
In 1906, the country was still mired in issues from the 1896 admission of Utah into the Union, which sparked a debate over Mormon practices of polygamy. Dalton said that the Women's Christian Temperance Union met with Roosevelt to get his support for traditional marriage, and that the president already was upset at the wealthy, who could afford to use divorce laws in Reno to get out of their marriages.Of course, things have changed greatly with regards to our nation's morals in the last 98-years Marriage, some argue, is not what it once was.
0 comments
3/01/2004
Tuper Suesday Super Tuesday
Again, forget the media. Wipe that garbage from your mind. I told you throughout the last months of last year and into this primary season that there was no way Howard Dean would win the Democrat nomination. I told you that money and organization (Dean and Gephardt) would finish at the bottom in Iowa. I had told you never to count John Kerry out of the race. Blah, blah, blah. So what?
I will tell you now that, despite the media wisdom, the race for the Democrat nomination is not over. John Edwards has to win Georgia tomorrow, if for anything, to prove that he can sweep Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana on the 9th. He'll also need to do that.
Edwards also has to pick up at least one more State tomorrow night, possibly two. (Sorry, but Minnesota doesn't count in this calculus.) Let's say he has his best shots in Ohio, Maryland, New York, and California. One or two of them would help get Edwards back on track.
After he's won the designated share tomorrow and swept on the 9th, Illinois would become the battleground. If Edwards could then win that outright, no matter how small the margin, he would be in the thick of the race.
That being said, I'll stop laughing if you will.
It might make a good movie, though. I'll begin the screenplay when we go back on the gold standard.
From what I can read and sense, Kerry's their man. In fact, Kerry's name is now used interchangeably with the acronym A.B.B., and no one's touching that.
As for his veep, I think it's a no-brainer, and this quite frequently means that I will be wrong. But let's look at it this way: Kerry's forfeited the South and probably can't do much there anyway. Forget Edwards and Bob Graham. No, not Hillary. Her groupies are up in Kerry country as it is, anyway.
The Dems ought to think that the President is most vulnerable in the Midwest. Right now, I'd put my money on Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). (He's the man I had pegged for Edwards's veep selection back in 2001.) For a long shot, how about Representative Dennis Moore (D-Kansas)? "And now my lords, my ladies… your lupins, please."
0 comments
Separation of Church and State
Didn't TJ tell the Danbury Baptists in a letter that there is a wall of separation between the church and the state? What's all THIS, then?
The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Catholic charity must offer prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even if church teaching opposes birth control measures.The charity is doing the work of the Church, it is aligned with the Church, thus what is the State's compelling interest to force them to violate this fundamental tenet of their Church? This is a matter of life and death.
The state's highest court upheld a lower court decision rejecting Catholic Charities of Sacramento's claims it did not have to offer prescription contraceptives because it considered itself obliged to follow the Roman Catholic Church's religious teachings, which hold that the use of artificial birth control is a sin.
The state supreme court said the charity, incorporated separately from the church, was not a "religious employer" exempt from legislation mandating such coverage.
While affiliated with the Catholic Church, the charity's purpose is not to inculcate religious values, a majority of court justices noted.
0 comments
Check out Howard Kurtz
The Washpost's Media Notes writer Howard Kurtz takes a look at media treatment of two "lawrbreakers."
Illegal gay marriages are the thing for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, in intentional violation of the law, and the NYTimes is doing a gush-fest.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was told that his Ten Commandments at his courthouse, and the Times compared him to Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to block blacks from attending.
[LINK]
0 comments
No, the French did it
After all, the Frenchies called for regime change in Haiti before the Bush Administration did.
From Associated Press:
The White House and Pentagon on Monday dismissed allegations that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. forces eager for him to resign and flee into exile.The tale could have originated with the Kerry campaign. Or the DNC. Or Michael Moore. Or any of a number of lunatics.
With U.S. military forces already on the ground in the Caribbean nation and more on the way, chief presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's nonsense, and conspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward to a better, more free, more prosperous future."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STOP THE PRESSES! (if such exist anymore): The deposed Haitian leader, according to Reuters, told U.S. lawmakers and other contacts that he had been kidnapped by U.S. soldiers.
Kerry and Chuck Rangel will surely now call for a bipartisan commission, and Joe Wilson will demand that various people be "frog marched."
0 comments
John Kerry / Arlen Specter
Timothy P. Carney points out in an NRO guest piece today that Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) truly is a northeastern liberal. He cites an list showing how candidate John Kerry has voted almost in lockstep with Teddy Kennedy -- 94-percent over the years in key votes.
