July 29, 2004
Democratic Finale, Final Thoughts
. . . Something is terribly wrong with the way we teach history in this country when Max Cleland can mispronounce the name of Crispus Attucks and yet be interrupted by applause, while the crowd sits on their hands after he invokes the name of Paul Revere in the very next sentence . . .
. . . Kerry saved a hamster? LOL, now we know why Richard Gere is supporting him . . .
. . . Kerry's daughter was allowed to broach the subject of abortion, because she represents a democratic constituency largely made up of one issue voters: single women . . .
. . . "John Kerry reporting for duty?" Puleeeeze! They're laying it on so thick. Someone should have edited that line out of there. It's way too over the top . . .
. . . Kerry's energy is way up. He's been rehearsing. He'll get good reviews for style, simply because many pundits expected a worse delivery . . .
. . . Funny, he implies that the Republicans have taken the flag away from the Democrats as a symbol of patriotism. The way i see it, the Democrats abandoned the flag as a symbol when they became the party of flag burners. This from a guy who threw his medals away . . .
. . . i can't reconcile Kerry's promise to ensure that we have the best equipped military with his vote on the eighty-seven billion. Can you? . . .
. . . Kerry says that America has never fought a war because we wanted to, only because we had to. That is patently and demonstrably false. The most obvious and notable example being the war he will never let us forget he fought in. But also Korea, WWI, The Spanish American War and The Mexican War . . .
. . . The "we are on God's side" jab is getting huge applause. It's a pretty effective rhetorical jab. And a cheap shot. The anti-Christians in the audience are lovin' it . . .
. . . Balloons and confetti. Sammy Hagar is singing "we'll get higher and higher!" Is this a subliminal way of signaling their position on legalization? . . .
. . . It's appropriate that this convention was held at Fleet Center, because if Kerry wins, it's going to feel like we just got one of these . . .
Posted by: annika at
08:00 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There's some interesting positions between the speeches and the platform.
Edwards: And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.
The platform criticizes Bush for "unilateral preemption" but in the next paragraph states "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake" {which implies we're not going to be just punitive in response to an attack, but be preemptive before an attack}
Kerry said we'll exhaust all our options but reiterated the point we're not dependent on any other nation or organization to approve the use of force.
I'm sure nobody is under the illusion of how the country uses its special forces and now we'll double that capability..
The platform goes on to say a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us (and our allies) - so what a happens when Iran backs out of attempts by the international community to monitor and inspect their nuclear program..this is setting up a dilemma unless Kerry thinks "unacceptable risk" and "our safety is at stake" are not equivalent.
I estimate the military spending based on rough Pentagon numbers for the increase in soldiers and Spec Forces and "state of the art" equipment (which I'm assuming means the shortfall in what the services have asked for but were not funded) to be around 15B a year....and that doesn't include the plus ups necessary to enable the Coast Guard (which is under Homeland Defense) or other organizations to secure seaports and borders.
No mention of gun control in the platform while the 2000 one had several paragraphs on that topic..
One very brief mention on abortion rights while the 2000 platform had a lengthy discussion to include a position on ideology any nominee to the SCOTUS would have to have..
This year's platform includes seeking more diverse sources of oil both abroad AND here at home..while the 2000 platform specifically put the veto on ANWR and California coast drilling..
I wondering if some of the delegates thought they were at the wrong convention..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 29, 2004 09:05 PM (DIN0n)
Posted by: Dex at July 29, 2004 10:23 PM (sQs/5)
3
Its impossible to reconcile a lot of things- but especially Kerry's promise to ensure that we have the best equipped military. He has consistently worked to shrink the size of the military and the CIA throughout his Senate career.
Gov Ed Rendell cracked me up with this-
"John Kerry didn't abandon the fight in the Mekong Delta, and he won't abandon the fight now."
When I was a kid, the older teenagers used to try to buy beer at 7/11's. If a clerk questioned their age, their running joke was to pull their shades low and say "Nobody questioned my age in the Mekong Delta."
Posted by: gcotharn at July 29, 2004 11:22 PM (My8fB)
4
Kerry basically said: I've been in a war, I support the successful wars of America's past and I will win this with war and bring along France because of the sheer force of my personality -- which is basically "I'm not Bush". Well John Kerry needs all the Hope he can get. Pretty soon, and pretty clearly, folks will see through the centrist spin to the liberal record, which is the core of Kerry's waffle-shaped heart.
Posted by: Scof at July 30, 2004 01:45 AM (+kSRT)
5
Q: What do pro-abortion activists have in common with their children?
A: They’re both single-issue voters.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 30, 2004 03:19 AM (a6ToG)
6
Col Steve, do you have a link for the platform?
The democratic candidates' sudden shift rightward is notable not only for the obvious reason that their most vocal supporters are so far to the left, but also it signals that their internal polling and focus groups have been telling them what i have always believed: Americans are not as liberal as the press, the universities and the kooky professional protesters would have us believe.
Posted by: annika! at July 30, 2004 09:01 AM (zAOEU)
7
I didn't see the shift to the right, except for a thin veneer of grasping after military credibility. He threw in every leftist platitude from the last 70 years, and a kitchen sink.
This repeated line of his speech inspired me, but not in the way he intended, I'm sure (be sure to follow the link):
"We can do better, America, and help is on the way."
Posted by: John Lanius at July 30, 2004 09:30 AM (Hs4rn)
8
I didn't see it as a shift to the right at all, he continued to reiterate the idea that the role of government shouldn't be to dole out giveaways to wealthy. Obviously, whoever's in office will protect the country from attack, the key is what else are they going to do for us and I think Kerry is the best choice for that.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 30, 2004 10:23 AM (HLOeu)
9
Great recap... although Dawn, you clearly weren't watching your coverage on Fox, where the Dems admitted (in not so many words) that it is actually a shift to the right.
Posted by: candace at July 30, 2004 10:47 AM (j/3i4)
10
It's not an actual shift in policy, it's a shift in presentation. And it's not evidenced by addition so much as by subtraction. They didn't talk about stuff that might be scary to swing voters, making it seem like Kerry is more centrist than his voting record shows.
And i disagree that both parties will protect the country equally. Kerry obviously will respond to another terrorist attack, i have no doubt. The difference is GWB is playing on offense, while i think Kerry will emphasize defense.
Posted by: annika! at July 30, 2004 11:40 AM (zAOEU)
11
It is about offense v defense, and its also about a policy of force and strength v a policy of dialogue, trade, and economic incentive. I've posted about it here- http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/07/personal-style-part-ii.html
At its very deepest roots, its a disagreement about the nature of the threat, and the disagreement is spiced by differing moral principles.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 30, 2004 12:22 PM (My8fB)
12
Read the 2004 platform (it's in PDF)
http://www.democrats.org/platform/
and then read the 2000 platform
http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html
Yes, Kerry threw in a lot of promises he knows he doesn't control or left unclear how he'll
keep them - not that politicians don't do that, but he mave have difficulty because it's usually the 2d and 3rd tier political appointees that determine both the agenda and the execution of policies in the executive branch organizations and I suspect the majority of those folks would be more to the left than the direction implied by the platform.
These parts of his speech may come back to bite him:
"I ask you to judge me by my record." And after 19 years in the Senate, he lists only 3 items (balanced budget, 100k police initiative, and POW-MIA accounting).
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service"
Yet, I suspect GWB campaign will run those words and right after the fact Kerry voted for the war BUT against the 87B funding bill which included the funding for more soldier body armor and more up-armored HMMWVs.
Or, to see what the GOP may be planning as rebuttal:
http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/072904Kerrymemo.asp
Posted by: Col Steve at July 30, 2004 01:41 PM (DmFF+)
13
I may have said this before, but Kerry has this interesting gap in the biography he presents to the public, and after the convention you would still not know this. It goes: Vietnam hero; Vietnam protester; prosecutor; Senator. Absolutely NEVER any mention of his tenure as Lieutenant Governor under...who was that again? Oh yeah, Mike Dukakis. I suppose that might not exactly the best selling point to middle America, but it's so conspicuous by its absence that I'd say it borders on a lie of omission.
Posted by: Dave J at July 30, 2004 02:24 PM (VThvo)
14
That Fleet thing is pretty funny. I used to work at a drug store and I had to dust the products. It was always funny dusting the enema products.
You make good points. Kerry is just as much as a warmongering slim as your man Bush is. Another vote for Nader from me.
Posted by: fairest at August 01, 2004 08:47 AM (9iOuY)
Posted by: annika at August 02, 2004 08:25 AM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 28, 2004
Edwards' Speech
Tonight i realized that i could really like John Edwards. Not just because he's a good speaker (not quite as polished as Clinton, but he's getting there), but because
his speech tonight was worthy of a Republican. No really. Change a few details, tone down the "two Americas schtick, and i could totally imagine GWB giving the same speech.
Edwards was patriotic, he praised the sacrifices of our armed forces with sincerity, and he talked about the everyday struggles of the average American without promising a Clintonesque shitload of handouts. His solution to the problem of outsourcing sounded reasonable to me. i liked what i heard. Didn't believe him for a moment. But i liked what i heard.
Edwards' speech was most notable for what was left out. And that got me thinking. Why is everybody applauding and going crazy over him? Perhaps because he's not Bush or Cheney. Because he definitely omitted everything that today's democrat really cares about.
The word "abortion" did not appear, nor did he mention "a woman's right to choose." He never mentioned gay marriage. He never said the Iraq war was a mistake, or that it was illegal, or that we should get out. He never equated Abu Ghraib with Saddam's atrocities. In fact, the most surprising line of the night was this:
And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you. [emphasis mine]
Not "stop you," not "hunt you down," not "bring you to justice." He said "destroy." That's real tough talk, and i can do nothing but applaud him for it, even while i seriously doubt Kerry's ability to improve on the strategy we have been pursuing for three years already.
It's real interesting that Edwards would give such a patriotic pro-war speech when, as Peter Comejo pointed out on the Hogue show this morning, ninety five percent of the delegates in the audience are anti-war, think the war was a mistake and want us to get out immediately. Yet they cheered Edwards words as loudly as a bunch of Republicans would. i guess "anyone but Bush" is really all that matters to them. Edwards could have gotten up there and promised to attack France and they would have raised the roof.
Many, i would say most, die-hard modern Democrats are drawn to the party over only a handful of issues. Compassion issues are part of it, like gay marriage and affirmative action. But there's also fear and hatred issues. Fear of losing the ability to have abortions. Hatred of Christianity, traditional Judaism and the standards of behavior those faiths represent.
That's why i can't understand why Edwards would have the audacity to close his speech with the words "Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America!" But i am not surprised to see that the "official" text of the speech on the John Kerry for President website omits the final eight words. The substantial "Newdow wing" of the party might have let that offensive Republican sounding line slide last night, but they certainly wouldn't want it memorialized in print forever.
