Who said the media is liberal?

The Boston Globe has a piece on how Kerry lost. There are so many problems with it, it's hard to know where to start:

1. They claim that "almost all the prewar arguments for invading Iraq were wrong". Which is, of course, a lie. They only list two (out of about forty). Apparently two is "almost all" of forty. And even one of those two is wrong. The two they list are WMD's and "close links to al Qaeda". Leaving aside the fact that everyone (including Russia, France, the U.N., the Democrats, etc.) believed there were WMD's in Iraq and so it's hardly honest to brand it as a Bush "lie", the fact is that the media is now adding the word "close" before "links to al Qaeda". Bush never claimed any such thing. He claimed there were links. And, as the 9-11 Commission report made clear, there were.
2. The article keeps speaking of Republican efforts to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, as if it were a totally fabricated accusation. Ditto the suggestion that he is "weak and inconsistent". The fact is that he IS weak and inconsistent. That's not just a Republican smear ... it's the truth.
   
3. The article keeps maintaining (much as the left did for Gore) that Kerry was always principled and consistent. To the extent that he ever appeared otherwise it was simply a result of how smart, logical, deep, profound, etc. he is. "Sure his positions seem contradictory and unclear ... but that's just because he's a genius and you're all morons."
4. The article insists that Kerry is principled but it then explains that he voted to authorize war because that was politically expedient (for him) at the time, and then voted to oppose the $87 billion because that was politically expedient (for him) at the time.
5. Then they describe the Swift Vets as "conspiring" against Kerry and "plotting the downfall of John Kerry", the implication being that they were deceitful.
6. It also mentions that there were 10 Swift Vets "plotting" in a conference room in Dallas ... conveniently ignoring that these 10 were backed up by hundreds.
7. Blah, blah, blah. It's like Terry McAuliffe wrote this.
   

With friends like these

Hopefully Bush won't waste much time reaching out to "allies" that are on the wrong side of the war on terror.

Jacques Chirac, the formerly significant leader of a formerly significant country, intentionally snubbed Iyad Allawi, but made time to visit Yasser Arafat. That means he prefers the company of the father of modern terrorism to the first democratically elected leader of a country that had previously suffered for decades under the thumb of another psychopathic terrorist. Of course, Chirac fought tooth and nail to save said psychopathic terrorist, proving himself to be an eager supporter of terrorists in general. And, equally clear, all of Chirac's efforts were useless because both he and his country stopped being relevant to anyone but terrorists years ago.

No doubt Chirac's petulance through this whole affair is largely from the frustration of impotence.

Make that 15 percent, maybe 20

Yesterday I guessed that the MSM's biased reporting accounted for 10 of Kerrys' 48 percent showing. That was before I discovered that the assistant managing editor of Newsweek was estimating it at 15 percent. Which means that a more accurate estimate of the nation's leanings would be 66-33.

Except that, given the MSM's bias, Thomas's 15 percent may actually be 20. Giving conservatives a 71-28 lead.

This is HUGE! (2)

The last one was a bit long, but here's a quick list of some of the reasons this is huge:

1. Bush advanced in almost every conceivable way.
2. Bush ran on principle and the public supported him.
3. Bush overcame not only the normal obstacles, but also the united assault of the MSM.
4. Kerry tried every dirty trick imagineable, told every conceivable lie, and Bush still won.
5. The public voted on the basis of morals, showing that the American people are far more principled than the Dems ever dreamed. A nightmare for the Dems.
6. In the next four years Bush will make appointments to the Supreme Court.
7. In the next four years Bush will expand democracy in the Middle East.
8. Bush will support Israel - the PA is finished.
9. The UN, the French, the Germans, etc. are all irrelevant now.
10. The terrorists who were working so hard to prevent Bush's re-election have failed. And now they know he's coming after them with a vengeance. No need to worry about re-election.
11. Osama bin Moron gave his best shot and still couldn't get Kerry elected.
12. Mikey Moose's lies failed to steal the election for Kerry.
13. Alec Baldwin may leave the country.
14. Conservative values win elections. The electorate has spoken and this is a serious victory for conservatives in the culture war.
15. All of the cheap and foul tactics of the Dems failed to steal an election for them.
16. Lots more.
    

This is HUGE!

For some reason there hasn't been a lot of talk about just how big a win this has been for Bush in particular and conservatives in general.

As mentioned already Bush has made advances in every area. And there are a ton of other highlights and records concerning his consecutive victories in the House & Senate, etc.

