The "old media" tomorrow will be saying that the Republicans went "negative" on the first night of the convention.

To that i say: "yesssssss!"

Politics is not a knitting club.

The Democrats are upset because a few delegates are wearing band-aids to mock Kerry's purple heart wounds. They want the RNC to crack down on this "inexcusable" behavior.

i say okay. Just as soon as the DNC cracks down on the "Bush=Hitler" signs outside. And the "Bush=Evil" signs inside MSG.

Until then, why not enjoy a nice cup of STFU, MacAuliffe.*

After Giuliani's rousing, albeit long-ass speech, Mara Liason* commented on the Michael More* moment in John McCain's equally good speech. She didn't like it. She said it was "a gift" to More and out of character for McCain.

i thought it was great, and i bet a lot of people agree with me.

So Mara, how about a nice cup of STFU for you, too.

Giuliani's speech was as if someone had translated Charles Krauthammer's address to the American Enterprise Institute into language that could resonate with the common man. And i was glad he did. It was the meat of his speech and he articulated the pro-war argument better than i've heard anyone in the administration explain it. Too bad the networks didn't cover it.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorists were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was 'accommodation, appeasement and compromise.'

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

i think it was a good night for us Republicans.

* Nota bene for those new visitors out there: intentionally misspelled.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You picked my favorite part of Rudy's speech. Well done.

Posted by: jake at August 30, 2004 10:04 PM (h4tU8)

2 I'm almost afraid to ask, but STFU?

Posted by: wobots at August 31, 2004 06:49 AM (djVNl)

3 anyone?

Posted by: annika! at August 31, 2004 07:27 AM (4RhLb)

4 Shut The F*** Up!

Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2004 07:55 AM (CF/QI)

5 I thought it was some sort of anti-mammalian thing that meant "Stop The Ferret Underworld". I did find it ironic that, after all his efforts (along with Feingold & others) to stifle speech McCain then gives one. & Guiliani...he speaks of the neccesity for defenidng ourselves against terrorists but did nothing to help the people of his city defend themselves against common street thugs. (i.e. his support of civilian disarmament). McCain, Guiliani, & Krauthammer are pro-war but anti-personal self defense. I would hope they are the exceptions but odds are they are typical of what's to come from the GOP unless it changes in a hurry. At least there'll be one real conservative who has some respect for the Right to Arms (as opposed to republican) at the convention. Unfortunately he's a democrat.

Posted by: Publicola at August 31, 2004 02:33 PM (Aao25)

6 I hope the GOP stays loyal to the NRA's cause, otherwise I'll have to vote Libertarian. Anyway, I found a link at some other blog that you might find amusing: http://blogmosis.com/pwguest/anarch_attack.mpeg It's a video of the anti-RNC mutants in NYC getting into fisticuffs with some of the Protest Warriors.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 31, 2004 02:58 PM (hlMFQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In this Chicago Sun Times piece:

A handful of Kerry's 'band of brothers' are traveling around with his campaign. Most of the rest, including a majority of his fellow swift boat commanders and 254 swiftees from Kerry's Coastal Squadron One, are opposed to his candidacy. That is an amazing ratio and, if snot-nosed American media grandees don't think there's a story there, maybe they ought to consider another line of work. To put it in terms they can understand, imagine if Dick Cheney campaigned for the presidency on the basis of his time at Halliburton, and a majority of the Halliburton board and 80 percent of the stockholders declared he was unfit for office. More to the point, on the swift vets' first major allegation -- Christmas in Cambodia -- the Kerry campaign has caved.

Thirty-five years on, having no appealing campaign themes, the senator decides to run for president on his biography. But for the last 20 years he's been a legislative non-entity. Before that, he was accusing his brave band of brothers of mutilation, rape and torture. He spent his early life at Swiss finishing school and his later life living off his wife's inheritance from her first husband. So, biography-wise, that leaves four months in Vietnam, which he talks about non-stop. That 1986 Senate speech is typical: It was supposed to be about Reagan policy in Central America, but like so many Kerry speeches and interviews somehow it winds up with yet another self-aggrandizing trip down memory lane.

Re: Kerry as a "legislative non-entity," allow me to recycle an old post of mine, about Clinton's regard for that great senator from Massachussetts, John Kerry. Bill didn't have much to say, in fact.

Link via Mark at The Scrolldown.