Update: Don't believe me? Listen to Jonah Goldberg, he saw this coming.
This is the logic of hate. It lets convention delegates who by every measure are far to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, let alone the American public, cheer a candidate who has spent the past few months holding something of a fire sale on Democratic principles. According to a New York Times survey of delegates, 9 out of 10 say they think Iraq was a mistake and 5 out of 6 say the war on terrorism and national security aren't that important; yet Kerry is surrounding himself with soldiers to the point where it wouldn't be shocking if delegates were required to wear camo fatigues. Even Ted Kennedy would be hard-pressed to play a drinking game in which players had to swig every time the words "Vietnam" or "war hero" come up in Democratic speeches.
Kerry's waxing philosophic about how life begins at conception, but the activists still wear abortion-on-demand buttons. And the delegates serve as little more than an infomercial studio audience who applaud on cue, just as they would if Ron Popeil demonstrated how his new gadget makes curly fries in just a few seconds. The point of this Potemkin unity is to seduce moderates and swing voters into believing that Kerry's their guy.
Posted by: annika at
08:32 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Maybe it was the many times he said "I wanna talk", maybe it was the saturation of populist themes or that hint of grandstanding I hear in the cadence of his speech. Regardless, one thing I am sure of is that John Edwards thinks we're stupid. Last night he gave nearly every inconsistent and ill-thought reason why we should convict Bush, as if the sheer volume of words would be enough. Then he tried to sell some fiction of some hard-up mom out in hard-up America whose husband got sent to hard-up Iraq. I'm sorry but that was a flub and I liked it better anyway when Matthew McConaughey delivered it in A Time To Kill.
Then he ended it all with a meaningless chant of "Hope". The only hope of the DNC delegates is rooted in their dislike of Bush. The hope of the Kerry campaign is that they can pull off appearing centrist despite having one of the most liberal tickets ever. How these hopes bear fruit will reflect just how right John Edwards is about our stupidity.
Posted by: Scof at July 29, 2004 09:35 AM (XCqS+)
2
I don't see how that neo-Bolshevik class warfare, it's hard to get ahead, the government is here to give you a handout crap could be seen as anything other than the tax-and-spend liberalism of the past. He's appalling. He basically says socialist nonsense with a smiley face. There's nothing conservative in his agenda; he thinks the government is there to help people avoid the struggle of living in a competitive economy. Sell that shit in France.
The only thing they really say about the military and foreign policy is they'll give the troops a pay raise and that they'll charm Europe into sending its nonexistent troops to help us. It's like waving a magic wand. These are not at all serious people.
Posted by: roach at July 29, 2004 11:36 AM (DHoAQ)
3
Wrong. Annika. Edwards was a total liberal boob. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with ya on this one...
Posted by: Jason H. at July 29, 2004 12:02 PM (0pVR8)
4
I agree with roach. These are not serious people. Another thing, the "Two Americas" speech is inherently contradictory. The wealthy keeps the middle-class and poor down? Please. What about Barack Obama? Bill Clinton? And, let's not forget the son of a mill worker (supervisor) by the name of John Edwards. All started relatively poor (if that) and ended up incredibly wealthy. If anything, they should be embracing the can-do spirit of this country, not playing smiley, slick class-warfare.
Posted by: Blake at July 29, 2004 01:03 PM (aCDxI)
5
i should clarify. i didn't say his speech was worthy of a "conservative." i said "Republican" and i meant Republican in the way the GWB understands it, which is basically what a Democrat used to be a few decades ago. That's in addition to the fact that Edwards' speech should not be taken at face value. If elected, Kerry will do just what we conservatives fear he will do. He is a liberal in the worst sense of the word. Edwards was just blowing smoke up the ass of the undecided voters last night.
Posted by: annika at July 29, 2004 01:34 PM (zAOEU)
6
A few decades ago the democrats were Jimmy Carter...
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 29, 2004 02:00 PM (HLOeu)
7
Heh, even Jimmy Carter ain't what he used to be.
Posted by: annika! at July 29, 2004 02:14 PM (zAOEU)
8
And that's a pretty damning comment: Carter was an unmitigated disaster as president, but he's WAY worse now.
I'm pretty sure you were looking back a bit further than that: the original JFK would have found himself in agreement with or to the right of most of GWB's current positions.
Posted by: Dave J at July 29, 2004 04:16 PM (GEMsk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dean's Pledge
i would gladly take
Dean Esmay's Pledge, which is to say that, should Kerry be elected this November, partisanship should end at the "water's edge."
How many of you will have the patriotism to say, 'I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?' . . . even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, 'I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all.'
However, i won't go so far as Esmay and refrain from calling President Kerry a liar, if in fact, he lies. And no one who cares about this country should. Nor can i refuse to call him a traitor, since in my opinion, he became one long ago by his actions upon returning from Vietnam.
Posted by: annika at
09:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Here, here! He is also a self-serving medal hunter whose claims of valor ring false with those who truly sacrificed in that war.
Posted by: Casca at July 28, 2004 10:28 PM (q+PSF)
2
I have some concern that Esmay's pledge is missing the mark. The problem is not that Dems call Bush a liar- it's that they do not substantiate their charges. The problem is not strong language and tough charges about failed policy- the problem is misleading language and unsubstantiated charges about policies which are generally succeeding.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 30, 2004 12:54 AM (My8fB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 27, 2004
Teddy
Has Ted Kennedy ever spoken one sentence in the last thirty years without fucking up the pronounciation of something in some way?
Has anyone ever accused him of being an idiot for doing so?
Posted by: annika at
08:26 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You mean, seperately from the zillion other reasons to (correctly) accuse him of being an idiot? Actually, now that you mention it, I'm fairly certain the answer is yes. God, what an asinine schmuck. The man makes me almost terminally embarassed to be from Massachusetts.
Posted by: Dave J at July 27, 2004 09:07 PM (GEMsk)
2
Both excellent questions.
Neither of which would recieve a coherent or polite answer from anyone in Boston at the moment.
Posted by: Mike Jericho at July 28, 2004 12:33 AM (A8Vx4)
3
He's an idiot. I think he accused Tereza HK of being
opinionated (oh sorry, that was actually her
F'ing spouse). The Dems have a dream that someday the people will consider them smart instead of opinionated.
Posted by: d-rod at July 28, 2004 08:16 AM (HAu1f)
4
I think he has "No officer, I haven't been drinking", and "I hope you can swim" down pat.
Posted by: JasonM at July 28, 2004 08:41 PM (JF+E8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 26, 2004
Weather The Bounce, Boys
i tell you, i am becoming hugely optimistic about the upcoming election. There are several reasons for my optimism.
Mainly, i think the amount of support for Bush-Cheney is deliberately downplayed by a media that needs a close race for political preference and profit reasons.
Secondly, Kerry sucks as a candidate. He's not likeable. On the contrary, he's kind of an asshole, and people in the middle notice things like that. People who are undecided at this late stage of the game are more influenced by silly things like personality. If undecideds cared about the issues, they'd have made their minds up by now.
Thirdly, i think we can expect a big freak show at the upcoming Republican Convention in New York. The far left nut jobs will ensure Bush's re-election, even though they will think they're doing the opposite. In fact, i hope they go on a total Bush-hatin' rampage in the streets of New York. Everyone knows who's side they're on, and the worse the protesters act, the more people will realize how low the Democratic Party has fallen.
Fourthly, it's not about popular vote. It's about the electoral college, and that's looking good too. As AP reports:
With three months remaining in a volatile campaign, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.
Here are the states that AP says are "in play," but leaning in Bush's direction:
- North Carolina
- Colorado
- Louisiana
- Arizona
- Virginia
- Arkansas
- Missouri
Now please. Are you gonna tell me that those states, historically bastions of conservatism, are going to vote Kerry this year? Bush won them all in 2000, when the election was all about personality, not life-and-death. The only one that might possibly go Kerry is Missouri, but if it stays in the Bush camp, he's got 290 electors right there. To win, you need 270 electors.
By my reckoning, and assuming the polls stay like this until the election, i see Bush Cheney winning without even worrying about the battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Am i wrong here? Admittedly, math is not my best subject, but i think i'm right about this.
All Bush-Cheney have to do is weather the Kerry Edwards' post convention bounce and hopefully the election should be theirs to lose.
IMHO, of course.
Update: Forget my fourth point. i was wrong. As usual, my weak math skills misled me. But not as much as the stupid AP article, which failed to mention an important fact. As commenter Col. Steve points out:
The '25' to get 217 already includes the 7 states you list as in play but leaning Bush. Kerry's total includes the 14, DC but you leave out the 2 states (PA and OR) that the author says are toss-up but shifting to Kerry. You have to add those 2 states to give Kerry 193 + 21 + 7 = 221.
So, in fact the seven states that i said Bush would win, do not put him over the magic 270 number. He will still need to win some of the battleground states, and that is, i admit, an iffy proposition.
The math aside, my other points are still very well taken. IMHO.
Posted by: annika at
03:42 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Consider also that Bush/Chenney have barely begun to campaign while Kerry has been at it for over a year. The best Kerry has been able do is essentially a statistical tie.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 26, 2004 04:00 PM (4819r)
2
Election night I'm going to be up and drinking heavily, that is all I know. Hopefully I'll be happy drunk, but the election will be close either way.
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 04:01 PM (XCqS+)
3
Annika, you have got it just right. The Democrats WISH the polls were the predictors, but they just don't mean Jack Shit, unless you go state by state.
The Federalists created the Electoral College for a sound reason; the little states needed additional representation to avoid being overwhelmed by the more populated ones. It constantly amazes me how prescient the drafters truly were. How could they have forseen the future with such clairvoyance?
This week, Kerry will be limited to the $74 Million provided by the US Government to end out the campaign. That doesn't happen to Bush until the first week in September. After a week or two, watch us pull away and Kerry/Edwards can bloviate all they want, they will never be in touching distance again. Bush won N.C. by 13 points in 2000; the most recent polls have him at 54% and Kerry/Edwards at 40%. So much for the Edwards Southern Bounce Theory.
Be Brave, we win.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 26, 2004 04:10 PM (AaBEz)
4
Speaking of polls, the latest is a good one for Bush:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 04:18 PM (XCqS+)
5
Nice post. I think you may be on to something with your theory... The only Southern state that really worries me (other than Florida) is Louisiana. But I agree that NC, Virginia, Colorado and even Mizzou are likely to go Republican. Keep up the good work! I blogrolled your site...
Charles Waldie
Dallas, TX
Posted by: Charles Waldie at July 26, 2004 04:51 PM (AYLLa)
6
You thought the Left was critical of Bush after the 2000 election? Just wait until we win the popular vote a second time in a row, and lose the electoral college a second time in a row...