With this catalogue of votes, the RNC makes Kerry look as radical as...well...Arlen Specter.The Carney piece is a look at some of Specter's bad votes: against Judge Bork, parental notification, school choice, defense spending… etc.
On all of the above votes, taken from the short list of the lowlights of John Kerry's record, Arlen Specter voted with John Kerry. But the Republican establishment is backing Specter, still.
Specter is now airing a commercial in which his junior colleague, conservative Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), calmly explains to the voters of Pennsylvania that Specter is not a liberal. To hear Rick speak, one would think Snarlin' Arlen is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
Why is the White House and the GOP establishment supporter this man, who voted to acquit Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, using Scottish law as his excuse? Carney has a theory:
George W. Bush thinks he can win Pennsylvania. He seems to think having Arlen Specter on the ticket below him will help. Trying to convince voters to vote for Bush and Specter will be a tough row to hoe, especially when it comes to explaining his positions on taxes, cloning, school choice, the life of the unborn, and the direction of the federal courts. Kerry and Specter would be the more natural pair for voters to choose.There is a primary on Pennsylvania, April 27. Specter is facing conservative Representative Pat Toomey, but the two are having difficulties agreeing when and where to debate.
0 comments
New Column…
Judson Cox has a new column on the Rightsided Newsletter site, Have you Forgotten. He talks of how the nation has seemingly forgotten the events of September 11, except for in his home in the deep South.
He promises a Bush sweep in November.
0 comments
Harkin: Aristide more popular than Bush
The Des Moines Register reported Saturday the following statement from Iowa's Democrat Senator Tom Harkin, an erstwhile Deaniac:
"He's got more support there than Bush got in this country," said the Iowa Democrat in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "He's a legitimate, democratically elected president."Aristide was reelected in 2000, in an election boycotted by the opposition, with 92-percent of the vote.
Added Harkin: "Bush did not win the popular election in this country. He won because he got one more vote in the Supreme Court of the United States in a case that never should have been decided by the Supreme Court. I'm saying Aristide got a higher percentage of the vote in Haiti than Bush got in this country."
Turnout was estimated at 5-percent.
Harkin, a former supporter of Howard Dean, is prone to idiotic statements. On the Senate floor last September, he said [link]:
"It [Iraq] may not be Vietnam, but, boy, it sure smells like it. And every time I see these bills coming down for the money, it's costing like Vietnam, too."In March of 2003, Harkin complimented Vietnam's communist government:
"Go visit Vietnam, as I've done several years ago, and find out how the people are getting along there," said Harkin, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to take military action against Iraq, but has been increasingly critical since.Harkin was part of the Dem field in 1992, from which emerged Clinton, and HERE can be found the text of his announcement speech:
"They seem to be getting along fine," he said on the Senate floor. "I still may not approve of the kind of government they've got, but the people seem to be getting along fine. Saigon is bustling. Hanoi is bustling. Roads are being built. Tourist industry is going up. Manufacturing is going up.
"It might not be the mirror image of our government but they seem to be doing all right."
And that's why I say that what's wrong in this country today is that there are too many people making money on money and not enough people making money in agriculture and mining and manufacturing and transportation and doing the things that create real wealth in our society.It's familiar stuff. A vote for
It's time to go to the American people with a new message. And like Franklin Roosevelt said in the 30s, after taking over from the gluttons of privilege who used the 20s for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the country, "We've always known that greed was bad morals. Now we know it's bad economics."
0 comments
I'm not making this up…
From Newsday
"I'm very touched by the knowledge that one of my relatives was in the Holocaust," [candidate John] Kerry said in an interview last night. "It gives an even greater personal sense of connection [to the Holocaust] that is very real and very touching. It makes you wonder how horrible their lives must have been."The candidate learned the news that one of his relations had perished in Treblinka from some guy's web site.
0 comments
2/29/2004
When Hillary Speaks…
(With a tip of the hat to Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush.) Hillary Clinton spoke to the Brookings Institution last Thursday in a speech called: ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES OF OUR TIME [pdf link].
Here's this from an MSNBC piece regarding her speech:
Clinton also saw a likelihood that the new Iraqi government would repress women’s rights which, she said, had been expanded by Saddam Hussein.On paper, Senator, women had no rights under Saddam Hussein. Men had no rights. In a dictatorship such as that in Iraq, all rights derive from and are bestowed upon the despot. Any rights possessed by anyone else were transitory rights at the whim of the dictator, and thus were not actual rights.