But it goes far beyond this. On paper Bush won the popular vote by 3%, but in reality he won it by a lot more than that. Why? Because the MSM is responsible for at least 10% of Kerry's 48%. Consider the following examples of the staggeringly biased approach of the MSM:

• Kerry simply criticized everything Bush did and assured us that he had a better plan that Bush. And the MSM gave him a total pass. They never bothered to ask him what his "better plans" were. Any idiot can criticize the current approach and say he has a better plan. And, in this case, any idiot did. And the MSM let him away with it. Want an example? How about everything? Kerry kept assuring us that he had a better plan for Iraq, but was never required to spell it out. Or how about Yucca Mountain? Kerry opposed building a nuclear waste repository there (well, actually he supported it until he decided to run for prez ... "I actually voted for Yucca before I voted against it" kind of thing). But did the media ever ask him what he'd do with the nuclear waste? Was it just going to evaporate under a Kerry presidency?
• Every whacko Kerry accusation against Bush was given the full-court press by the MSM. "Bush is going to reinstate the draft!" A total lie. Not even a shred of evidence. In fact, the evidence was quite the opposite - it was Kerry who was insisting we need to increase the size of the military, and it was Democrats in the Senate who were proposing such legislation. And yet the MSM ran with it. Same with Kerry's social security lies. Every scare tactic Kerry could dream up the MSM latched on to and helped him propagate it.
• Kerry also got a pass on every one of his problems. Think about it. The media goes psycho and drools because one guy can produce fake memos to the effect that Bush missed a physical 30 years ago. And this is headline news for days and days and days. Even if it were true, it's a complete none issue. But 200 Swfit Vets come out to testify that Kerry is lying about his service in Vietnam and the MSM ignores them. In an unbiased world, the Swift Vets would have received 100 times the attention as the fake memos because a) their accusations were far more serious, b) their accusations had far more evidence to back them up (hundreds of eye witnesses as opposed to no evidence at all), and c) Kerry had chosen to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his candidacy, whereas George Bush never played down his TANG service. But instead the MSM everything on its head and gives 100 times the attention to the trivial and irrelevant lies than to the serious and factual truth. Or how about the fact that Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal? And no-one in the MSM ever took him to task on it?

For these and other reasons, the MSM contributed to at least 10% of Kerry's 48%. With an unbiased media the final vote would have 61-38 or even better.

The MSM pulled out all the stops to sink Bush and Bush still won.

Huge. This is huge.

And of course...

If Bush is such a moron, what does it say about the Democrats that he's cleaned their clock for the third election in four years?

The position of the Left is that Bush is an incompetent imbecile. And yet, this incompetent imbecile has managed to liberate two countries and defeat his domestic enemies three elections in a row. And all of that in spite of the fact that the MSM did everything it could do to defeat Bush.

I don't know about you, but I might feel a little sheepish if I kept losing to an imbecile.

The view so far

This could change, of course, but so far here's what this election has yielded:

• Bush has gained in the popular vote
• Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote
• Bush has the largest number of votes of any President in history
• Bush has increased his percentage in every state except 4
  
• Bush has gained in the Electoral College
• Republicans have gained 4 Senate seats
• Republicans have gained 4 House seats
• Republicans may gain one governorship
• Almost every conservative ballot measure passed - including all the ones opposing gay marriage
• Daschle - gone!
• Edwards - gone!

Republicans have won in every measurable way. So many people deserve credit: Rove, SwiftVets, etc. .... but especially Bush.

Is there a list?

Has anyone been keeping a list of all the losers (e.g. Alec Baldwin) who promised to leave the country if Bush won?

Is it enforceable?

The character candidate vs. the caricature candidate

George Bush has repeatedly distinguished himself as a man of principle and character - standing up for his beliefs and holding fast to what he believes to be right even when he knows it will cost him votes.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is a caricature. He's the embodiment of everything bad about a candidate: no principles, obvious pandering to polls, an admitted war criminal, a wife of undetermined species, decades of non-accomplishment in the Senate, makes Teddy Kennedy look conservative, etc., etc.

But now he's striving to not just be a caricature of himself, but also of everything bad about every other major Democrat. In 2000 Al Gore was down by about 800 votes in Florida and decided to contest the election. After a month of dubious recounts in only strategically selected counties, with obviously foolish new rules for "interpreting" ballots, etc. he only managed to "find" 300 more votes. It was ridiculous then when he was down by only 800. But now Kerry is down by 135,000+ in Ohio and he's going to try the same thing?!

Classless.

Here's a shock

It's 2:55 AM, 98% of precincts have reported in in Ohio, Bush is leading by over 125,000 votes, Kerry needs 113% of the remaining votes in order to win, every other network called Ohio for Bush hours ago, and CBS is STILL saying it's "too close to call".

Dan keeps saying they'd rather be last than wrong. Well, he's still got a shot at being last AND wrong, but presumably he'll manage to be last and right. Which is better than 2000 when he was first and wrong.