As a Californian, I know damn well my vote counts for far less, mathematically, than it would if I lived in Wyoming or Idaho or North Dakota. That enrages me, and I suspect it would enrage my Republican brethren if the situation were reversed.
Posted by: Hugo at July 26, 2004 05:18 PM (ntfdi)
7
All the states you listed as being "in play" are states where gun owners are a big part of the puzzle.
If Bush signs an "assault weapons" ban renewal then those state may very well go to Kerry via third party candidate.
I won't vote for Bush unless he does a dramatic & very convincing 180 on the gun thing, but I'll give you this advice for free:
If you want Bush to stand more than an iffy chance of being re-elected, then convince him & the other Repubs to start repealing instead of enacting gun control laws. Particularly tell them to kill outright any attempts at reneweing the "assault weapons" ban.
Of course I could be mistaken: there might not be enough gun owners in any of the states listed to alter things to Bush's detriment, but given what I do know of gun owners, more than 50% won't vote for Bush if an AWB is renewed. It's really just a question of how many votes does 50+% (closer to 60% actually) equate to? & would that number be enough to cost Bush the White House?
I think the answer is yes. Even if I'm wrong though it'd not hurt things a bit to tell Bush & company to oppose any AWB renewal attempts. I'm sure the number of gun owners who'd vote for him would far outweight any soccer moms he thinks he'd pick up.
As i said I'm not voting for Bush (or Kerry) - they're too socilaistic/authoritarian for my tastes. But if you want to see Bush win the easiest & most beneficial thing you can do is to tell him & any other Repubs to oppose any "assault weapons" ban renewal.
Posted by: Publicola at July 26, 2004 05:36 PM (Aao25)
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 05:36 PM (q+PSF)
9
I agree with you up to a point, but I just can't be THAT confident. I can speak to three of those states because I'm familiar with them. First, here in Florida everything points to another exceedingly narrow margin, though for the love of God hopefully not quite as narrow as last time, whicever way it goes.
Next, this Tulane Law alum definitely has to regard Louisiana as leaning to Bush but still very much in play. It's always a little different from anywhere else, and though it's a basically conservative state, it's still much more Democratic than the typically "solid" GOP South. And it's a place where local personalities punch above their weight and can really have more impact than practically any place else, so remember that Bush had a Republican governor in Mike Foster the last time around, while Kathleen Blanco will be doing everything she possibly can to hurt him. Yes, I'm implying dirty tricks: it's Louisiana, after all, and that's probably at least a part of how she won her own office. However, countering that, I'd be interested to see if Ray Nagy, the Democratic but "pragmatist" mayor who's really managed to clean up New Orleans and who backed Republican Bobby Jindal against Blanco, might endorse Bush, or at least stay essentially neutral.
Finally, Virginia. Four years in DC and you understand why the Old Dominion is on the way to becoming a swing state. The Virginia suburbs of DC are the second-fastest growing metro area in the country after Las Vegas: the development and resulting demographic changes are absolutely explosive. The population growth isn't quite overwhelmingly Democratic, but it's composed of federal employees, lobbyists and associated groups of people from all other, that do skew far more Democratic than the largely Republican rest of the state. "People's Republic of NoVA" might be a bit much, but keep in mind that there's no way Virginia would have ever elected its current Democratic governor, let alone had its recent and ongoing tax fracas, without that part of the state. It definitely still leans to Bush, but not by as much you might think.
I wouldn't feel secure enough to actually bet real money on the outcome of any of these states. OTOH, I'm also one of the people who thinks New Jersey is genuinely in play this time as well: because it's smaller, 9/11 may well have changed its politics more radically than New Yorks's.
Posted by: Dave J at July 26, 2004 05:40 PM (GEMsk)
10
Instead of "from all other" that should read "from all over the country." Preview is my friend. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at July 26, 2004 05:47 PM (GEMsk)
11
Dave, I've lived in Virginia since I was in kindergarten, and I will not permit my state to go Democratic. Even though the immigrants here around the Beltway are less conservative than the rest of the state, that's all relative. Go out to Manassas or Woodbridge, and you're in solidly Republican territory. Everything west of I-95 is either Republican or conservative Democrat (yes, there are still some out there in the Shenandoah Valley). Everything east of I-95 is mostly Republican, including the Peninsula, which is the most militarized part of the U.S. mainland.
Republicans have a wide lead in the state assembly. The only reason Virginia is "in play" is because Bush hasn't campaigned here. All they need to do is run a few ads, and that's that.
Posted by: Eric Johnson at July 26, 2004 08:30 PM (svki/)
12
i see Bush Cheney winning without even worrying about the battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Am i wrong here.
I think you are Annika. The "25" to get 217 already includes the 7 states you list as in play but leaning Bush. Kerry's total includes the 14, DC but you leave out the 2 states (PA and OR) that the author says are toss-up but shifting to Kerry. You have to add those 2 states to give Kerry 193 + 21 + 7 = 221.
So, that's 41 states plus DC for 438 electorl votes. Hence, Bush has to get at least 53 electoral votes from the 100 remaining in the 9 battleground state you list above - so he's got to worry about them. FL which looks his way gives him 27 of those and if hangs on in OH, he gets 20 more for 47. Still has to pull out 6 more EVs from the 7 states and he lost 4 of the remaining 7 states (MI, NM, IA, and WI) in 2000 and may lose NH this year. That leave WV and NV for 10 combined votes to give him 57 and a grand total of 274 to Kerry's 264...
Now, WI and IA are winnable and he's been putting a lot of effort in PA, but I don't think you can make the statement that Bush-Cheney doesn't have to worry about the battleground states.
Hugo: "As a Californian, I know damn well my vote counts for far less, mathematically, than it would if I lived in Wyoming or Idaho or North Dakota."
Superficially, those 3 states are solid Rep with a combined 10 electoral votes compared to 55 for CA.
Mathematically, at least David Madore thinks you actually count more than we poor folks who vote in a state with only 4 electoral votes..Here is the summary of his discussion on US Presidential election voting:
Qualitative description
We must compute two different coefficients of power for each state. The first is the coefficient of power of the state in the Union, i.e. in the electoral college, interpreting the electoral college as a votational system. So it is equal to the number of configurations of yes/no votes among the states, where the given state's vote will be decisive, divided by the total number of configurations (namely 251 because there are 51 states ). The computation of the coefficients of power has been done numerically. As we have mentioned, it is very much a linear function of the number of seats, except in the case of California, which has distinctly more power than in proportion to its number of electors.
This first coefficient varies between 46.6% in the case of California, and 2.3% for the states having three electors.
The second coefficient is that of an individual within a state. We are quite within the domain of validity of the asymptotic approximation we have described earlier, according to which this coefficient of power is proportional to the inverse square root of the population.
This second coefficient varies between 0.167% in the least populous state (Wyoming) and 0.0227% in the most populous (California).
And as explained in the general discussion on two-stage decision systems, the overall coefficient of power of an individual of the given state in the Union, is the product of the two aforementioned coefficients of power.
We can already see that there is a problem: the electoral weight of each state is an affine function of its population (two electors for any state plus one for every so many citizens), and the corresponding power is roughly proportional; whereas the coefficient of power of an individual within the state drops down only like the square root of the population. This means, and numerical results confirm it, that citizens of the most populous states of the Union have more power than those of less populous states.
In fact, we find that the overall (product) coefficient of power is highest in California, where it is 0.0106%, and lowest in Montana, where it is 0.00265% — or four times less.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 26, 2004 09:07 PM (ttEaR)
13
Well, if you tried to follow the math, what didn't transmit well is the number of combinations is not 251, but 2 raised to the 51st power..and DC is counted as a "state" because it has 3 EVs..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 26, 2004 09:11 PM (ttEaR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HK Fires Off
By now, you must have heard about Heintz-Kerry's* bizarre "shove it" melt-down with that reporter. i thought it was hysterical. i mean, she just got done giving a speech about civility in politics. And all the guy did was ask her what she meant by "un-American."
She's a freak. i've met people who do the same thing. They say something to you and then one minute later adamantly deny that they've said it. i went out with a guy who would do that and then try to bully me into doubting my own ears. Just like HK did. Only when she denied it, there was an audio recording as proof. Now she just looks crazier than she already looked.
i really don't think Heintz-Kerry is a stable person. i mean emotionally. It's just an impression i've gotten after watching her these last few months. You just watch, she'll melt-down a few more times before Kerry's handlers get wise and sequester her until the election.
Another incredible thing about this episode: i can understand HK not realizing her mistake, she hadn't listened to the proof of what she said. But what's this guy's excuse? He links to the video, then says that
the 'reporter' in question attempted to attribute a quote to Mrs. Kerry that she didn't say.
Huh? She did say it, i heard the audio myself.
Dude needs to listen to the audio again, this time without holding his hands over his ears and saying "lalalalalala."
Liberals. *sigh* Whatareyagonnado?
Link via Sean.
Update: Malkin noticed HK's craziness back in January.
* Yes, i have decided to bestow the mis-spelling honor upon her.
Posted by: annika at
12:47 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The counterpoint we are hearing is that Cheney dropped the F-bomb on the Senate floor...my feeling is that is THK wants come off like Cheney more power to here. It'll just drive up here negs, make Laura seem even better as a 1st lady and distract from Kerry's (weak) message.
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 01:39 PM (XCqS+)
2
I do think she is vain and condescending and unstable in the way a shallow shoot-off-their-mouth person is unstable. All that said, I get a kick out of her.
You can read her pretty well through facial expressions and body language. Lots of times she will be on the stage and she is body-language screaming that she is completely bored and disdainful of the claptrap emanating from the microphone. Also, who among us doesn't love someone who tells a reporter to "shove it?" Un-First-Lady-like-- but you gotta love it at some level!
One thing that drives me crazy about her is her hair. All that money for "constantly in my face" hair?! Does this bother anyone else?
Also, re the "f" bomb, John "Gangster" Kerry intentionally laid down a couple in the same MTV interview. He's down wit da kids, G!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at July 26, 2004 03:51 PM (PcgQk)
3
Yeah, like we need the JHK crew running the show in the White House.
Causes one to pause, what if Al Gore had won? We would have been in such deep tapioca with that maroon at the helm.
The four of them are out of their minds. Really.
Posted by: joe at July 26, 2004 06:02 PM (uD8n6)
4
True confessions time... I've actually had to deal with extremely wealthy people on a regular basis. If there's an immutable law about money, it is that the more you have, the absofuckinglutely whackier you are. Think about it... Hughes, Old Joe Kennedy, Pick-a-Rockefeller (I miss the good ole days when that plagerist twat loved to tell the story of Rocky's mechanically inflatable penis, and inconvenient death in the company of his young concubine.), and how about that dwarf from Texas with the squeaky voice? Yes by Summer's end, she'll be known as "Crackers".