“I have been deeply troubled by what I hear coming out of Iraq. When I was there and met with women members of the national governing council and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk they were starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights they were given under Saddam Hussein,” she said.
“He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper, women had rights. They went to school, they participated in the professions, they participated in government and in business; as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement.”
The woman is a dizzbot. Someone should go back and give her a retroactive F in 6th Grade Civics. As I do to some public officials from time-to-time, I call on her to resign her Senate seat immediately. She is unfit to serve.
0 comments
Instead of a Constitutional Amendment…
Founder and editor-at-large of National Review magazine William F. Buckley in his Sunday column suggests that instead of passing a Constitutional Amendment, which he does not ask that President Bush withdraw from consideration, Congress simply limit the Courts from reviewing cases having to do with marriage.
A means of devolving popular authority, to be exercised by individual states, could be obtained by removing jurisdiction from the Supreme Court in matters having to do with marriage. Article III, Section 2 gives Congress the necessary authority to do this.I had heard a similar suggestion regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.
"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Could you imagine the Court declaring such a restriction of the jurisdiction to be Unconstitutional, prohibiting their established power of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison)? This is strange stuff, but just when we think we have seen everything...
0 comments
The Brits and the Debate
In a story in Monday's London Daily Telegraph, Alec Russell in Washington (the byline) writes about Sunday's Dem debate in New York.
He's very enthusiastic about Kerry's chances, saying that Kerry will have it wrapped up the Dem nomination after Tuesday: "Any further resistance would be pointless."
It's a nifty read, being British and all. One paragraph piqued my interest:
"Give me a living room, a bar, one on one," he said. "I think I can talk to anyone in the country."Name the time and place, Senator.
0 comments
Bush expects to trail or run-even
Through the summer, President Bush's strategists say, they expect the President to be behind candidate Kerry in the polls or, at best, run even. So the NYTimes says HERE.
The piece is a little look at what to expect. For instance:
Mr. Bush himself, the strategists said, will refine his stump speech so that it is less about his accomplishments so far than about the opportunities he has created for the future, and the stark choices facing the voters in November. Chief among them, Republicans said, would be whether the country wants to entrust its security to a Democratic challenger that the White House is busily portraying as too liberal and lacking in principle.In response, Kerry will repeat that he served in Vietnam. His four (4) months of service are off-limits, but they can be separated from the candidate.
0 comments
"Democrat Debate Watch"
(Hat tip to RNC Research [link]). At this morning's Dem debate in New York, candidate Edwards cited a Washpost piece: Kerry's Spending, Tax Plans Fall Short - Review of Proposals Shows Expenditures Exceeding Savings by $165 Billion.
The relevant lines from the transcript of this morning's debate:
Edwards: … These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term.
Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit.
[Dennis then talks but is ignored.]
KERRY: And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them.
I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate.
A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit.
Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad.
Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more...
ELIZABETH BUMILLER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: Senator Kerry, let me...
KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish.
BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question.
KERRY: This is important.
The point is, Kerry said that the Washpost piece linked above was fiction. Here's a paragraph from that article:
But a review of his campaign proposals shows that the Democratic front-runner is promising to spend at least $165 billion more on new programs during his first term in office than he could save with his tax plan, a mix of breaks for the middle class and increases for corporations and the most affluent. The $165 billion figure does not include the cost of several proposals Kerry has not fully detailed or backed with estimates.To borrow a term used by Steven Taylor at PoliBlog, Kerry is toast. He resembles toast, as well.
0 comments
Kerry and Edwards Favor Preemption
From this morning's Dem debate in New York [Reuters link]. Dem candidates John Edwards and John Kerry criticized President Bush in regards to Haiti:
The two top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination -- John Kerry and John Edwards -- were quick to try to highlight Haiti as an issue ahead of November's elections, alleging President Bush did too little too late to stabilize the impoverished nation.Why the United States and not Haiti's former colonial overlords in France? After all, the French cut and ran from Haiti 200-years-ago, leaving the mess that has existed ever since.
Kerry said Bush had "empowered the insurgents" by failing to step in sooner and added, "I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did."
Edwards suggested it fit a pattern of "do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act."
President Bush should have acted prior to Haiti becoming an actual emergency? That, m'friends, would be preemption. As recently as last Thursday, Kerry blasted the President's "unilateral preemption."
Where were Haiti's WMD? Are they a threat an immediate threat to the mainland United States? Why don't Kerry and Edwards want to try sanctions for a while then seek a National Security Council resolution?
The two situations are comparable, though what the Coalition stopped when it overthrew Saddam Hussein was far darker than what is happening in Haiti today.