Why start now?

At first I was a little surprised to hear that Kerry is vowing to not concede defeat tonight in spite of the facts. But really, Kerry's never shown any class so why would I have expected him to start now? This is just the petty end to the petty campaign of a petty man.

The real message of a Kerry victory

If John Kerry wins the election tomorrow it will mean many things for America ... all of them bad. But there is evil of a Kerry win that would dwarf all others.

Quite simply a Kerry victory is a victory for terrorists.

Oh, I don't mean that Kerry supports terrorists or that he would call off the dogs. Kerry might continue the war. But it wouldn't matter. Even if he were to be harsher on terrorists than Bush has been (probability: 0%) it wouldn't matter. Because terrorists the world over will have the same perception: terrorists can choose the president of the United States of America.

I'm not saying terrorists like Kerry. They may hate him. But this much is true: they hate Bush more. Above all else terrorists want Bush gone. And several have come out and said so. If Kerry were to be elected tomorrow, terrorists will conclude that their heinous and brutal methods have been successful in overthrowing the most powerful man on earth. You can argue that they'd be wrong in that assessment. But whether they are right or wrong is, sadly, irrelevant. That will be their perception. And that is all that matters. Having seen terrorism work in Spain and other places, they will now believe that it has worked in the United States. And this will lead to more acts of terror that will dwarf in number and, eventually, in magnitude anything we have seen so far.

Terrorists want to get rid of Bush. Their crimes in Iraq and elsewhere have been to that end. And, if for whatever reason, Bush isn't re-elected tomorrow, they will be utterly convinced that terror works. Rejoicing will be universal and uncontrolled throughout the terrorist world. Recruits will flock to them. The Great Satan will have been defeated in a symbolic battle that will inspire these despicable fiends for generations to come.

Sadly, the fact that the polls aren't 90/10 for Bush is already a victory for terror. A narrow win for Bush tomorrow would also embolden terrorists, although not to the same degree. A narrow win for Bush would leave terrorists thinking, "We almost did it! We'll just have to push a little harder next time. Behead a few more westerners. Maybe start slaughtering children on video."

Obviously the people who vote for John Kerry are not voting to support terrorists. But the sad unpleasant reality is that terrorists won't see it that way. They will interpret every vote for Kerry as one more American who was sufficiently scared to keep from voting for Bush.

Why can't we just all be friends?

What does it mean when Osama comes out and pleads with the U.S. citizens to agree to a truce with him (i.e. don't re-elect Bush, i.e. elect Kerry). Osama and his chorus line have been threatening the defeat of the U.S. and global victory for Islam for years. "Streets run with blood", "Infidels will burn", "Yada, yada, yada".

But now all of a sudden he's out with a desperate plea that we just all get along. You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

Well, it could mean one of two things.

It could translate as: "I've given up hope of winning the war. Please let me live." Which would be a correct assessment of his situation, except for the fact that Osama is too mentally deranged and psychopathically arrogant to ever realize it, much less admit it.

No, the real motive is quite different. Osama has realized that another four years of Bush raining down fire on terrorists will make it awfully hard to recruit new targets for the U.S. Armed Forces. He fears Bush and knows that his only hope of winning is to get rid of Bush. But how to do it?

He can't say (although he would no doubt love to), "Don't vote for Bush or in the name of glorious and peaceful Islam we will sever your infidel children's heads", because he knows Americans will strike back when sufficiently provoked.

And he can't say, "Vote for Kerry", because most Americans (with the exception of the one who made that fine "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie) would see through that. Not even most liberals are quite at the point where they're willing to follow explicit commands from a terrorist.

So instead Osama's tried something more subtle: he's offered a change. He's banking on the hope that enough Americans want a change from war so badly that they're willing to take the word of the world's premiere terrorist, out of nothing more than wishful thinking. And he's left it up to them to judge which candidate is most likely to accept his offer. If Americans want change, only John Kerry will offer it to them. Bush won't change; he's in this war until the end.

The problem for Americans is that Osama bin Laden won't change either, in spite of his offer to the contrary. In war change only comes about by mutual agreement or by the clear defeat of one combatant. If Osama were serious, then John Kerry could legitimately offer Americans change, because it's clear that John Kerry is looking for an excuse to cut and run. Winning a war - particularly a difficult war - requires fortitude, steadfastness, and an unyielding commitment to principle. John Kerry has none of these things. So the only way Kerry can deliver change is to come to an arrangement with Osama bin Laden. So in this latest video, Osama offered such an arrangement. Which the U.S. should utterly reject, even if Osama were completely sincere. He slaughtered 3,000 Americans and so there is only one arrangement America ought to offer: his head on a pole in the Rose Garden.