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 06:14 PM (q+PSF)
5
BTW, Oliver Willis is a well-known flaming rectum.
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 06:31 PM (q+PSF)
6
"HK Fires Off"
Coincidence or expertly crafted gun pun? For a moment I thought the enrty supra was gonna be a range report on one of Heckler&Koch's excellent products.
Your a shameless tease.
Jasen
Posted by: Jasen at July 26, 2004 07:20 PM (+abeT)
7
Re: the hair. i thought the same thing about Martha Stewart.
Re: the HK. Yes, it's a cleverly crafted gun pun.
Posted by: annika! at July 26, 2004 11:33 PM (JE92I)
8
That should've been you're, not your and entry, instead of enrty.
Jasen
Posted by: Jasen at July 27, 2004 06:13 PM (u2P7m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 23, 2004
When Is A Dry Run Not A Dry Run?
When one of the passengers
turns out to be all wet.
Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, 'overreacted,' to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.
The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.
Jacobsen, a self-described freelance writer, has published two stories about her experience at womenswallstreet.com, a business advice web site designed for women.
Dawn has more.
You know i'm a hawk when it comes to the war on terror. i'm not saying we should let our guard down, especially nowadays. But still, this lady's story, when i first read it, sure sounded like an urban legend to me.
It turned out not to be an urban legend, but neither did it turn out to be what Jacobsen thought it was. i bet that's how half of the urban legends out there start, by somebody over-reacting.
Posted by: annika at
04:31 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The thing is, there's a lot of pilots and flight attendants who have observed "dry run" type behavior on other flights.
And the other thing is, if the CIA/FBI were trying to monitor the Syrians to see if they lead to bigger fish, then the CIA/FBI would want to put out disinformation.
And the other other thing is, what kind of people rise up en masse and head for the toilets when the plane is beginning its descending run in preparation for landing?
The journalist and her spouse could be overreacting, but I think it's maybe impossible for us to judge the truth of this situation.
This next has me wondering if I am getting too conspiratorial in my thinking, but-
is it so farfetched that a group of Syrian musicians might agree to "dry run" certain behaviors on a flight? They would've known they had legitimate alibis and likely wouldn't be detained. They could've been induced to action by bribe or blackmail. Gotta go- think I hear a black helicopter outside the house!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at July 23, 2004 11:25 PM (PcgQk)
2
This particular situation probably was entirely innocent, but, as gcotharn just noted, there have been plenty of recent incidents which have been very worrisome indeed. I think it is simply irresponsible that the arming of flight crews has not proceeded with a sense of real urgency (and have a post up on this topice)
Posted by: David Foster at July 24, 2004 10:23 AM (XUtCY)
3
My understanding is that they were indeed members of a band, and yet each and every one of them had an expired visa.
And just because you're in a band doesn't mean you can't be a terrorist.
For some stupid reason, the PC-crowd thinks that being middle-eastern automatically means you *can't* be a terrorist.
Posted by: Ted at July 24, 2004 11:34 AM (ZjSa7)
4
2 cents
Posted by: Scof at July 24, 2004 11:41 AM (MzkCz)
5
If they can learn to fly a plane, they can learn to play a musical instrument.
If their visas were truly expired, they should not be able to board a plane except to return to whence they came.
Remember, the operative part of illegal alien is "illegal". This is still America, a rule of law country.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 24, 2004 09:26 PM (PcgQk)
6
Get your free iPod! All you gotta do is complete an offer and sign up 5 friends! Completely legitimate offer by reputable company. Read about it here:
http://www.3sixtyfour.com/freeipods.html
Posted by: Anna at July 24, 2004 09:53 PM (6CJE3)
7
I'm shocked at your outlook on this, Anna. I thought your eyes were more open than this.
Posted by: The Agnostic at July 25, 2004 11:00 AM (YzXz/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 21, 2004
Lynda Rondstat
Shelly asked me if i was going to comment on the Lynda Ronsdstat controversy. i don't have much to to say on that, except for the following:
At least she had the guts to say what she said in front of a hostile audience in this country. That's more than i can say for the Dixie Chiks.
Also, what she said wasn't so bad. She just recommended the movie. It's not like she said she was ashamed to be an American.
i think what she said about Christians and Republicans is more offensive.
Anyway, whatever. Who cares about her anyway? She made one good record, a long time ago with Nelson Riddle, and her career's been AWOL ever since.
Link thanks to Jen.
Posted by: annika at
11:14 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Most folks think her "Trio" recordings with Emmylou and Dolly are spectacular... I am among them.
And I think the behavior of the crowd at the Aladdin was unfortunate.
Posted by: Hugo at July 21, 2004 11:40 AM (ntfdi)
2
i was gonna say something about the crowd, but the story seems exagerrated to me. Anyway, it's not much different than the behavior of
this kid's history teacher.
Posted by: annika at July 21, 2004 11:46 AM (zAOEU)
3
I think if you pay $250 a seat, you have a right not to be subjected to left-wing propaganda.
If you have been warned that the artist has lost her mind and you still go, then you should sit through the propaganda without objection.
Posted by: Jake at July 21, 2004 02:56 PM (h4tU8)
4
O.K. Annika, I guess I am sorry I asked. But, "guts"? Nope, maybe just in need of some ink.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 21, 2004 04:21 PM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 19, 2004
An Ugly Old French Problem
i totally agree with Ariel Sharon's belief that
French Jews should emigrate to Israel to escape "the wildest anti-semitism." That comment has caused
that old slug, Chirac to revoke his invitation for Sharon to visit Paris.
Don't worry about it, Ariel. i've been to Paris, you ain't missing much.
Other Frenchies are up in arms* over Sharon's statement too.
'France is not Germany of the 1930s,' said Julien Dray, spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party . . .
Maybe, but France
is beginning to resemble France of the 1940s (Vichy collaborationists). Or France of the 1890s (The Dreyfus affair). The French have a long history of anti-semitism, to which
their latest group of immigrants would love to add.
'The French have actually gone further than any other country in Europe in recognizing that they have a mountain of a problem on their hands,' says David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, who consults with the French government. Indeed, from their point of view, anti-Semitism may turn out to be the least of it. The huge number of Muslim young people born in France who actively resist acculturation, he says, leaves French officials 'baffled and challenged'
But the government itself appears far from blameless.
At least behind closed doors, French officials are even starting to entertain the proposition that the virulence and relentlessness of their criticism of Israel and its supporters feeds the insalubrious climate in which crimes against Jews multiply. Despite French newspapers' vigorous coverage of the latest apparent anti-Semitic attack, a further evolution may be needed before French intellectual and media elites will go that far.
*
Figuratively speaking, of course. To the French, the phrase "up in arms" means to put "up" your hands whenever you see "arms."
Update: Dawn's opinion is the opposite of mine.
Posted by: annika at
03:16 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree with the French Socialists. France isn't like the Germany of the 1930s. It's more like the Vichy France of the 1940s! Ran by elitist appeasers who sleep with the bad guys and wouldn't bat an eye at the thought of sending Jews to the gas chambers.
As for Chirac, he's such an ass. It's perfectly ok for him to make obnoxious comments about America, Israel, Italy, and other countries that get on his nerves. But look out if they talk back. Then he starts shrieking like a little girlie man.
Posted by: Ron at July 19, 2004 09:23 PM (Nv+wd)
2
Again, Annika, you are right on the money.
I've been to Paris many times; it is dirty, smelly, now full of (@27%) Muslim immigrants who can sway elections, and the women still don't shave their legs or under their arms.
The French invented perfume; wanna guess why?
Posted by: shelly s. at July 20, 2004 02:07 AM (PcgQk)
3
When i was in paris i saw no less than two people uninating in the street. i'm not talking back alleys, i saw this on the Champs d'Elysee!
Posted by: annika! at July 20, 2004 09:03 AM (zAOEU)
4
Annika, if you can remember the holes in the ground that pass for toilets, perhaps you can remember why they do that. Ugh.
France is a second rate power going to third rate. Before it is over, we will be at war with them as well.
Perhaps our policy makers should consider a revision of our immigration and border laws. It is time for a change; we need to give up some of our civil liberties to avoid the daily suicide bombings that Israel has endured for years.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 25, 2004 06:02 PM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 16, 2004
He Said What i Been Saying, Only Better
If i might be allowed to boast a little, in a blog post yesterday,
Steven Den Beste articulates what i've been trying to tell people about the Iraq War for two years now. Summed up in my most pithy way: "
It's the regime change, stupid!"
At the risk of sounding like a "me-tooer" (i really have been making this point all along, but never as clearly, alas, than Mr. Den Beste) here is the relevant stuff, quoted at length:
WMDs were never the real purpose of the invasion. WMDs were the focus of the spotlight, however, because of serious diplomatic efforts to gain [United Nations Security Council] approval for an invasion. Within the context of the UNSC, the only way to justify an invasion was to claim that Iraq had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors. Which, . . . Saddam's government had not, even as late as March 2003.
But the public justification made in the UN had nothing to do with the real purpose, the real strategic goal which required the invasion. [Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum] makes casual reference to that, when he says, Facts on the ground have never been allowed to interfere with George Bush's worldview, and he wasn't about to take the chance that they might interfere with his war.
Except that 'facts on the ground' did not interfere or contradict the real purpose, which was to depose a corrupt dictator and to 'nation build' so as to make one core Arab nation a better place for the people living there. By so doing, the goal was to infect the imaginations and aspirations of the citizens in other nations in the region, to 'destabilize' the corrupt dictatorships in charge and to try to bring about long term change to the whole region. And that could not be publicly proclaimed at the time without deeply imperiling the strategy for the overall war.
So why were we at the UN? Mainly because Tony Blair needed to fulfill a promise made to the more leftist MPs in his party that he would not take the UK to war without a UNSC resolution or an 'unreasonable veto'. There were other reasons as well, but that was the most important one.
So we went to the UNSC to seek permission for something we actually had the capability of doing. (The only permission Bush actually required was granted to him by Congress in October of 2002.) And when it finally became clear that permission would not be forthcoming, we went ahead and did it anyway.
. . .
For some, that made it an 'illegal war'. It was a 'war of choice', not a 'war of necessity'. It was a 'violation of international law'.
None of those distinctions actually matter. . . . They're also all matters of opinion, subject to considerable dispute. . . .
. . . I happen to think that the invasion was necessary. But it wasn't necessary in order to gain revenge for direct Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attack (there's no significant evidence that Saddam's government was directly implicated in that) or to prevent 'imminent danger'. It was necessary in order to prevent significant non-imminent danger.
Aha! There you go.
In my view, anti-war people have been too focused on the past. The war was illegal, they insist. There were no WMDs. Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't cooperate.