When we go to Haiti, we'll be acting to protect the Haitians from themselves. What will the world think of the candidates' arrogance?
When this election is over, I hope the Senate leadership remembers everything said and done by candidate Kerry when he tries to become Senator Kerry again.
0 comments
John Edwards's Victory Strategy
I think we have the newest, revised John Edwards victory strategy. First, it seems, he plans to get shut out on Tuesday do scored runner-up delegates in Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio. (Pollster John Zogby last week called for an Edwards victory in Georgia, but I still haven't seen how he's playing in Atlanta.)
The next step in Edwards's lunge towards victory is to sweep Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and March 9, setting up a showdown in Illinois on March 16.
And if you'd like to swing on a star, carry moonbeams home in a jar…
0 comments
The RSN has been sent
The Sunday edition of the Rightsided Newsletter, concerning what was said on the Sunday morning talk shows, has been sent to the sundry global Inboxes. If you do not yet subscribe, you can read the online version HERE.
I forgot to include Late Edition host Wolfgang Blitzer's rhyming couplet:
Jean-Bertrand Aristide is out.One can find poetry in the most unexpected of places, but it follows that we should be cautious about how hard we look for it.
What will follow in Haiti, very much in doubt.
0 comments
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows
KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer
And that's the KEY I use for my Sunday review and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, for the free Rightsided Newsletter. If you are interested, please visit our web site or send a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] tripod.com.
Tim Russert is going to use his Meet the Press show on NBC again to attack the Catholic Church. He will harass Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington; and Robert Bennett of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I've never covered this, though it has been, with tax cuts, one of Russert's obsessions.
On FOX's Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace will talk to an Illinois Appellate Court judge, Anne Burke, and the national chairmen of the two parties: Ed Gillespie on the RNC and Terence McAuliffe of the DNC.
On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer will talk with Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) and Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) the bill which protects counts the murder of a mother and her unborn child as two murders. It has passed Baldwin's House, but the Democrats are again blocking it in the Senate.
Scheduled to meet on This Week is a taped George Stephanopoulos interview with recently deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.. He'll also talk to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, CFR President Richard Haass, and former Clinton UN Ambassador Dick Holbrooke.
On CNN's Late Edition, Wolfgang Blitzer talks to Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Arafat's Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath, John Edwards and Diane Feinstein, and Representative David Dreier (R-California).
You can still subscribe by visiting the web site.
0 comments
2/28/2004
Cuomos for Kerry
Backed by two New York losers, candidate John Kerry received a boost in his bid to win New York's Democrat primary next Tuesday: former NY Governor Mario Cuomo and the fruit of Mario's loins, former Clinton HUD Secretary Andy Cuomo [CNN link]. (NOTE: I use Clinton's name not as a descriptive adjective; rather, as a qualifier.)
Mario's keynote at the '84 Dem convention was heralded by journalists at the time as masterful. I watched the thing live, and I thought it to be lousy. Hindsight tells me no different.
Do you recognize this rhetoric?
We Democrats must unite so that the entire nation can unite because surely the Republicans won't bring this country together. Their policies divide the nation - into the lucky and the left-out, into the royalty and the rabble. The Republicans are willing to treat that division as victory. They would cut this nation in half, into those temporarily better off and those worse off than before, and they would call that division recovery.It was garbage then, and the only difference now is that it's been rotting for two additional decades.
Mario was thrown out of office by the New York voters, who chose instead George Pataki. Andy made a run toward Pataki in '02, but he did not attend the State Dem convention and lost the nomination to Carl McCall. Word was that Senator Hillary's boyz didn't much care for Andy.
Mario even picked a veep for candidate Kerry:
"Although "any number" of Democrats could do a good job as vice president, Mario Cuomo singled out Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who is running second in delegates to Kerry."YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
"He'd be a natural favorite, I would think, to a lot of people. But there's a lot of analysis I'm sure that has to go into it," said Cuomo.
0 comments
Assisting the Incumbents
The Washpost today reported on Vice President Dick Cheney's kind words for Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland), who is facing a primary challenge from Republican State's Attorney Scott Rolle.
Cheney praised Bartlett as an ally of the Bush administration in the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq, and he lauded the veteran lawmaker's experience and bipartisanship.Congressman Bartlett did eventually vote to authorize the war. In 1998 and 2002, Bartlett and Representatives John Duncan (R-Tennessee) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) spoke against the folly of international entanglements. Again, he backed the resolution.
"In this time of testing, the president and I have been grateful to have Congressman Bartlett at our side," Cheney said. He left unmentioned the fact that Bartlett had been among the White House's Republican critics in the buildup to the war, arguing for more debate and perhaps a formal declaration of war by Congress.