But Osama isn't sincere. This is a fight to the death for him, too. This latest tactic doesn't mark a shift in his purpose. He's fighting the same war he was three years ago. He's just trying to get rid of an opponent who's as serious about it as he is, and replace him with one whom he has a chance of defeating.

Americans already know George Bush's answer to Osama's offer. Sadly they also know what Kerry's, like Neville Chamberlain's before him, eventual answer would be. Tomorrow we discover how many Americans are willing to believe Osama's worth bargaining with.

Democrats, terrorists and Slate: united

As we've pointed out, terrorist leaders support Kerry. Well, they don't say it quite like that. They say they hate Bush and want him gone.

"But," the Democrats will complain, "Hating Bush isn't the same thing as loving Kerry!"

True, but nobody is claiming it is. However, opposing Bush in this election is the same thing as supporting Kerry. Longing for the defeat of one man in a two-man race would leave only Democrats unsure as to who you're secretly rooting for. (But then again, given that the Democrats as a whole, and Kerry in particular, vacillate so much, maybe they really would argue that opposing Nov 2 isn't a support to Kerry.)

So now Dems will insist that terrorists hate Kerry too ... they just hate Bush more. The thing is, doesn't that just reveal that the Democrats are eerily similar to the terrorists? Isn't that the position of almost every Democrat? "We don't really like Kerry either, but HE'S NOT BUSH!!!" (I say "almost every Democrat" because there is, I think, at least (but potentially only) one Democrat who unequivocally supports Kerry: John Kerry himself. (At last an issue that he has remained constant on!) I wouldn't even bet money that Theresa's support is rock solid.)

Kerry is such an abysmal candidate for President that not even hard-core Lefties can bring themselves to be enthusiastic about him. So they, one and all, admit to what a pathetic choice Kerry is but then say, "But he's better than Bush!"

David Frum nicely summarized the opinions of the staff at Slate (who are more pro-Kerry than the DNC) when they shocked the world by revealing that 97% of them were hard-left liberals. Their ringing endorsement of Kerry included such moving tributes as:

"I'm voting for Kerry, with no great belief that he will be a first-rate president. I cringe a little at where Kerry's line on terror and Iraq has lately ended up. ..."

"I'll take a chance on Kerry, but if he wins I'll skip the victory party. Too many of his supporters have proven as divisive, dishonest, and hateful as they imagine their bogeyman Karl Rove to be."

"I don't expect Kerry to be a successful president ...."

"Is [Kerry] a strong candidate? No. Do I agree with all his positions? No. Does he truly represent me? No. Is this a reactionary 'anyone but Bush' vote? On some levels it is, but I've decided he's good enough ...."

"Sen. John Kerry is the least appealing candidate the Democrats have nominated for president in my lifetime."

"Sure he can be long-winded, pompous, and evasive ...."

"Kerry's election-year straddles have left me cold."

And from the editor, Jake Weisberg, himself:

"I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."

In other words, like the rest of the Democrats, they realize that Kerry is so atrocious that it's not possible even for them to pretend that he'd be a good president. But they are consumed with such seething loathing for Bush that they will support Kerry.

That would be shameful enough if they were only agreeing with each other. But when your position has become indistinguishably different from that of terrorists, it's time to end the crusade.

More foreign leaders for Kerry

John Kerry has assured us (and who could doubt his word??) that many foreign leaders want him to replace Bush as president. Initially there was skepticism on the right concerning this claim. But as we get closer to the election and more and more foreign leaders come out to oppose Bush, it's time for us to eat humble pie and admit that Kerry was being uncharacteristically honest: a large number of foreign leaders do want him to beat Bush.

As we've already mentioned, Yasser does.

But now we see that China does, too.

And, of course, there's the big news that Osama is also eager to see Bush get the boot.

Finally, given that Yasser and Osama both want Bush gone, it's a safe bet that all the world terrorist leaders (or at least the Islamic ones ... but I repeat myself) prefer Kerry, even if they haven't publicly endorsed him.

Court says "no" to cheating

Democrats have been trying to get provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct declared legitimate, but the stinkin' courts keep telling them that cheating is not allowed. First in Florida and now in Michigan.

Allowing votes from the wrong precinct to be counted would help Democrats in two ways, since the vast majority of people who cast their vote in the wrong place fall into one of two categories:

1. Morons. Really, how hard is this? Once every four years you have to figure out where to vote. And you're given the location in writing. Disallowing votes cast in the wrong place will mean throwing out the votes of large numbers of morons.
2. Criminals. All those people who have registered to vote two or more times have to find a place to vote. And they might just be clever enough to realized they'd better vote in two different places in order to reduce their chances of getting caught. (This is a crime, by the way.)
   