Neocons, of which i count myself one, always focused on the future. They said: After 9/11, we can no longer afford to trust that Saddam will not create and provide WMDs to the terrorists. WMDs which they intend to use against American civilians.
The existence or non-existence of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the war does not change the fact that Saddam . . . had . . . to . . . go.
Link props to David Boxenhorn, who has a slightly different take on justification and priorities.
Posted by: annika at
02:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.
1
what about iran and kim mentally ill.
Posted by: Dex at July 16, 2004 08:45 PM (rPHeE)
2
AWESOME! AL JAZEERA IS COMING TO CANADA
Cable companies have been given the green light to begin carrying the legendary and respected Arab based news channel.
Canadian viewers will soon be able to watch the Arabic Al-Jazeera network, after the federal broadcast regulator on Thursday approved the network's distribution by cable companies.
Cable companies have been eager to pick up the network, known as the more credible CNN of the Arab world, which was already being watched by some Canadians using "grey-market" technology that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission considers illegal.
A regard, at which point it takes a long time the kingdom in Whingers at the beginning which foams on this one. As I knew, not too a long time: * von our expensive rube small Katie death entendement. *
Brought zu with you by approving it the body, which of the Canadian before that propogandist FoxNews to protect.
I declare you , why it this control and not fox guthiessen, rube. Canada has already an access to the dozen and the led dozen the corporative United States ReichWhinge. Us not however to have an access to Arabic. C-with-D. if it offers a diversity and the truth to Canadians.
It female ignorant.
[Editorial comments translated into frog for the benefit of the French-speaking. an.]
Posted by: Robert Mc-Clelland at July 17, 2004 10:19 AM (Wonhh)
3
Methinks brother Mc-Clelland may have erroneously landed in the wrong blogland.
This here is Bush County; if you want sand, move to the Mideast.
Fallujah Delenda Est.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 17, 2004 11:08 AM (AaBEz)
4
The existence or non-existence of WMDs in Iraq at the time of war does not change the fact that Saddam had to go
Perhaps, but it does not change the fact that the President of the United States got on television and told bald faced lies (whether or not you believe he knew they were lies, they WERE lies nontheless). So now that the dust has settled and the voting public can look back at that decision with some perspective, can we punish a president for lying? I think we can. If we can punish a president for lying about a blowjob, then certainly we can punish a president for lying that caused the deaths of nearly 1000 US soldiers. This fact is not lost on those who support the military in so called red states. I am heartened when I talk to some family members back in Colorado (a red state) who voted for Bush in 2000 and are now thinking that the war wasn't such a hot idea and are seriously considering voting for Kerry. I think Bush has a real credibility problem that goes beyond flip-flopping. It is the lying and the company he keeps... Ken Lay, Prince Bandar, the Bin Ladin family... etc. I love his comments about Ken Lay after he was indicted. "He was an acquaintance from years ago. I really haven't had much contact with him..." Oh yeah, except that I flew around in his Enron jets during the 2000 presidential campaign. Hmmm.
Posted by: Graham at July 21, 2004 11:29 PM (+XyFZ)
5
Graham - The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The President was Bill Clinton. Was he a liar too?
The difference between GWB and BC is that BC relied on ineffectual, precision strike missiles with limited effects and thus minimal casualities while GWB relied on the one of the truest cliches in war - You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.”
If the voters think GWB's approach was wrong - ok. Or that he, like BC, should have cleaned up the culture and stovepiped nature of the Intel Community - ok too.
But for lying?
JF Kerry said he was supporting the resolution “to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
That was on Oct. 9, 2002. As the prospect of war rose, so did Kerry’s rhetoric. On Jan. 2003, Kerry said, “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation….And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction…So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
Umm..Kerry voted to give the President authority to use force against Iraq - but he along with the 76 other senators bear no responsibility for the resulting consequences?
Dex - We don't invade NK because our conflict is with China and we'd prefer it to go the route of the old Cold War where we either beat the economically or the impact of economic expansion causes an internal regime change..Why do you think China doesn't invade Taiwan? Neither of us want to start a major conflict..yet.
Iran - the geography makes it a little harder..also, there are reasons to hope the internal political dynamics within Iran may give rise to a more secular, (relatively) moderate state..especially with a Shia majority model next door in Iraq..and now they are squeezed between (hopefully) pro-US Iraq and Afghanistan..
Annika - You're partially right..but you can't forget the US is the global guarantor of oil for the world economy..if the House of Saud falls, which seemed (and still does) probable given their failure to deal with the radical elements in their own country, then either Iraq or Iran would likely make a move to protect the minority and poorly treated Shia in the NE where the oil fields are..and guess what would happen to the world economy then? It's a very complex campaign that could produce stunning impacts on the global security environment or become a protracted quagmire..the plan was good, but as they say, most plans are useless once the shooting starts..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 22, 2004 01:01 AM (vroAu)
6
Unfortunately Col Steve, it sounds like your argument is that since Kerry and Bill Clinton also thought Saddam was a threat then they are may also be liars therefore Bush is not alone. Not a very convincing argument. A key phrase regarding the Kerry comment on Saddam is "I believe" why do you think Kerry would believe that Saddam was a grave threat? Perhaps bad intelligence that was not vetted and properly analyzed and not based on human intelligence other than disgruntled Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi who has been shown to be a fraud. I can't blame Kerry for voting for a resoution authorizing force under such circumstances (also timed right before an election). I can't really blame 70% of Americans who think that Saddam was behind 9/11 attacks. However, I (and a majority of Americans will as well) blame the purveyors of both of those frauds who include Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet and George Bush. They did not present any contradictory evidence or convey proper levels of uncertainty of their data. The public statements made by those people were very clear with out doubt or any sort of caveats. Letting the UN continue inspections might have revealed much more information. Do you remember what UNSCOM was doing right before the US/UK decided to invade? I do. They were destroying Al Samoud missiles that violated UN sanctions. The timing of the attack was a lie as well. Cynically, one might say it was to get the fighting and dying over with before Nov 2004 elections since that doesn't play well on TV during an election. Where are the cheering crowds and rose petal greetings that were mentioned? Sorry, I don't think you can drag down Kerry and Clinton on this one. Bush is the commander in chief, Bush made the call and told specific lies in the SoTU. The buck stops where???
Posted by: Graham at July 22, 2004 12:34 PM (yuxaa)
7
This says it all about how the election might go:
From a CBS News poll
ON WAR IN IRAQ, BUSH HAS BEEN:
Telling entire truth 18%
Hiding something 59%
Mostly lying 20%
A scientific poll with a +-3% error. NOT a web poll.
Posted by: Graham at July 22, 2004 12:43 PM (yuxaa)
8
Graham -
I was pointing out the inconsistency in your post. You wrote:
"Perhaps, but it does not change the fact that the President of the United States got on television and told bald faced lies (whether or not you believe he knew they were lies, they WERE lies nontheless)"
The key phrase you wrote was "(whether or not you believe he knew they were lies)."
If he KNEW the intelligence was falsified (and let Colin Powell go before the UN just like BC let his defenders did on Monica), then I would support your assertion we can "punish a president for lying."
You leave room for the possibility (personally you seem to have reach the conclusion GWB and others knew the intel was false) though that people took the intel community's products and analysis as reliable.
You let the Senators who voted to authorize (and continue to fund) operations in Iraq off the hook because they acted in good faith based on the intelligence -
"Perhaps bad intelligence that was not vetted and properly analyzed and not based on human intelligence other than disgruntled Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi who has been shown to be a fraud."
I am challenging your inconsistency that if the President acted based on the same understanding of intelligence that the Senators received, then he can be held accountable for "lying" while the Senators cannot.
I acknowledge the President made decisions based on the intelligence and the voters should judge him for those decisions as well as the execution of those policies. But unless you believe he was lying (and where's the proof - I've worked in both the NSC and DOD since 98 and personally think that while there's been a lot of incompentent people from both adminstrations working in those orgs, I have never seen any indication or actions to falsify intelligence), the standards should be the same for both Congress and the President.
And if we're going to blame GWB for failure to challenge the intel community (after only 1 yr in office and it took 9/11 to get this administration to start getting its act together in the NSC and DOD), you have to ask what those House and Senate members on the Intelligence Oversight committees were doing for a decade as they handed out tens of billions of dollars and why folks in the last administration such as Sandy Berger and Bill Cohen reached the same conclusions as the Bush folks.
Oh, please stop the timing of the war was based on the election. If you've been to that region of the world and understand the influences of weather on basic military operations, you would reach the same conclusion that military planners did - you had to start operations before April or wait another 6 months. There was no "lie" - it was based on the optimal conditions to conduct operations - which I believe is a rational and sound position assuming you have decided to go to war.
Granted, you may have opted to wait and let the UN do its thing and that's was a feasible course of action. However, as Annika's original posting indicated, this whole campaign has a much greater endstate in mind. You may disagree with that endstate or may believe there are different policies to achieve it - we'll see what folks say in November.
As for your poll, the results don't seem to translate into how people are stating they'll vote. Also, if asked that question, I'd answer in the middle category. I work in this area and even I know I'm not privy nor should I be to all the information. But it's a false choice because "hiding something" is not qualified - does it mean hiding information he thinks should not get out because our enemies would also know it? or does it mean he's hiding secret memos where he told George Tenet to start making stuff up?
As for the Rose petal comment, I agree with you to an extent. The civilian leadership overruled the military planners (as is their right) based on bad assumptions (influence no doubt by Iraqi exiles) in terms of the amount of resources we should have had immediately after major combat operations in order to set the conditions for the post-hostilities stabilization and reconstruction operations. I think we learned a hard lesson at the cost of both time and human lives. I personally felt GWB should have fired some of the 2d tier Pentagon folks.
We'll see what the voter say in Nov.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 22, 2004 03:00 PM (DmFF+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Some Advice For The Two Johns Regarding The Upcoming Debates
My advice for the two Johns (which will help them in the upcoming debates with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney) is to stick to format. They should not change their message now, it's obviously very popular among their supporters. But i would suggest that they simplify the message so that it's easier to understand. You see there's quite a few dim-bulbs out there who would vote Democrat if only the Democratic platform were shorter and easier to commit to memory.
Here's my advice:
To John Edwards: You're the attack dog. So every time Dick Cheney says something, your retort should include the word "Halliburton." It might be difficult to work that into all your debate answers, so if you get stuck simply begin yelling "HALLIBURTON! HALLIBURTON! HALLIBURTOOOOON!" You will surely get a loud cheer out of the hand picked audience of CNN approved lefty Bush-haters. And the beauty of this debate tactic, besides its simplicity, is that every wacked out lefty understands it, because they revert back to the same tactic themselves whenever confronted by that pesky foe known as "logical reasoning."