Rolle, however, describes himself as younger and more conservative. Bartlett has a wonderful libertarian streak.
This is not the case in Pennsylvania, where the Administration and the State GOP is endorsing Senator Arlen Specter over his conservative challenger, Representative Pat Toomey. Specter also voted to authorize the war against Saddam Hussein, but he voted against Judge Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court and against the conviction of Bill Clinton on impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He also resisted the President's tax cuts in 2001, voting to scale back the initial proposal.
Primary challengers compete with not only the incumbent.
0 comments
E.U. wants Congress to raise taxes
Beginning Monday, the European Union will begin phasing in what will eventually amount of $4-billion in trade sanctions unless the United States Congress raises taxes on U.S. corporations which export goods overseas.
The history of the dispute goes back to 1997 when the E.U. filed a complaint about the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) law that benefits many large U.S. exporters like Microsoft. [CNS link]Yes, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decided that the tax breaks given by the U.S. Congress to U.S. companies were a violation of global law. And evidently, the U.S. will back down:
After years of rulings and appeals, the WTO ruled that the tax breaks add up to illegal subsidies of exports and authorized the sanctions, which the E.U. voted last year to begin by March 1 if the law was not repealed.
A bill to repeal the [tax cut] measure in the Senate could reach the floor next week, and another bill is also being worked on in Congress.What will Congress do when or if the WTO rules that it is not taxing corporations or individuals enough, thus given them an unfair advantage over their European counterparts? I don't want to live in a miserable, European welfare state. But the WTO has to level the playing field, and how many decades until we're living Miss Rand's Anthem?
"There is a consensus in Congress and in the administration that the U.S. does need to come into compliance," said the [U.S. government] official.
0 comments
Lieberman: post-mortem
Sifting through the remains of the Democrat primary season, we pause on Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut). He told the AP that he want to be neither candidate Kerry's veep nominee nor, in the unlikely event, in a Kerry cabinet.. He wants to go back to being a Senator from Connecticut, and he said that he seek reelection in 2006.
He said he is friends with both Kerry and Edwards, so he will endorse neither until the race is in someone's hand.
One of the reasons he gave for his candidacy's failure: “I’m not a screamer.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Dr. Taylor's Toast-O-Meter is up at PoliBlog, if you want to check that one.
0 comments
South Dakota v. Roe v. Wade
I recently signed-up to become an "editor" for WatchBlog's conservative column. My first piece dealt with a topic we first discussed two weeks ago: South Dakota's H.B. 1911, protecting the right to life of an unborn human being.
Here is the WatchBlog piece from Tuesday:
South Dakota v. Roe v. Wade
In a Presidential election year, is it time to test Roe v. Wade from the Right? Republican South Dakota State Representative Matt McCaulley thinks it is, and he was the chief sponsor of the State's HB 1191 [pdf text], "[a]n Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, and to prescribe a penalty therefor."
Representative McCaulley said that the bill was designed to call challenge the notion in Roe that the Supreme Court did not know when human life begins.
From HB 1191:The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question of fact in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.McCaulley avvered that the time for the measure, which passed the South Dakota State House, 54-15, is now: "We are ready to fight for the right to life, as opposed to waiting for it." He told me last week:"The moral issue of abortion is a battle for the legitimacy of our otherwise civilized society -- it is our treasured Republic that we are trying to save by returning this issue to the control of the democratic process."It is a novel concept: removing from the purview of unelected courts a matter of life and death, and returning it to those who were democratically elected by the people to whom the laws apply. It is contrary to our form of government that such a concept has become so offbeat. Ironically, whether or not this happens will be a matter of judicial opinion.
Richard Thomas of the Thomas Moore Law Center [press release] has noted:"This is new and unique legislation that has never been considered by the Supreme Court. The Law Center and our Associate Counsel, Harold Cassidy, are pleased we could be of assistance to Matt McCaulley and South Dakota in their efforts to protect the unborn. While we cannot predict the future, we do know that this legislation establishes significant facts that the courts will not be able to ignore."South Dakota's Senate has to pass the legislation first [Lifenews.com story], and the Senate State Affairs Committee, fearing that a court would strike down the law, fashioned an amendment which removed the abortion proscription and changed the bill into one which would require doctors only to notify women seeking abortions of the possible risks involved. (The Senate committee's version does, however, hold that South Dakota agrees that science has definitely proven that human life begins at conception.)