So by upholding the law, the court is going to "disenfranchise" a good many morons and criminals. So why are the Democrats fighting the law? Because they need as many morons and criminals to vote as possible, since both groups tilt heavily Democrat. (More or less by definition.)

The only thing I'm surprised by is that the Democrats haven't campaigned to have voting stations set up in beer stores and welfare offices.

It's not just ...

... Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore who endorse Kerry. Their pal Yasser does, too.

It's clear that terrorists are more afraid of Bush than they are of Kerry. Probably because if Kerry gets elected the only time he'll be tough on terrorists is from June 2008 through November 4 of 2008.

Can we at least agree that it's not clever to vote for the guy the terrorists endorse?

John Kerry War Criminal Quiz

Take this short quiz to see what you know about Michael Moore's favourite war criminal:

1. List the war crimes that John Kerry has admitted to committing.
2. Given that he admitted to these crimes in order to accuse his fellow servicemen (in time of war) of the same things, and given that his testimony was used by the enemy during the torture of POW's, this means that John Kerry is either a traitorous liar, or a war criminal. Which do you think he is?
3. List all the major media outlets that have investigated John Kerry's war crimes. (Caution: this is a trick question.)
4. List all the questions about John Kerry's self-confessed war crimes posed to John Kerry by the "impartial" moderators at the three presidential debates. (Caution: this is a trick question.)
5. If President Bush were a self-confessed war criminal, do you think the media would be ignoring this issue?
   

Things worse than lying II

Am I mistaken or is John Kerry the first self-confessed war criminal to run for President?

JK insists that he was telling the truth in his anti-war Senate testimony, even though everyone else except for Jane Fonda and Michael Moore say he's lying. (Although, to her credit, at least Jane Fonda apologized.) Again, there's no doubt Kerry is lying.

But what if he isn't?

That means that by his own confession he's a war criminal. Here's what he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971:

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

So, there you have it in his own words.

"Bush will eat your babies!"

At the time of this writing, the above hasn't been a headline in the New York Times yet, but we've still got a couple weeks to go.

Has anyone else noticed the fundamental difference between Bush & Kerry's attacks on each other?

Bush attacks the real Kerry, but Kerry attacks a completely imaginary Bush. Bush spends his time (in his speeches, in his ads, in the debates, etc.) attacking the genuine John Kerry, as revealed by his 20 years in the Senate, his anti-Vietnam activities, his actual speeches, etc. Bush isn't saying, "Here's what I think John Kerry is ... take my word for it." Everything is carefully backed up by facts and reality.

When Bush says that Kerry is pro-taxes, it isn't because Bush hopes he is or wants to paint him as a tax-and-spend liberal; it's because over 20 years in the Sentate Kerry has consistently voted for raising taxes and against lowering them. When Bush says that Kerry keeps changing his mind on Iraq, it isn't because Bush is making it up; it's because, well, Kerry keeps changing his mind on Iraq. When Bush says that Kerry is weak on defense, it isn't because he's trying to misrepresent him; it's because Kerry has voted against almost every new weapons system and every increase in military spending that has ever crossed his path. There are so many attrocious things in Kerry's record that Bush doesn't have time to deal with many of them (for instance, everything related to Vietnam).

Those are the facts. The reality. The truth.

But when Kerry attacks Bush we leave the land of facts, reality, and truth, and fly away to Neverland. Kerry's attacks on Bush ... especially in recent weeks ... are not on anything Bush has done. They're all attacks on what Kerry says Bush will do. Honest. Take his word for it!

Note some of the most prominent of Kerry's recent attacks on Bush:

"Bush will reinstate the draft." And the evidence is ... ? Well, nothing. Has Bush ever said he would? Hinted at it? In fact, Bush has explicitly stated he wouldn't. There are bills before the Senate to reinstate the draft. But those bills are from and supported by Democrats.

"Bush will privatize social security." This time Kerry has "evidence": a hearsay report in the ... get ready for it ... New York Times Magazine. Again, nothing Bush has actually said. Just something some pro-Kerry hack claims and that's good enough for Kerry.

It's all imaginary. Nothing real.

And the reason for all of this is clear: John Kerry has to make stuff up because the real George Bush gives him very little to attack. But George Bush doesn't have to make anything up because the real John Kerry provides Bush with more than enough attack fodder for any number of elections.

Things worse than lying

John Kerry claims he personally believes life begins at conception, but that he doesn't want to impose his views on the American public. He is almost certainly lying, of course. On two counts: first of all it's incredibly unlikely that anyone as unprincipled as Kerry has a definite view on when life begins. But secondly, Kerry has no qualms at all about imposing his views on the American public.