To John Kerry: Try not to speak. But if you must, follow the same strategy outlined above, except say "Vietnam" instead of "Halliburton."
Posted by: annika at
09:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bonus points and a possible landslide victory if the sentence "Halliburton is Dick Cheney's Vietnam" is used. (Extra super duper points, if it's responsive.)
Posted by: Dawn at July 16, 2004 10:10 AM (HLOeu)
2
Whenever I hear Kerry talking about Vietnam, I for some inexplicable reason can't help but remember Dana Carvey as George H.W. Bush at the outset of Desert Storm.
"This country has learned the lesson of Vietnam. Which is: do not fight in Vietnam."
Posted by: Dave J at July 16, 2004 01:12 PM (VThvo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2004
List Of Sniveling Cowardly Wimp Nations
The following countries are
sniveling cowardly wimps:
France
Germany
Spain
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Honduras
Thailand
Norway
New Zealand
The Philippines
Posted by: annika at
10:39 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
my question? why are they there in the first place was it for self interest of so-called interest of doing America a favor. Thank God we have troops and the means to defend ourselves.
Posted by: Dex at July 15, 2004 10:57 AM (rPHeE)
2
Annika, could you use a different term, like "wimps" or "cowards" or "doomed"? After all, pussys have definite good points and are good for some things; these nations don't deserve that much respect.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 12:37 PM (AaBEz)
Posted by: candace at July 15, 2004 12:49 PM (hZHYA)
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 01:20 PM (zAOEU)
5
Nah, just a nicer word for the real thing. Let's go with "sniveling cowardly wimps".
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 01:38 PM (AaBEz)
6
Oh all right.
i aim to please.
But i want to go on record that by changing the title of this post in response to criticism, i am in no way inviting the additional criticism that i too am a sniveling cowardly wimp just like those countries on the list.
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 01:51 PM (zAOEU)
7
Oh. Darn. And I was all ready to take you for task (in my normal ringing prose) for associating the female genitalia with cowardice. Nothing quite so funny as a thrice-divorced man lecturing a younger woman about misogyny, is there? And you robbed me of my chance.
Posted by: Hugo at July 15, 2004 02:14 PM (EvO2+)
8
I liked the old title better. Dammit.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 15, 2004 02:52 PM (ARMDq)
9
Sheesh, i can't please everybody. i'm beginning to feel like George W. Bush.
Posted by: annika! at July 15, 2004 02:59 PM (zAOEU)
10
You forgot France--the second time. They should be at the top and bottom of any such list to frame the argument.
Posted by: DBrooks at July 15, 2004 06:07 PM (YixpN)
Posted by: Brent at July 15, 2004 06:33 PM (w+y2e)
12
Good choice Annie, but we can all agree that France needs special recognition; they are black belt status.
And, congratulations to all of the rest of you who are restraining yourselves from calling Annika a "P____".
I, too, as a man old enough to be Annika's father, should not be lecturing our beloved blogger on the use of female genitalia to describe weakness.
God knows,it has overcome most of us more than once.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 15, 2004 08:56 PM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2004
F*** The Vote
On his radio show tonight, Alan Colmes mentioned the website of a new liberal propaganda tool called "
Fuck the Vote" The site is
absolutely not work safe, so here's the idea, in their own words:
SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control! Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).
Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.
At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page! Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.
Interesting idea. However, i say what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. And really, what makes them think liberals are better in bed? i take issue with that whole premise. i can say from some little experience (i did go to high school and college in the Bay Area) that conservatives are just as hot, if not hotter,* just as sexy, if not sexier, and just as rockin' if not better in bed than any liberal. It's all that repressed sexual energy.
So, why not have a conservative version of this thing? Using the liberal pledge as a template, it might go something like this:
I, the undersigned, pledge my vote for George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 in return for getting laid by a hot freaky conservative.
I understand that this pledge is a symbol of good faith that I will cast my vote for a strong, safe and vibrant America, for a president who will stand up straight and tall for the values that make this country great, who will defend this country rigidly as we plunge forward into the future, and for a tax policy that stimulates growth by pumping more and more money into the private sector again and again and again. I further promise that i will not vote for candidates who promise a flaccid foreign policy or a limp and disappointing economic plan.
*
Case in point.
Posted by: annika at
08:49 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Awesonme! I found this and mentioned it on my blog the other day...but not with your twist!
Posted by: Jennifer at July 14, 2004 10:58 PM (Wr1uX)
2
I'm still undecided. I might vote for Kerry, but a hot freaky conservative could influence me to pull the lever for Bush (so to speak).
Posted by: d-rod at July 15, 2004 07:57 AM (6lzRE)
3
Oh, I could tell you some things about what some liberals do in bed... ah, the memories. But then I became a good Christian boy, put away the piercings, and worked hard at repressing all that energy!
Posted by: Hugo at July 15, 2004 08:54 AM (9ndHD)
4
I'm sure both of these plans will be just as effective in influencing this year's election as the
Lysistrata Project was in influencing last year's policy in Iraq.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 15, 2004 10:48 AM (k4RhX)
5
Is that their mission statement or did they copy if from the intro to
My Life?
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 15, 2004 11:38 AM (UquFN)
6
well, in their defense, the "anyone but bush" motto could have some perks...
Posted by: candace at July 15, 2004 12:58 PM (hZHYA)
7
My boyfriend is a Conservative. Hot and rockin', he is.
Posted by: Amy at July 15, 2004 02:46 PM (RpVKX)
Posted by: Desert Cat at July 15, 2004 10:46 PM (c8BHE)
9
I can't wait to "get laid by a hot freaky conservative", but I have to wait for him to get back from Iraq first...
Posted by: Sarah at July 17, 2004 06:49 AM (vMhet)
10
I'd sure like to tell some conservative I'd vote for Bush and then exploit them...where do I sign up?
Posted by: Chuck at August 11, 2004 01:57 PM (uftg2)
11
The phrase "hot freaky conservative" shall now be stuck in my mind for the next weeks.
(Kinda like the words "widgets," "greenacre," and "due diligence" from the law school days.)
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2004 05:15 PM (Vg0tt)
12
The phrase "hot freaky conservative" shall now be stuck in my mind for the next 2 weeks.
(Kinda like the words "widgets," "greenacre," and "due diligence" from the law school days.)
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2004 05:15 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
That's Because We're Americans
Over at
Trying to Grok, Sarah has an excerpt from
Teresa Heinz-Kerry's recent appearance on Larry King's show.
LARRY KING: What do you think, Teresa, would be the effect of another terror attack on the United States politically?
TERESA HEINZ-KERRY: I don't know. I think most Americans subconsciously believe something is going to happen. It's a matter of when. And it's a matter of how.
KING: Strange way to live, though.
HEINZ-KERRY: Yeah. But you know, Europeans have lived that way and other people around the world have lived that way. Americans have been very safe, at least as a nation.
First of all, why the fuck does anybody give two rat shits about anything that airhead has to say?
Anyway, the exchange reminded me of a news program i saw while on vacation in Portugal two years ago. It was on either BBC or Sky News or CNN International. One of those English language channels they have on hotel cable in Europe.
The show was a panel discussion with your typical Euro-lefties outnumbering a token representative of the Bush administration, who was a State Department guy who's name i don't remember.
One Euro-lefty said to the State Department guy, regarding the 9/11 attack: "Now you Americans know what we in Europe have been dealing with for decades."
The State Department guy (you could tell he had been holding his tongue throughout the discussion, despite all that typical Euro-condescension) then responded with words that i remember to this day, because it so clearly states the difference between America and the rest of the world.
He said something like: "Well we're not going to deal with it. We're Americans."
i'm sure that sounded pretty arrogant to the Euro-lefties, but Betty and i applauded him, right there in our hotel room. Because that's what America is all about. We fix things. Let Europe adapt to terrorism. We'll have none of that. We'll fix the problem, even if it means taking risks and pissing people off.
It may be a cliché but it can't be said often enough: true Americans don't forget that we saved Europe's ass three times in the last century. Europeans hate to be reminded of that fact, though.
What the left refuses understand is that the Iraq war was necessary in order to fix the problem of terrorism. One reason the left doesn't understand is because the Bush administration has done a poor job of explaining it. The other reason is that the left simply hates America.
The Iraq war was a first step in fixing the terrorism problem. This is not going to be a band-aid solution. Bush and Blair, and those coalition members who still have the guts to stick this thing out, understand that we are in a struggle that will only get worse if we don't change the way we "deal with it." The other option is to adapt to terrorism, like the Europeans, and we know how unsuccessful that strategy has been.
We went into Iraq and kicked out Saddam Hussein because we need to change the Middle East. We can't leave it as it is, an incubator of violent anti-Americanism and anti-semitism (which are synonyms to the enemy). We need to bring democracy to that backwards-ass area so that they will stop attacking and killing people.
Sure, not everybody believes that method will work, but what was the alternative? Bush has been pro-active rather than re-active about the problem of terrorism. We needed a bold solution, with "outside-the-box" thinking rather than what the Euros and the left want us to do - which is to continue the failed policy of responding with tough rhetoric and weak law enforcement solutions.
i, for one believe that democratization of the Middle East will work, and that we can accomplish that goal, given enough time and effort. Democracies are by their nature more peaceful than autocracies. Democracies never attack other democracies. i can't think of a single historical example of a democracy attacking another democracy (not counting civil wars, and even then, the American Civil War barely fits).
But Heinz-Kerry, because she's both a Euro and a lefty, cannot understand America and the things that make this country great. It's the optimism and can-do attitude of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan that gives us the boldness to succeed. If the lefties and the Euros see that as arrogance, so be it. To paraphrase a favorite bumper sticker, we'll save their asses, whether they like it or not.
Posted by: annika at
11:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 757 words, total size 5 kb.
1
This is a wonderful post. We Americans are different. In today's politically-correct environment, many people don't like to hear such truths spoken---but truths are truths. Like you, I continue to believe in, and support, our efforts to democratize the Middle East. This will be a longterm process. Unlike many, I have been surprised how well things have gone in Iraq. If someone had told me two years ago that Saddam would be captured, Iraq would have an interim governing body and be preparing for elections, and that the United States would not have suffered any additional catastrophic attack at this date, I would have thought they were crazy. Liberals, here and around the globe, are enamored of process. They love meetings, dialog, mediation, compromise, treaties that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed, World Courts that move incrementally(if at all), etc. That is why they revere the United Nations. Conservatives prefer solutions to conversations, victory to impotent concessions, action to reaction, boldness to passivity. I do not want my son growing up in a country where I fear he may be blown up every time he rides a public bus, or sits at an open cafe. Most Americans have no grasp of the realities Israel faces every day. We have the right to defend ourselves from that fate. We have the finances, the industry, the military, and the options to defend our freedom--freedom that is worth defending. What some seem to lack is the patience, and the resolve. I apologize for rambling, but your post struck a nerve. I agree with every word.