The Senate, if it chooses, can reject the amendment and pass the bill as it passed the State house, but at least one Senator has said that he will not support a bill that the courts will overturn, choosing instead to pass a bill which will reduce the number of abortions. The choice, then, is between passing a mild bill which accomplishes very little, or passing a bill which could be all or nothing.
The nothing could be important, as well. South Dakota right to life, according to a story from the Associated Press, opposes the measure because it could offer the Supreme Court a chance to further entrench Roe v. Wade at the expense of South Dakota. The problem with this excuse is that the Roe decision as written, with its trimesters derived "emanations of the penumbra" is bad law and has been treated as such by the Court beginning essentially in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, while the general finding of Roe, that abortion is a civil right, is decided and established law.
If one considers abortion to be the ending of a human life, it strikes me as hypocritical to reject a measure which could end the practice in so-moved States in favor of a measure which might or might not save a few lives. Abortion is currently a judicially established federal right almost separate from the terms of the Roe decision itself, so offering the Court an opportunity to throw the decision out or to defend it by different means is worth the hazard. This is not a matter on which a strong advocate of either direction has an opportunity for cowardice.
Representative McCaulley told me last week:"The first challenge to the law will come from Planned Parenthood who has promised to fight this bill in the courts. The court system is the primary way that a vocal minority imposes their morality on society -- a morality the minority could not impose on the rest of us if they were forced to work through the democratic process. The court challenge could come as early as July 1, 2004 when the law (if passed) would go into effect."McCaulley has vowed to fight the Senate amendment and have the Senate vote on his original language. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds is staunchly Pro-Life and is expected to sign it, meaning it could be working its way through the judicial system during the height of the Presidential campaign season. It would be difficult for a "practicing Catholic" like John Kerry to dodge this question. (John Edwards could repeat that there are "two Americas.")
0 comments
Kerry talks Terror War at UCLA
Candidate John Kerry told a crowd at UCLA's International Institute: "We cannot win the war on terror through military power alone."
Although found in a piece from a different news organization (San Francisco Chronicle), Kerry told the same UCLA crowd something different, as well.:
Kerry said that to replenish what he called "our overextended military," he would add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, "a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade."His criticism was that we need to work with our allies in the war on terror, and he stated that the Bush strategy was to attempt militarily to eviscerate the problem. That is reinforcing a previously planted notion that the Administration's anti-terror plans are unilateralist, when they have involved a global coalition from the start, including such diverse countries as France and the Yemen.
But he wants 40,000 new troops anyway, and I assume that he will introduce conscription. How else is he going to create these new troops? And he will need more than that if the troops follow his Vietnam model and serve four (4) months then are transferred back to the States where they protest the war.
The Kerry condundrum.
0 comments
Kerry's strange ideas
Good morning. Candidate John Kerry has come up with a bizarre notion to explain the recent strife in Haiti: President Bush hates Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide."
''This administration has been engaged in very manipulative and wrongful ways,'' Kerry said. ``They have a theological and an ideological hatred for Aristide. They always have. They approached this so the insurgents were empowered by this administration.''Since he has no clue, he was obviously projecting. This means that foreign relations in a Kerry Administration will be based on which leader Kerry is advised has the most cooties.
Political campaigns generate some disturbing sentiments.
0 comments
2/27/2004
New Column
Just up on the Rightsided Newsletter "Right Columnists" page is the latest from Barbara J. Stock. A registered nurse of 24-years, Ms. Stock offers Nurse Barbara's Biology 101 for Abortion Advocates.
Life is a miracle.
0 comments
Jobs one doesn't want
I found a nifty column by a Michael Ruff in The Flat Hat, the student-run paper of the college of William and Mary. Ruff is a junior at the school, but his practical suggestion sounds like something, regrettably, from another era. (I say "Regrettably," because more people should be thinking and saying the same thing today.)
He proposes that people who need work take jobs.
You want a job? Have you ever seen, "sorry, there are no jobs available this week," in the classifieds? I see commercials for joining the military everyday, not to mention I've never seen a McDonald's that isn't hiring.But, as he points out, some folks would sooner blame the President.
For many of the unemployed, it isn't any job they want -- they must have "their" job. Sorry, but the job doesn't belong to you and, if you really need a job, you might have to take a pay-cut and work harder. The point is: if you really want a job, you can find one.
Give the piece a look: HERE.
0 comments
Chirac's Regime Change
Last Tuesday, I asked: "Where are Haiti's WMD?" The question was in response to a righteously indignant editorial from the clowns at the NYTimes demanding U.N. sanctions and inspectors and military action.