The fact is that "life ption" isn't his view: it's a standard claim for any pro-choicer who doesn't want to lose the votes of pro-lifers. Pro-choicers know that this is code for "I completely support abortion, but I can't say that because the &#*@$ pro-lifers will revolt if I do and I'll lose the election, but you know what I mean". Once again Kerry's spinelessness is revealed. He doesn't have the guts to say what he actually believes. Instead he hides behind obvious lies and smugly expects the American people to either be his accomplices in this or to be stupid enough to fall for it.

However, let's give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that he is (for once) telling the truth. That only makes him more contemptible. In that case John Kerry is telling us that he personally believes that millions of American babies are being slaughtered - the vast majority of them on a whim. But he can't muster enough integrity to stand against what he believes is infanticide on a level never before seen. In fact, not only will he himself refuse to oppose mass infanticide, but he will stridently oppose anyone who does. His 20 years of voting in the Senate have shown that he has opposed any attempt to limit or regulate abortion in any way whatsoever, and he's publicly stated that should he be elected, he would refuse to nominate any judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Please note that you don't have to believe that life begins at conception in order to be appalled at Kerry on this issue. The point is that he says he believes life begins at conception. So his subsequent support for abortion at every turn amounts to eager and willing complicity in what he believes to be the mass slaughter of babies.

Kerry's bio ... 'nuff said

Rich Lowry at the Corner posted the perfect Kerry bio today:

Edwards obviously was eager to highlight Kerry's debate performance from last week. So now Kerry's bio has basically come down to this--he served as a young man in Vietnam, then had a strong performance in the presidential debate on September 30, 2004.

Bush's speech

Bush gave a speech at the Kirby Center For The Performing Arts in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania today. If only the debate had been more like this. Brilliant stuff. Like this:

My opponent was against all of our middle class tax relief. He voted instead to squeeze another $2,000 per year from the average middle class family. Now the Senator is proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small business owners. My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. And that's the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps.

And this:

The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate. And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. I'm telling you, I know that bunch. It wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. You might even say, it was hard work.

And especially this:

This nation is determined: we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. My opponent agrees with all this — except when he doesn't. Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake — but also called the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error." He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face.

CBS: part of the vast right-wing conspiracy

As we all (except that colossus of integrity Michael Moore) know, WMD's and possible links to al Qaeda were only two of the twenty or so justifications for invading Iraq. (Although apparently to Moorites, the liberation of millions of people from torture and murder is unimportant.) Therefore even if Iraq never possessed WMD's and had never had any involvement with al Qaeda, the war was/is still justified on 18 out of 20 counts. Nonetheless, it turns out that it is justified on 20 out of 20 counts.

No doubt at this point Mikey Mouse Club will accuse CBS of being Bush shills. It's just one vast conspiracy involving everyone in the world and the only people smart enough to see through it are Mikey, Barbara Streisand, and Madonna.

Stop bringing it on!!!

John Kerry has repeatedly invited Bush to "Bring it on!" ... especially with regards to examining Kerry's Vietnam record. The problem with issuing such a challenge (apart from the fact that it's a transparent example of Kerry trying to ride on the coattails of the only Democrat administration in living memory that has been even remotely likeable ... Jeb Bartlet's) is, however, that whereas it might play well with a friendly audience at home, there's always the danger that your opponent will, well, bring it on.

And Kerry's opponents did. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (not to mention others) have been bringing it on for months now, and they aren't going to stop until they hear Johnny's concession speech. And maybe not even then.

And so Kerry did what he does best: flip flopped. His new position became: "How dare they bring it on! Who do they think they are?!"

For months the only 527's that showed up on radar were pro-Kerry groups, burning through millions of dollars as fast as George Soros could shovel it to them (and that's pretty fast). During that time there's nary a word from Kerry (or Bush) to protest such ads. Then the Swift Vets show up with a few thousand dollars of ads and Kerry takes about 38 seconds to get on the air huffing and puffing and demanding that Bush knock it off with the 527 ads.

Well, Bush was happy to call for an end to 527 ads. Except that it turned out that Kerry didn't mean all 527 ads ... just the anti-Kerry ones (Message: pro-Kerry 527 ads - good; pro-Bush 527 ads - evil, probably Hitleresque). We know the courts tend to be activist, but unless Kerry could get his case before this one, there's no way they're going to find that pro-Kerry 527's are acceptable but pro-Bush ones aren't, even if they task the Hubble to search the penumbra of the third amendment.