Posted by: DBW at July 15, 2004 06:48 PM (YixpN)
2
Don't you guys ever think that maybe you should listen to what others have to say? That maybe those who have experienced this before might actually know what they're talking about? Are you really that arrogant that you think you can afford to ignore everyone else? You have no idea what it is to live with terrorism because thso that hijacked those plans came all the way from the middle east, they weren't your neighbours. Imagine if they actually lived in the same country or shared a border with you? Imagine if it was one of your own united states looking for independence, they'd all look and talk justlike you, they might even live on the same street as you, drink in the same bar as you and they might be planting bombs near your kids school or throwing fire bombs in your window. I bet you don't jump everytime you hear a firecracker or a car backfire, you don't see your neighbourhood orcity being bombed every other night on the news and have to worry if it was one of your friends or family that died in the blast, that they mightn't be coming home, ever. When you and everyone you know, personaly knows a victim of terrorism, when you experience the loss of a loved one or just just the oppressive fear of living with it. My cousin had a submachine gun emptied itno his abdomen by a loyalist gunman, that's 30 bullets. Another was given 30 minutes to evacuate his buisness before it was blown up by the IRA. That's what it is to deal with terrorism. Because terrorists aren't your average soldier that gets paid a wage to do a job, they have a cause they believe in and what's worse for you is that the terrorists who are targetting your country are willing to blow themselves up for their cause and that's something we in Europe haven't had to deal with. What we've learned is that when you kill one terrorist, you only create martyrs and they're only too effective when it comes to putting guns in the hands of a new generation of terrorists.
Democracies never attack other democracies? What planet are you living on? Isn't Spain a democracy? Haven't you heard of ETA? Isn't the UK a democracy too? Come on now, I KNOW you've heard of the IRA! That's just two examples.
It's not your "can do" attitude but your pig headed ignorance that we see as arrogance. Your unwillingness or inability to think outside your insular little world that gets right up our noses so you only come across as hypocritical when you say you need a bold solution, with "outside-the-box" thinking because you've already demonstrated elsewhere in your article that you haven't even bothered to consider what's outside that box, that there might be wisdom in the words of other people. Not to listen is gravely disrespectful and an affront to all those that have and will die at the hands of terrorism.
You know without the aid the french gave you in your war for independence, there would be no United States of America as you know it today. This is what civilised nations do, they help eachother in their time of need, so you see, it cuts both ways
With the advent of the world wide web, we all now have more information at our fingertips then ever before in world history and not to be informed as to both sides of the story is hugely negligent and irresponsible. Please take time to do this as I would not wish for you to have live or deal with terrorism as some of us have and many have yet to. Please open your eyes and ears, look and listen to what is going on in the world outide your own borders and your own immediate interests. Whether or not you change your mind after finding out about how the rest of the world thinks, at least you might understand us a bitbetter and if that leads to better co-operation and understanding, how can it be a bad thing?
Posted by: PJK at July 18, 2004 08:35 PM (iQs42)
3
ETA is not a country, you ignoramus. A democratic UK has never been at war with another democratic country. The IRA is not a country, you pathetic loser. If France helped us out in our war for independence, we repaid them ten times over by saving them from the Germans
twice and the Russians once. And we WILL save them from the islamic fascists next. Even though I don't expect them to thank us, nor you for that matter. We've earned the right to be disrespectful, as you call us. If you don't like us, let's see shitty Ireland go and save the world. You can't even clean up your own act. Fuck off.
Posted by: Pat at July 18, 2004 09:11 PM (pSE7U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 08, 2004
Democrats Like To Grope Too
Drudge has
a photo montage of the two Johns groping and cuddling each other at every photo opportunity.
Now i'm not offended by two men being physically affectionate with each other (not even two political candidates who until two days ago were rumored to have disliked each other intensely). It's just that this Democratic touchy-feely shit is such an obvious attempt to pander to us female voters. Yah, i'm sure the polls and focus groups say we're supposed to respond more favorably to men who hug each other. Maybe we do in a general sense, i don't know. But i do know that in the midst of a war, in which our enemy has made no secret that they want us all dead, and that they are not interested in negotiating on that point, and that they'll stop at nothing to kill us all, and as violently as possible . . . well let's just say i'd rather have a couple of men who shake hands leading our side in that situation.
Drudge link via Blogeline.
Exclusive annie's j Update!: Yoko Ono has recorded a perfect campaign theme song for the two Johns!
Exclusive annie's j Update 2!: OMG, i think this Kerry-Edwards love fest is getting totally out of hand!
Posted by: annika at
02:28 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I dunno, looks more like the'yre trying to shore up thier base with the Queer Eye set.
"not that theres anything (cough) wrong with that"
Posted by: Marty at July 08, 2004 01:58 PM (a16BY)
2
You're just baiting me into another soaring paean to male affection on my blog, aren't you, Annie?
Posted by: Hugo at July 08, 2004 02:02 PM (LQVcV)
3
Annika -
John Kerry was quick to reinforce his fondness for hunting so perhaps we'll see both Johns out there trying to appeal to your need for more "manly" photo-ops.
http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/jkhunting.htm
I was more curious on the reaction to Kerry's statement that life begins at conception..perhaps we can bait Hugo into writing on that..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 08, 2004 02:53 PM (DmFF+)
4
Shouldn't this post be categorized under the
Risqué Business rubric?
Posted by: d-rod at July 08, 2004 05:11 PM (CSRmO)
5
All I can say is I'm looking forward to this weekend's round of caption contests.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 08, 2004 05:36 PM (4819r)
6
oh, annika. that second one is just too much!
Posted by: candace at July 09, 2004 07:47 AM (hZHYA)
7
Looks like their "number" together is greater than zero - yuck.
Posted by: Mark at July 09, 2004 08:52 AM (oQofX)
8
something very very wrong
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040709/ids_photos_ts/r1261949189.jpg&e=5&ncid=1756
Posted by: Scof at July 09, 2004 10:03 AM (XCqS+)
9
Annie, you should've warned me about opening update #2. Now I have to grab some paper towels to clean up the mess.
Posted by: physics geek at July 09, 2004 10:45 AM (Xvrs7)
10
This one's pretty funny too:
http://www.terpsboy.com/terpsboyarchives/001376.html
Posted by: annika! at July 09, 2004 01:18 PM (zAOEU)
11
I said this in my comment section but I would not feel at all better if Kerry had chosen Hillary and couldn't stop touching
her. Just weird and inappropriate. It's like he thinks Edwards is a puppy.
Posted by: Karol at July 09, 2004 08:19 PM (f/hiR)
12
Annie, glad your mom is better than you feared! Praise God!
And I have taken you on over the Edwards-Kerry stuff over at my blog.
Posted by: Hugo at July 10, 2004 03:18 PM (ntfdi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 07, 2004
More Media Bashing
Question one: Take a far left agenda, combine it with a generous amount of blind hubris, and remove all traces of ethical responsibility and what do you have?
Answer: The Los Angeles Times under its current führer, John Carroll.
Question two: Are the numerous factual errors in the Times' news reportage innocent or are they indicative of a feverish propaganda effort? According to Slate:
On July 4, an LAT front page piece reported that our civilian administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremerleft without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year
when in fact Bremer did give a farewell speech, which was well-received by at least some Iraqis. [links omitted]
Answer: The latter. The
Times' editors, like many on the far left, seriously believe that ethics and integrity don't matter when you're in a battle against the evils of conservativism.
To the propagandists at the L.A. Times, the ends always justify the means. For example: Print lies about candidate Schwarzenneger on the eve of the election, while ignoring credible claims that Davis physically assaulted his female staffers? No problem. What do ethics matter when the goal is to stop the evil Republicans?
Just watch the L.A. Times as we get closer to the November election. We ain't seen nothing yet.
Slate link via Professor Hewitt.
Update: As reported at Powerline, The Times has offered a correction, but not an apology. i think an apology is in order when a major newspaper makes a false statement in a news story (as opposed to an op-ed) and then levels a cheap shot based on that false statement. It's not enough to simply retract the false statement and leave the cheap shot out there. But that's The Times, and that's why i wouldn't even read their sports page when i lived in L.A.
For more articulate L.A. Times bashing than i am able to muster, go on over to Patterico's Pontifications.
Posted by: annika at
03:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
July 06, 2004
Picking The Wrong Guy
i may not be an expert on politics - just see my last post wherein i predicted that Gephardt would be Kerry's choice for VP - but if my dating experience is any indication, i am definitely an expert on picking
the wrong guy.
So i can say with confidence that John Edwards has all the qualities of the wrong guy. He's good looking and charming, two qualities that always beguile a girl like me, and make it difficult not to overlook the downside.
In Kerry's case, he's gone strictly by the poll numbers in making this choice. But like i said in my last post, we run our elections according to the electoral college, not popular vote. Kerry would have been better served by a guy who could at least deliver one battleground state as a native son. Since Edwards can't do that in an election that might come down to one or two states, Kerry picked the wrong guy.
On the other hand, when i heard the news this morning i realized one strategic advantage that Edwards brings to the ticket. An advantage that i overlooked when i wrote yesterday's post. While he will probably not enable the Democrats to win any southern states, he does force the Republicans to spend more money in the South than they might have if Kerry had chosen a midwesterner. That's money that the GOP won't be able to spend in a battleground state. And elections are really all about money, aren't they?
Still, i like Bush and Cheney's chances against these two boobs. Everbody's making a big deal about how Edwards is going to be able to stand up to Cheney in the VP debate. But really, that's nonsense. There's only going to be one VP debate, and when has it ever had an impact on any election? Never. Remember the 1988 Bentsen/Quayle debate? If there was ever a time when one VP candidate trounced the other candidate, 1988 was it. Bush the Elder still won because the Democrat at the top of the ticket was the only candidate that mattered. Besides, Cheney is no Quayle. If anything, the roles will be reversed this time around.
One final thought on Edwards, which i have to say in his defense. i've been hearing a lot of criticism against him based simply on the fact that he was a trial lawyer. The term "trial lawyer" is a somewhat imprecise term. i assume people mean plaintiff's lawyer, since many lawyers who do trials are not plaintiff's lawyers. i don't suppose you'd hear that kind of criticism leveled against someone like former U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani for example, who was also a trial lawyer and a good one too. Not all trial lawyers are ambulance chasers.
Which brings me to my point. John Edwards was no ambulance chaser. Yes, he was a plaintiff's attorney, but from what i know of his career, he was the top guy in his field. Lawyers like him do not chase ambulances, or make money off of minor fender benders or spilled coffee. Edwards represented legitimate plaintiffs with serious injuries who deserved compensation by any standard of justice. And like another famous trial attorney turned politician, Edwards became the pre-eminent plaintiff's lawyer in his state because he was very very good. And that's worth something in my book.
So i don't agree with people who say Senator Edwards is the wrong guy just because he's a plaintiff's lawyer. i say he's the wrong guy because he's a Democrat.
Posted by: annika at
11:00 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Kerry would have been better served by a guy who could at least deliver one battleground state as a native son. Since Edwards can't do that in an election that might come down to one or two states, Kerry picked the wrong guy.
Annika - name another potential VP pick that would have won Kerry a battleground state. Hard to think of one except I guess Ralph Nader! Perhaps Bob Graham - I don't know his strength in FL - but I doubt enough to put it in the Kerry column. I doubt naming Gephardt would have changed the dynamics too much in MO which is I think a statistical tie. Edwards is a good campaigner and as you note will force the GOP to probably shore up some of the barely red states and thus divert resources. Edwards' message resonated at least in the primaries in states like Mich/Ohio/WVA. Plus, Kerry will influence and I think is leading in NH which went Bush in 2000 and may force the President to win a state he lost in 2000. And I think most importantly, Edwards is probably the best guy to generate a buzz for turnout.
It may not have been the best pick from a "heartbeat away from the Presidency" perspective, but I bet it's the name the Bush folks did not want to hear.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 06, 2004 01:42 PM (DmFF+)
2
...just see my last post wherein i predicted that Gephardt would be Kerry's choice for VP ...
Well, at least you're
not alone.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 06, 2004 05:44 PM (b/34x)
3
"Perhaps Bob Graham - I don't know his strength in FL - but I doubt enough to put it in the Kerry column."
Bob Graham is still fondly remembered (through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia) as an immensely popular young "golden boy" governor...by those Floridians who were actually here then, since any analysis of this state's political demography has to take into account its explosive population growth. He probably wouldn't have made all that much difference to Kerry, but even the narrowest difference could mean everything here. OTOH, Graham made such a fool of himself in his own short-lived presidential run that it's possible he could've actually hurt Kerry, not just in Flordia but elsewhere as well.
Posted by: Dave J at July 06, 2004 06:01 PM (GEMsk)
4
Face it babe, present company excepted, lawyers are pondscum. Ask anyone who's been through a litigated divorce. The lawyers collude silently to keep the angers burning and the hours churning, and the judge is their handmaiden.
Posted by: Casca at July 06, 2004 08:31 PM (q+PSF)
5
Annika, the fact that Edwards was a plaintiff's attorney will hurt the Kerry/Edwards Ticket in PA considering THE HUGE MED MAL issues that the State is having. This, if the Bush campaign approaches it right, could have an effect on all those states, like PA, that have Med Mal issues.
Posted by: lawguy at July 06, 2004 08:41 PM (vcbkL)
6
Dearest Annika,
Your Maximum Leader is shocked to see all these comments concerning Kerry's VP choice. The real issue of your post is obviously that you are deeply upset about picking the wrong man for your dating life. How could your other readers be so blind to something your Maximum Leader can see so clearly?
If you need help vetting eligible young men whom you would like to date, please contact me. As a happily married Maximum Leader, I can be the impartial judge it seems like you need.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 07, 2004 07:18 AM (0PRJS)
7
Hey Casca, there are good and bad lawyers, good and bad doctors, good and bad just about everything. The Bar Association of which I am part spends a good deal of time and money trying to weed out the bad ones. We like to say that for every one that is disbarred or disciplined, he or she was prosecuted by a good lawyer.
Plaintiff's lawyers (of which John Edwards is one), are a group distinct unto themselves. They make a good deal of money representing those who have suffered misery; likewise with Domestic Relations lawyers. The difference is that runaway verdicts are ruining the business climate in America.
The runaway jury verdicts awarding millions and millions, or even billions make it difficult for our businesses, large and small to operate. Those folks are the folks that supply most of the jobs for the rest of us, remember?
So, go ahead and criticize the Plaintiff's lawyers if you must, but try to figure a way to help this administration (or your state)achieve tort reform that will limit the amount that can be assessed for punitive damages, and you'll see a different attitude in America.
But lower the rhetoric about lawyers in general, please.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 07, 2004 07:24 AM (AaBEz)
8
Annika,
I offer you this:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000262.php
in respectful disagreement of your assessment of Edward's merits as an attorney. Good? Perhaps. Operating within the confines of the law? Perhaps. Persuing legitimate cases for deserved awards? That's debatable at best. From everything I've heard of edwards (& keep in mind I'm a North Carolinian) he was to ambulance chasers what $2000-per-trick call girls are to crack hoes.
As for Guiliani's record...while he may have been good at what he did & within the confines of the statute law, I'd argue that just one prosecution of a person for violating an unconstitutioonal law would disqualify him of any respect deserved by his abilities.
As for the trial attorney you linked, I'd be more than happy to argue that that disproves your point. I know you admire Lincoln but the harm he caused the united States far outweighs any perceived benefits he accomplished or took credit for after the fact.
& I disagree that Edwards is the wrong guy simply because he's a democrat. For example I've vote for Zel Miller any day of the week over most (but nto all) republicans. Zell understands the constitution & more importantly acts like he's bound by it, not like his job is to work around it.
But I agree that edwards (or Kerry or Bush for that matter) are bad choices, not specifically because of their professions or their poltiical affiliations, but because they simply do not respect the constitution.
Posted by: Publicola at July 07, 2004 02:28 PM (Aao25)
9
Sorry Shelly, despite your do-gooding, lawyers are a disease of civilization. Since it's Poetry Wednesday, I'll have to add with apologies to TS:
Our voices are quiet and meaningless,
Like wind through dry grass,
or rats feet over the broken glass in the dry cellar,
but we'll be sure to send a bill.
Posted by: Casca at July 07, 2004 05:03 PM (q+PSF)
10
Casca, great poem... however, life is different from what the poets say. much more boring and full of hard work. We should work hard to make our voices sound!
Posted by: Ambulance Doc at July 07, 2005 09:29 AM (q9l7F)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Birthday President Bush
i would certainly be negligent if i did not wish our President a happy birthday! So:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT BUSH!
You never know, there is always the remote possibility that the chief executive visits my humble blog on occasion.
Thanks to Sarah for the reminder.
Posted by: annika at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
July 05, 2004
Vice Presidential Prognostication
Since my predictions during last year's football season were so amazing, i imagine that lots of my visitors are clamoring for my opinion regarding Kerry's
as yet un-named running mate.
The short list includes Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former president Hillery Clinton of course, and Missouri Representative Richard Gephardt.
i don't know who Vilsack is and i suspect that since i never heard of him, he must be a loser. Kerry is also a loser, so it naturally follows that Vilsack would be on the list. But he is not the pick.
John Edwards is cute, friendly, not a raving maniacal Bush hater (although he is a passable Bush dis-liker) and polls well with women. He might help the Democratic ticket if the election were based on a straight popular vote. But since we elect presidents based on the electoral college, Kerry must pick someone who will help deliver battleground states. Edwards might not even deliver South Carolina. Kerry would have to be an idiot to pick Edwards, which is why he's on the short list, since Kerry is an idiot.
Hillery will not be on the ticket because she is too divisive. She'd love to be the vice presidential candidate because, even if she loses, her stature rises in preparation for a run in 2008. There are many who love her, but right now, there are just as many who despise and fear her. After a few months as vice presidential candidate, people may get used to the idea of her as president again and her negatives may decline. Still, Kerry will not have her, because of his ego. He wants to run things, and to do so he can't have Hillery on his back.
But i think the man who makes perfect sense is Dick Gephardt. First of all he's paid his dues, it's his turn. He's viewed as more moderate than Kerry, so he's not too scary and will appeal to more than just the Dean crazies. Also, since the unions got Kerry by the balls, and Gephardt is their man, Kerry may not have a choice. He might have been given an offer he couldn't refuse, if you know what i mean. If Kerry delivers for the unions, they will deliver for him. And lastly, Gephardt has appeal in the battleground states of the midwest which, combined with his national recognizability, combines the best of Edwards and the best of Vilsack.
Put your money on Dick Gephardt.
Posted by: annika at
10:21 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If Hillary ever becomes president of this country, I'm moving to England.
Posted by: Shae at July 05, 2004 03:56 PM (jXzqo)
2
I'm not sure Kerry - who's already a Washington insider - is going to pick another Washington insider. The unions are already for the most part going to vote Democratic and most of the big ones sided with Dean/Gephardt in the primaries so I doubt Kerry feels much need to bring on one of their guys.
I think he go for Vilsack or perhaps Sen Bayh if he felt his campaign needed the real outsider kick. I suspect his campaign folks are feeling confident to some degree that the race is basically even and that 75% (according to one poll) of registered voters have already decided. So given the race is going to come down probably to turnout in a few states (and that Kerry can't control the factors that may swing some folks either way (Iraq/economy), he'll probably opt for Edwards. Edwards can come off as a somewhat outsider, is enough contrast to Kerry's elitist, New England background, and is probably the best campaigner in terms of energizing turnout. He can't deliver NC (he probably would have lost his reelection bid anyway), but I think Kerry has written off most of the South anyway.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 05, 2004 04:49 PM (5uAbd)
3
Sorry Annie, I have to part company with you here.
Kerry has said, in no uncertain terms, that service in the National Guard is the equivalent of draft dodging. Guess where Gephardt fulfilled his commitment?
I think that Kerry wants someone who can be a good soldier and not outshine, but can deliver at least one battleground state. I'm thinking Bob Graham or Sam Nunn.
But like you say, they are all a bunch of losers, and guess who wants to see Kerry lose the most? I'll give you a hint; they both have recently published best sellers, and enjoy telephone sex.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 05, 2004 07:27 PM (AaBEz)
4
It appears that annika is right. The New York Post is reporting that Gephardt has been chosen.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/26839.htm
I'm impressed. I eagerly await your election predictions.
Posted by: Dan at July 06, 2004 01:44 AM (dpNju)
5
Oops. Edwards.
Unless he's changed his mind again. What are the odds?
Posted by: Ted at July 06, 2004 05:55 AM (blNMI)
6
Well, it appears we all three were wrong, Annika. You, me and Kerry.
Well, it is nothing new for the Democratic ticket to lose the state of the members of the ticket. Gore couldn't even hold Tennessee last time around, or Arkansas, so why should we feel that North Carolina is in the Demo camp?
Hell, the Solid South will remain the Solid South, and no ambulance chaser is going to change that.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 06, 2004 06:33 AM (b/7hi)
7
Shelly - as I stated in my post, it's about turnout (and money).
Posted by: Col Steve at July 06, 2004 07:03 AM (DmFF+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
160kb generated in CPU 0.0329, elapsed 0.1128 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.0902 seconds, 322 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