Where is France on this? I'm sure you've heard:
France, Haiti's former colonial power, has already proposed a U.N.-backed multinational force to stabilize the politically troubled nation.Although Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide has vowed to stay put, the French have called for his removal. Regime change.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in Paris on Thursday that France would like to see a force deployed ''within days.''
''The regime (in Haiti) has reached an impasse and has already shaken off constitutional legality,'' he said.
The Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding, though it was promulgated some nineteen years after the French colonialists quit Haiti, the United States ought to invite the French into our hemisphere to keep the peace. Let them keep some peace somewhere, instead of agitating as in the Ivory Coast. (The U.N. had to ask the United States to come in and bail the French out, as explained in this story today from Reuters.)
0 comments
John Edwards… "Not Yet"
We're told that John Edwards will be a wonderful candidate at some point in the future. When they say he will get his next chance in 2008, they're already calling this year's election for the President.
What is being said of Edwards?
In what must now be troubling for Edwards fans, then-veep Al Gore said of their candidate in 2000: "His future is so bright you have to look at him through sunglasses." (I think that was song…)
Of Edwards, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution proclaimed today: "His moment may come, but this is not it." On Thursday, the New York Times opined: "It's easy to envision him as the nominee four or eight years down the line." The Queens Chronicle tells us that "could be the man to lead the Democratic Party in years to come. Just not yet. As a first-term senator, Edwards lacks the foreign policy experience that voters want to see in the man seeking our nation’s highest office during the war on terror." A Democrat strategist told Reuters recently: "Whether or not he is on the 2004 Democratic ticket, he's been a force in this race and will have another opportunity." Columnist Jimmy Epson of the Dayton Daily Citizen remarked last Monday: "If he campaigned well, even in a loss, it could vault him in stature in 2008." Jeff Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University, told Reuters for the same piece: "Edwards becomes an odds on favorite the next day for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. It will be between him and (New York Sen.) Hillary (Rodham Clinton)."
While Democrats give Hillary high marks as U.S. Senator, party spokesperson, and fundraiser, surveys show they do not want her to be President. What of Howard Dean? The Deaniacs say they want him, but his novelty will probably have work off in four years.
This "in four years" reminds me of a hopelessly naive short story in a book collection called Alternate Kennedys which I read in the early '90s. In this bit of alternate history, JFK's son Patrick Bouvier Kennedy had survived his birth and was the anti-politics, clean-up-Washington kind of guy.
The Kennedy clan met to discuss this. Uncle Ted admonished him that this just wasn't how things were done. Bobby's son Joe -- the former Massachusetts Rep. we called "Little Joe" -- had wanted to seek the Presidency, but the whole family agreed that "your time will come."
When Ronald Reagan missed winning the GOP nomination in '76, his supporters were told that his time had gone.
What is Edwards going to do four the next three years (this assumes he can launch his '08 campaign in an exploratory phase in the summer of '07)? If he tries to settle on the outside but say active as an advisor, he'll be laughed out of the room. He cannot go back to chasing ambulances. Maybe he can start a political movement of some sort.
Even if he runs as Kerry's veep nominee, he'll have to fill the intervening years. Joe Lieberman did this by sitting in the Senate.
If he runs for his party's nomination in 08, he is going to have to remain relevant. Hillary Clinton will not have that problem even if she loses her reelection in 2006.
Edwards is being very nicely told to get the book. He is getting his pat on the head, though.
0 comments
U.S. - German Relations in Fine Shape
After all this talk of President Bush permanently damaging U.S.-German relations, it turns out that such talk was hot air. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder visited the White House today and the past is where it blongs.
"We have differences - in the past," Bush said as he and Schroeder sat side-by-side in the Oval Office, both men relaxed and smiling and frequently leaning in toward each other as they spoke. "But there's nothing wrong with friends having differences and we have both committed to put the differences behind us and move forward."Evidently, the president has forgiven Schroeder for his fierce opposition to the liberation of Iraq, driven as it was by tight German elections in late 2003,
Likewise, Schroeder declared his first White House visit in two years a success. The two had been at odds over the German leader's fierce opposition to the Iraq war.
"We talked not about the past," Schroeder said. "We very much agreed that we have to talk about the present and the future now."
As for France, will Chirac be branded a racist if he doesn't send troops to the former French colony of Haiti?
0 comments
Florida Democrat apologizes for racist remarks
Representative Corrine Brown (D-Florida), who is black, told Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, a Mexican-American, that the President's Haiti policy was racist and had been drafted by a "bunch of white men." Secretary Noriega told her that he would pass her remarks on to Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. [link]
He later told her that as a Mexican-American, he resented being called a racist and a white man. Brown shot back that "you all [whites, Hispanics] look alike to me."