So Kerry and all his 527's kept running their anti-Bush ads. But the Swifties kept running their ads, too. And then Kerry noticed a distressing phenomenon: his ads were all getting ignored, but the Swift Vet ads were sucking all the oxygen out of the Kerry bubble. A sane person examining this curiosity might further wonder why it is that the Swifties (budget next to nothing) had such an effect when the Lefties (budget $100 million) accomplished nothing. (Does anyone even remember one of the pro-Kerry ads?) The only reasonable conclusion is that the Swift Vet ads rang true with voters whereas the Lefty ads rang true with Ted Kennedy and Barbara Streisand.

And so, having been beaten at his own game, Kerry once again hauls himself onto TV and arrogantly demands that all these ads just stop! Will somebody please just make them go away!

All this has got to make one wonder. If Kerry talks tough ("Bring it on!") to Bush but then caves the moment he gets a little bit of heat, is he really the fellow we want to trust to stand up to terrorists? If he collapses when met with verbal opposition, how crazy do you have to be to think he'll have a will of steel when faced with the psychopathic, murderous, no-holds-barred death-cult of radical Islam?

Who knows? Maybe Kerry isn't flip flopping on this. Maybe it just depends what the definition of "bring it on" is.

Iowa Electronic Markets

In case you're interested, the IEM isn't looking very good for Kerry. Although it was close for a while, the past month has shown Bush pulling away steadily. At the moment they give Kerry a slight lead in the "will win the popular vote but have less that 52% of the two-party vote". Which might sound good except for the fact that the only reason Bush's numbers are so low on that one is that pretty much everyone thinks Bush will win with more than 52% of the two-party vote. These guys are playing by choice and with real money, so in theory their opinions are a little more carefully considered than the typical respondent to a poll.

Still, Time or CNN or the New York Times might want to take this opportunity to run a report headlined: "Kerry slightly more likely than Bush to win election with less that 52% of the two-party vote."

Windsurfing and flip-flopping

Here's an odd thing: an issue that John Kerry has two positions on!

The Bush campaign has launched a new ad with John Kerry windsurfing. It shows Kerry going first one way and then another as it lists his various contradictory positions on Iraq. It ends with "John Kerry ... whichever way the wind blows".

The Kerry Spot quotes a CNN article which has Kerry and Edwards bitterly complaining about the ad:

The Kerry campaign reacted angrily to the ad, charging that its "lighthearted" approach was inappropriate in the middle of a war.

"This is a shameful advertisement that shows a disturbing disregard for those fighting and sacrificing in Iraq," said Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry, who demanded that the president repudiate it.

Edwards offered a similar critique during an appearance in Miami, Florida.

"Today George Bush is laughing again. Over 1,000 Americans have lost their lives. Americans are being beheaded. Iraq is a mess, and they think this is a joke," Edwards said. "It is clear they have no idea how to protect our troops, but they will do anything to protect their jobs."

If Kerry doesn't like humour, then he shouldn't say such laughable things. But, more to the point, it's a bit rich to hear Kerry & Edwards complaining about joking in the same week that Kerry went on Letterman!

So Bush should immediately run a second windsurfing ad that has exactly the same video & music, but the audio & text should alternate between Kerry on Letterman and Kerry whining about Bush having the gall to joke during wartime.

Kerry the walking Parody

As always, Mark Steyn is right on the money:

If it weren’t for the small matter of the war for civilization, I’d find it hard to resist a Kerry Presidency. Groucho Marx once observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That’s how I feel about the Kerry campaign. For the professional political analyst, watching Mondale or Dukakis or Howard Dean stuck in the part of the guy who falls downstairs is never very satisfying: they’re average, unexceptional fellows whom circumstances have conspired to transform into walking disasters. But Senator Kerry was made for the role, a vain thin-skinned droning blueblood with an indestructible sense of his own status but none at all of his own ridiculousness. If Karl Rove had labored for a decade to produce a walking parody of the contemporary Democratic Party’s remoteness, condescension, sense of entitlement, public evasiveness and tortured relationship with military matters, he couldn’t have improved on John F Kerry.

Bush sums up Kerry on Iraq

President Bush gave a speech in New York on Monday, in which he nicely dealt with the latest Kerry position on Iraq:

Today my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind, with new contradictions on old positions in Iraq. He woke up this morning and now decided, no, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. After, last month, saying he would still have voted for using force, knowing everything we know today. He believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison.

Today he said -- and I quote -- "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." Direct quote.

I -- anyway. You cannot -- it's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy. If I might, I'd like to read a quote he said last December: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President." I couldn't have put it better.

The paper trail

Sorry this is a bit late, but the Washington Post has a devastating comparison of the fake memos with authentic ones. The CBS/DNC memos fail on so many points that the fact that Dan Rather thought anyone would fall for them only serves to manifest his colossal arrogance.

DNC internal memo

111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron
P.O. Box 12345
Houston, Texas 77034

21 September 2004/1972

MEMORANDUM TO ALL WRITERS

SUBJECT: New Word settings

Effective immediately please ensure that all documents produced with Microsoft Word for "Lucy Ramirez" are left justified and use Courier 10 as the font. Also, please run all documents through a photocopier a minimum of 15 "generations". And no more of that little "th" thing!

Jerry Killian
Lt. Colonel

CBS internal memo

111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron
P.O. Box 12345
Houston, Texas 77034

21 September 2004/1972

MEMORANDUM TO ALL STAFF

SUBJECT: Mary Mapes' going away party

Although it is clear that Ms. Mapes will be leaving us shortly, we have not yet announced the date for her going away party. Please expect the date to be announced within the next 7 days on The Drudge Report. It is likely that her party will be followed immediately by similar parties for Dan Rather, Andrew Heyward, Richard Katz, Bill Glennon, Mary Beth Cahill, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Terry McAuliffe - in more or less that order.

Jerry Killian
Lt. Colonel

Some of the things that are missing from Dan's "apology"

Where is his apology to the First Lady for ridiculing her doubt of the
memos' authenticity?

Where is his apology to the President for running a shoddy partisan smear
segment based on nothing but cheap forgeries supplied by a Democrat hack?

Where is his apology for constantly insisting (knowing it was untrue) that
his source was "unimpeachable"?

Where is his apology for viciously maligning those who questioned the documents'
authenticity? Apparently the people he so smugly denounced as morons were
right after all.

Where is his apology to all of us for thinking we're so stupid that he could
slip such ridiculously poor forgeries past us? And for thinking that all he
had to do was huff and puff and the sheer grandeur of Dan Rather would be
enough to make us reject inconsequential things like evidence and facts?

Where is his proof of how sorry he is? That is, why hasn't he exposed the
forger?

Why hasn't he apologized for being so hungry to help Kerry that he rushed
the cheapest junk he could find to air?

And where are the apologies of all the other editors, producers, and executives who are
accomplices?

Heads need to roll ... starting with Rather's, but not ending there ... if
CBS is ever again to be taken seriously as anything other than an appendage of the
Democratic Party.

Dan's "apology"

In an effort to win this year's Too Little, Too Late award, Dan Rather "apologized" for attempting to foist pathetically crude forgeries upon the American people in an effort to help Kerry win the election.

Experts fluent in Rather-speak have translated his "apology" into English:

"I, Dan Rather, greatest of all news men and conduit of truth, am deeply sorry that you mortals have not accepted your lot in life, which is to accept everything I say without question. All right-wing bloggers are morons. Which begs the question of what that makes me since they bested me without breaking a sweat. But they don't have my hair stylist. So there! In any event, I'm not at all sorry for airing the obviously fake memos, but I am deeply sorry that I was exposed, because that means many bad things for America:

"1. You peons have an inflated opinion of yourselves and actually seem to believe that you are entitled to question my word.

"2. Unless you're stupid enough to fall for the "Lucy Ramirez" nonsense, John Kerry is in big trouble as soon as you find out that his campaign was involved in the leaking of those memos.

"3. Which means that the moron Bush is going to win another election.

"4. John Roberts is in line for a promotion.

"5. Which is just as well since I'm going to be busy over the next several months playing a new reality game called 'Evade the Felony Charges'.

"I hate you all. Sorry."

"Lucy Ramirez" ... Burkett code for "DNC"

Well, well, well. Bill Burkett has yet another story about where he got the documents. In today's version Bill got them form "Lucy Ramirez". Oddly enough, nobody seems to be able to find "Lucy Ramirez". Not just Lucy, but any evidence that she exists. (Although word (no pun intended) has it that Dan Rather has some early 70's memos that prove she does.)

"Lucy Ramirez" is just the kind of person the anti-Bush crowd needs: someone who can't be reached for any kind of verification. Because everyone else they've trotted out as "proof" that Bush is responsible for both World Wars, poverty, and the Black Plague ends up either a) stating that the Lefties are lying, or b) demonstrating themselves to be so dishonest that they do more harm than good to the Democrats.

"Lucy Ramirez" won't give the Kerry Crowd those kinds of problems. She'll give them much bigger ones. Because as soon as it becomes clear that Burkett has moved on from conspiring in forging documents to conspiring in forging whole people (that is, in about three days) everyone is going to realize that "Lucy Ramirez" is Burkett-speak for "DNC".

What Bill Burkett doesn't seem to realize is that after admitting to telling lies about his source the first time through, his credibility the second time through leaves something to be desired. He could have just said that Hitler gave him the memos, but since he's already on record as saying that Bush is Hitler, that won't quite work.

Of course it's possible that the unknown, but eerily convenient "Lucy Ramirez" really does exist. But by application of Occam's Razor...