Posted by: annika at 07:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Regular listeners to Professor Hewitt's radio show are already aware of this story, but i thought i'd reiterate it with some links.

In the recent Colorado Senate primary, the pre-election buzz was that the GOP candidates, Pete Coors and Bob Schaffer, were in a statistical dead heat. In fact, AP repeated this assumption on the day of the election.

Then, Pete Coors won by a margin of 61% to 39%!

Twenty-two percentage points is a pretty decent margin of victory, and while the press avoided calling it a landslide (the Democratic candidate won his primary with 73% of the vote) i would not hesitate to call it just that.

How did the pre-election polls get it so wrong? Were the pollsters biased? Maybe not, the primary was between two Republicans, after all. Were the polling methods faulty? i don't know the details of that particular Colorado poll, but in my opinion, most polls are screwy and inaccurate by nature.

The only polls i put any stock in are Zogby's exit polls, because they've been shown to be the most accurate after the last two presidential elections.

Another problem with poll accuracy is that people who do vote are increasingly less likely to pick up the phone, thanks to telemarketing abuse. i don't think this problem necessarily favors one party over the other, but it does make the raw data suspect. And that requires the pollster to make assumptions about who is being underestimated when the pollster adjusts the numbers for "accuracy."

The point i want to make is this: i think there's a lot more support for the GOP, and specifically for Bush-Cheney, than the pollsters and the media are willing to recognize or admit. Most of the presidential polling is deliberately skewed in favor of the Democrats, in my opinion. (Dick Morris explains how the media accomplish and justify thier biased polling in his book, Off With Their Heads.) i'm not saying the pollsters are lying. i just think they overestimate the amount of Democratic support when they adjust the raw data.

The Coors election shows how wrong the polls can be. The lesson i'm hoping to extrapolate from Colorado is that in this post 9/11 era, polling and voting are two vastly different things. i think people are a lot more serious about their vote when they actually get in the booth. They may support any number of candidates during pre-election polls, but when it's time to pull the lever, i think there's a newfound tendency to lean towards the conservative side.

i'll be very interested to see if my theory holds true in November.

Posted by: annika at 10:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

MTV.com, a highly respected and perfectly objective news source, thinks that a certain personal lifestyle choice of New Jersey governor James McGreevey's is none of your damn business.

No, i'm not talking about his sexual preference. In fact, i'm sure they're overjoyed that McGreevey has come out of the closet.

But why won't they tell us that he's a Democrat?

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

Posted by: annika at 03:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't the fact that Kerry pronounced "Genghis Khan" as if it were spelled with two J's enough to disqualify him for sheer annoyingness?

Maybe not. But the full quote, considering the fact that it is a BOLDFACED LIE, is more than enough to disqualify him from getting my vote:

. . . not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . .

They told the stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . .
[emphasis added]

Whether or not he was in Cambodia or whether he deserved his medals or whatever else he's being pilloried for nowadays, it's the "Winter Soldier" statement that i personally can't forgive him for.

More: Kerry is such a pompous ass, i'm surprised he didn't say "reminiscent of Temujin."

Posted by: annika at 04:50 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He gave as his source for these atrocities a list of “soldiers” that he had talked to. Not one of those “soldiers” had been in Vietnam and most of them had never been in the military. It was all made up. This week Kerry said he got carried away and misspoke. He says this even though there are tapes of him reading his prepared speech to the Senate Committee.

Posted by: jake at August 10, 2004 05:00 PM (h4tU8)

2 What a good sign that your species is going to be so easy to conquer that some of you actually think this Kerry guy would be a good leader. Mwuhahahaha! Dum - dum - dum - dummmmm!

Posted by: Zongo the Ruthless at August 10, 2004 05:45 PM (G5PGV)

3 Here is an example of a bold-faced lie: John Kerry is a great guy. Kerry's lie about Genghis Khan, by contrast, was a bald-faced lie.

Posted by: Xrlq at August 10, 2004 05:59 PM (3AgfD)

4 "But the full quote, considering the fact that it is a BOLDFACED LIE, is more than enough to disqualify him from getting my vote..." Damn Miss Annika, I wonder if Kerry realizes how close you were to throwing your support behind him & how he blew it? I think he'd regret it if he knew you were on the fence till that quote came to your attention.

Posted by: Publicola at August 10, 2004 07:29 PM (Aao25)

5 As a fan of Bush and not Kerry, I have to admit that Bush's butchering of the English language is just as annoying. I can't believe noone on his staff has said "psst, Mr. President, its pronouced nu-clear ... not nuke-cular"

Posted by: Peter at August 10, 2004 08:16 PM (7435K)

6 Peter, why did no one ask Jimmy Carter the same thing? As much as I can't stand him, could it, perhaps, do you think, have anything to do with the fact that he was an engineer on a nuclear submarine, and still pronounced it that way? That's the way the word is pronounced in the South; get over it.

Posted by: Dave J at August 11, 2004 07:08 AM (VThvo)

7 Publicola, are you getting me back for that 2% joke i made? ; ) Dave J is right, Peter. i myself have heard Carter pronounce it "nucular." Like i said about Teddy Kennedy's butchering of the language, Carter gets a pass from the media because he's a democrat.

Posted by: annika at August 11, 2004 08:25 AM (zAOEU)

8 on the first day of nuclear physics ('for the informed citizen,' let's not pretend i'm a smarty) our prof spent forever making sure nobody left that room saying nucular. it's a pet peeve for me too. anyway. annika, i feel the same way. kerry's repeated lies are no misspeak. and he's not denying any of it, or even owning up to his past like bush did over his mistakes. the white house won't take him to task for it because bush didn't serve in vietnam at all and they don't want that to be an issue in the campaign. but the rest of us should not be afraid to condemn such blatant dishonesty. the medals thing is because one purple heart was self inflicted and another was from a rice grain, they were all insignificant and his means of getting out early (after four and a half months). he saved jim rassman when the guy fell from his boat because john kerry was quickly running away from fire instead of sticking it out with the other boats. he's so phony it hurts, and it's not even worth keeping track of all his lies. but his testimony is by far the lowest act.

Posted by: candace at August 11, 2004 09:47 AM (bkDNd)

9 annika, go find the Simpsons clip where the spoiled nephew (?) of Mayor Quimby forces a French waiter to repronounce the word "chowder" over and over. "It's Chow-der, Frenchie, not Chaud-er. . . "

Posted by: jcrue at August 11, 2004 05:20 PM (G9kk0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That line works much better with the visual aids.

Picture nabbed from INDC Journal. Read about Kerry's football faux pas there.

Posted by: annika at 09:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

The Democratic Party is the party of anti-Christian hatred, their false "inclusiveness" rhetoric at the convention notwithstanding.

On July 23, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced the appointment of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson as the Senior Advisor for Religious Outreach; she is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Brenda has dedicated her life to showing us all how religion and politics intersect with integrity . . . We are proud to have her join the DNC, in order to spread John Kerry's positive vision to people of all faiths."

Unfortunately, that's complete bullshit.

Catholic League president, Dr. William Donohue said:

Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson was one of thirty-two clergy members to file an amicus curiae brief in behalf of Michael NewdowÂ’s attempt to excise the words ‘under GodÂ’ from the Pledge of Allegiance. The brief shows infinitely more concern for the sensibilities of atheists like Newdow than it does for the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God. And this is the person the Democrats want to dispatch to meet with the heads of religious organizations? Are they out of their minds? Would they hire a gay basher to reach out to homosexuals? [link omitted]

Thanks Dems. There should now be no doubt about where you stand.

Link via Bill.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Regarding stem cell research, at the Democratic Convention, Ron Reagan said:

[I]t does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings — that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person — parent, a spouse, a child.

But Ron, you failed to directly answer the central question. The one question that must be answered before anyone goes tinkering around in this area. The most important question of all: Is it a human life?

Posted by: annika at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

From NRO, a column by a Los Angeles Police officer makes the following points:

[C]ops and firefighters are inherently conservative in that they understand the importance of following society's rules. Unlike John Kerry, they don't find 'nuance' in every question that confronts them. In their daily duties they see the often-deadly consequences that result when people fail to do what society expects of them. Nearly every call to 9-1-1 is the result of someone concluding that these rules, be they the criminal laws or the fire codes, can be ignored. They did a good job of hiding it last week, but the Democrats are the party of libertinism, the price of which is well known to those who come when people call for help.

Second, cops and firefighters are, if the women in the ranks will forgive the expression, Regular Guys. They drink beer, not wine, and certainly not French wine. They played football and baseball in high school, not lacrosse. Regular Guys think Al Sharpton is a fraud and Michael Moore (who pretends to be a Regular Guy) is a fool, and they think Ted Kennedy is a criminal. Regular Guys do not blame Secret Service agents (who are Regular Guys) for knocking them down on the ski slopes, especially when those agents are there to take bullets for them. And Regular Guys relate to and prefer the company of other Regular Guys; they do not invite people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck to their conventions.

Even with the piles of dough they're sitting on, both George Bush and Dick Cheney still come across as Regular Guys, the kind of men you might find hanging around the fire station or the detective squad room. And with his recent suggestion to Pat Leahy on how he might spend his idle time, the vice president climbed several notches on the Regular Guy scale. John Kerry, on the other hand, owing to his valorous service in Vietnam, might have been a Regular Guy years ago, but he surrendered his membership when he came home to join the Jane Fonda crowd and brand his former comrades as war criminals. And whatever tenuous grip he may have had on Regular Guy status since then was lost when he married his current wife. Old-fashioned notions of chivalry prevent me from offering my full opinion on her here, but Regular Guys do not under any circumstances marry women like Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Posted by: annika at 11:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Regular Guys donÂ’t get 3 Purple Hearts for three bandages placed over three scratches. Regular Guys have to spend weeks in a hospital before they get a Purple Heart.

Posted by: Jake at August 03, 2004 12:09 PM (h4tU8)

2 "Unlike John Kerry, they don't find 'nuance' in every question that confronts them"...I think that the kind of work people do has an immense influence on their political and philosophical beliefs. People who work with things that are "real" and inflexible--farmers, machinists, engineers--don't tend to worship nuance. This *doesn't* mean that they don't understand it. An aeronautical engineer knows well that there is no perfectly good design; that there are "shades of gray" and tradeoffs among many factors....but he also knows that at some point the tradeoffs must be resolved, decisions must be made, and metal must be cut. People who spend their entire lives in a purely verbal environment often fail to recognize this. I think the "lifestyle" factors (beer vs wine, etc) are secondary to this factor.

Posted by: David Foster at August 03, 2004 02:38 PM (XUtCY)

3 I'm a full-time fireman at a fairly large city (250k), and I'm also one of the ones that actually goes into fires. Sadly, my city is one of those liberal stains on the map, and I'd guess a full half of our dept (about 400 FFs) falls into the Kerry column. Unfortunately, of those voting for Kerry, the overwhelming majority of them are just voting lockstep. Most of them are actually conservative, just as Dunphy implies, but at the same time couldn't imagine voting for Bush. It's a sad reality that the union mentality (or lack thereof) has brainwashed these men. If these guys (and their civilian counterparts) could resolve the internal conflict of BEING conservative, but THINKING of themselves as democrats, the GOP would win by a landslide. Every time. Only fear mongering and demagoguery keeps the Kerry (or Gore, in the past) troops in line. As for me, I was a Republican long before I got this job ten years ago, and it never occurred to me to vote the IAFF party line. I even have a "Firefighters for Bush" bumper sticker on my truck. Incidentally, IAFF never inquired as to my party affiliation. Asshats. Incidentally, regular guy that I am, I can appreciate beer AND wine.

Posted by: Andy at August 03, 2004 09:01 PM (bpH79)

4 Heavens. I am certainly not a regular guy, but I think a lot of any man who is willing to marry a strong, opinionated, spunky woman like THK. In terms of a conversation partner, I'd rather be married to her than Laura Bush (based on what I can tell!)

Posted by: Hugo at August 04, 2004 08:55 AM (ntfdi)

5 "Opinionated" is good, but only when the individual has thought seriously and deeply about their opinions...otherwise, it is just blather. Opinionated human beings--male or female--are not rare at all; what is much rarer is the individual who (a)listens to others and (b)thinks seriously and self-critically about their own opinions.

Posted by: David Foster at August 04, 2004 12:44 PM (E+yz/)

6 I'm sure JK can tap into an infinite supply of patience, understanding and nuance just by thinking fondly of 500+ million dollars.

Posted by: Andy at August 05, 2004 06:54 AM (bpH79)

7 Find the whole truth: http://www.regularguysforbush.org http://www.cheesesteakveteransfortruth.org

Posted by: REgular Joe at October 15, 2004 05:58 AM (AaBEz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . 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.

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]

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.

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.'

Posted by: annika at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

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.

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.

• North Carolina


• Colorado


• Louisiana


• Arizona


• Virginia


• Arkansas


• Missouri

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 . . .

'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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.