She apologized Thursday:
"I apologize right up front," Brown, D-Fla., said in a phone interview with The Associated Press. "But I am concerned about the crisis that is about to happen in Haiti and about the blood and about the government collapsing and about the people suffering and I just pray that we will intervene before it's too late."She sent she had sent a letter to Noriega, but, as per its policy, the State Department would neither confirm nor deny it.
Representative Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) called on Brown to resign: "Congresswoman Brown's comments demonstrate a complete lack of ethnic sensitivity. This irresponsible statement represents a step backward for race relations."
It is intellectually lazy, when one disagrees with a policy which involved people who happen to be of color, to begin charging racism without a thought. But perhaps Representative Brown is a small part of the cabal that redefines that term.
0 comments
John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator
The bi-partisan political news publication National Journal -- paid subscription required -- reports: "John Kerry is ranked 'most liberal'" Senator in their 2003 Senate roll call vote rankings.
We'll pick it up from Drudge:
NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.The National Journal ranking system was devised in 1981 by the man who on to become CNN's senior political analyst, Bill Schneider; according to Drudge, Schneider still "continues to guide the calculation process."
The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.
It is difficult to claim to a moderate if one is to the left of Ted Kennedy, Babs Boxer, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. And if being a liberal is an asset in a Presidential election, Kerry should cruise to victory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The RNC is avoiding the "liberal" label for candidate Kerry, saying instead: "LABEL HIM WHAT YOU WANT, KERRY WRONG CHOICE FOR AMERICA."
They also use a quote from nonpartisan political scientist Larry Sabato:
“‘Look at National Journal ratings – Kerry is way to the left of the American mainstream,’ said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.”
0 comments
Notebooks for Haiti
Candidate John Kerry has called on President Bush to name Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) to be our nation's envoy to Haiti:
"He knows the situation in Haiti extremely well and knows the cost that widespread violence will cause not only in Haiti, but on our shores."And the rebels will engage in mirth as the doddering former Dem Presidential candidate scribbles meaningless catch phrases in his notebook.
0 comments
President Campaigns Against Kerry
As well he should. After all, candidate John Edwards is campaigning like the frontrunner's best friend. Kerry hasn't yet made a total fool out of himself, and he seems certain to be the Democrat nominee to run against President Bush this fall.
THIS is from the Washington Times:
"On national security, Americans have the clearest possible choice," Mr. Bush told 1,000 supporters in a 10-minute speech. "Our opponents say they approve of bold action in the world, but only if no other government disagrees. Yet America must never outsource our national-security decisions to leaders of other governments."To President Bush, defending the nation against terror is the primary concern of his Administration. To Kerry, the war on terror is a distraction.
How seriously we should take the threat of terrorism is a legitimate campaign issue.
Does Kerry think that the President has already won the war on terror?
0 comments
2/26/2004
Turned it Off
I turned off the Dems shortly after 9:30p, when candidate Edwards started campaigning for candidate Kerry with the Dems, on the topic of the Iraq war. They both voted for the resolution granting the President -- as the questioner phrased it -- "a blank check." Edwards was quick to point out that neither he nor Kerry would have conducted the war in the manner in which the President has. By comparing Kerry to himself, he is campaigning for him.
The truth is, both Edwards and Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with no conditions. Neither of them held out, threatening to vote no unless the President gave them a resolution which they now claim they wanted, tying his hands until he received French and German support.
Edwards has said that he voted against funding the troops in Iraq, even though he wanted to fund the troops, because if the funding measure would have failed, the President would have come back and offered a more acceptable measure.
On the measure regarding the invasion, Edwards did not vote no until he had a more acceptable resolution for which he could vote.
On the measure regarding funding the troops, Edwards did vote no hoping to have a more acceptable bill.
Edwards is a good liar. No one caught him.
Not that it matters at this point.
0 comments
Democrats Debate at 9 (ET)
... on CNNAs I said earlier, give this thing ten minutes to see what Edwards is going to do. His mailing of earlier promised: "Tune in and see what promises to be the most interesting debate so far." His aides have reportedly used the term, "Confrontational."
The destruction of Kerry could begin tonight, but almost doubtlessly not in time to cost him the eventual Dem nomination. In and of itself, that is of little concern.
Of course, Edwards could be the Edwards we've come to know and for whom we've learned to feel something akin to sorry.
0 comments
Pelosi won't let Tauzin lobby
Retiring House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairma