BUSH - KERRY III

I tended to think that Bush was too defensive many times. But he also had some of his best lines during the debate series. He did a better job of explaining Kerry's past record than he has in the past. Ted Kennedy being Mass. conservative Senator has been said since the Spring but not unwlecome once more for a national audience. He also did a good job of explaining Kerry's real thoughts on taxes and spending.

Kerry speaks better and has that authoratative way of explaining away these criticisms as distortions. But Kerry doesn't do a good job of going further and characterizing his own record. It seems to be enough for Kerry to merely disagree and talk about the wonderful things he will do, as if his nebulous plan in no way reflects his career in politics. Bush's hammering at who Kerry is has always seemed crucial and it's high time that he did this.

Kerry keeps looking for a punchline to humanize himself. Last night he said that Bush talking about fiscal responsibility is like Tony Soprano talking about Law & Order. It's not a great line, but he delivered it without the flair it could have used.

Schieffer was a decent questioner throughout seeming to aim tough ones at both sides. But his question to the candidates about whether homosexuality is a choice seemed too pop culture for a Presidential debate. Neither of these guys are scientists. Since Both Kerry and Bush are against same sex marriage, but both agree to the privacy of consenting adults, the better question would have been how does America best address the growing political demands of homosexuals.

Many seem to agree that Kerry invoking Cheney's daughter on the Lesbian issue was going too far. Kerry Campaign Manager, Mary Beth Cahill said after the debate that she is fair game. How in the world is someone's daughter fair game? Is Kerry trying to scare cultural conservative voters away from Cheney for having a lesbian daughter?

Kerry continues to invoke Reagan in his litany of great Presidents and Bush won't remind the audience that Kerry opposed everything Reagan ever stood for. He also lets Kerry go unanswered in this "rush to war" nonsense. We were attacked Sep 2001 and didn't attack Iraq until March of 2003. Though it didn't come up this time, the Kerry-Edwards line about how the inspectors were making progress is total nonsense. Saddam delayed their entry into the country for months so that he could secure his contraband and then he violated the terms of the inspections as he played a shell game with the equipment. You can't forget the audio intercepts that Colin Powell played for the U.N. Only after this process was shown to be a sham did the U.S. choose to invade. Since the debates are over Bush needs to get this point in his stump speech. It wasn't only that we thought Saddam had WMD it was that Saddam was playing the inspection game as if he were hiding something.

Bush reminded the audience of Kerry's Terrorism "should be a nuissance again" line. Kerry later said that the President has turned his back on the wellness of America. What pandering. Kerry has Bush turning his back on America on practically every issue. As if letting the free market do its thing has been terrible for America through history. It was individuals who invented America and wrote the constitution. It has been individuals that have made it great since. To hear Kerry speak you'd think that the government is the solution to every problem.

Bush was good talking about raising the standards of education rather than just spending more money. Education without tough standards is daycare. Hey, Bush can use that if he wants.

Bush was great explaining how Social Security was politicized in 2000 and something must be done. Hopefully Bush's position of letting younger workers control their own accounts will resonate. Kerry responded with the same lame Democrat talking points about how only old people should be considered.

The assault weapons ban expiration gave Kerry an opportunity to complain about the dangers of the AK47. It was a perfect example of how this issue has always been about scary guns and scaring people and very little about effective law enforcement. The AK47 was illegal before the 1994 ban and still is. The AK47 is an automatic weapon and they've been illegal in this country since the 1930s. Kerry can't find an example of the actual weapons on the list that will scare people, therefore he names a weapon that we've heard of.

Bush was more of what I like tonight than he had been in earlier contests. Does the Kerry campaign have another drunk driving charge to pull out of their hat the weekend before the election or is their bag of tricks now empty?

I thought Bush did what he needed to in this debate. Now the voters get to decide whether the War on Terror will be a pro-active or re-active one.

SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT

After Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org, and CBS News have spent the greater part of the year trying to discredit Bush. Now the Sinclair Broadcasting Group has a different idea.

Sinclair's decision to order its 62 stations to carry a movie attacking Kerry's Vietnam record is drawing political fire -- not least from the Democratic National Committee, which plans to file a federal complaint today accusing the company of election-law violations. "Sinclair's owners aren't interested in news, they're interested in pro-Bush propaganda," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose complaint will accuse the firm of making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.

The article goes on to scrutinize the conservative owners in depth. Had Dan Rather put his sources to such tests he may still have a reputation. And let's not forget about the ABC memo:

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

UPDATE: FCC won't stop the Doc.

KERRYS'S NUISANCE

Rudy Giuliani on John Kerry's NYT Interview

"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

The only reason the election is so close is that you have to think a great many voters are so worn out by this fight that they'd just as soon ignore the problem again. Cinton did a good job of convincing us that these things were no big deal. Kerry would like to do the same thing. What else can he do? The core of his base will not allow him to go on the offensive.

A Kerry victory is a wait and see approach with shrugged shoulders during future attacks. "Didn't we negotiate with these people? Why are they attacking us? Hummm. Curious."

Scrappleface has a good take.

THE DRUG WAR

Reason Magazine talks to Joel Miller about his book Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America.

Reason: Several members of the Bush administration have pushed the line that if you buy illegal drugs, you're funding terrorism. Is that true?

JM: The answer is yes—partly—but it's their fault. The laws against drugs are what create the market in which drugs are so incredibly profitable. There's no other reason a coca bush should be worth more than a privet shrub. Without prohibition, terrorists could no more profit from drugs than from growing bananas. They'd have to turn to other sorts of funding.

Reason: Such as?

JM: Well, FARC in Colombia has made a fair bit by kidnapping people, and before the Soviet Union fell, terrorist organizations were funding themselves through subsidies from Communist governments. But today nothing is so lucrative as drugs; kill prohibition and you hit their bottom line.

Edward G. Robinson and his rival gang leader in Key Largo reminisce about how great prohibition was. They blame themselves for the gang wars that got it repealed. They promise each other that when prohibition returns they’ll work together. Instead of getting the old prohibition back they just took advantage of newer ones.

Didn’t we pass Campaign Finance reform in this country in order to keep millionaire politicians from being corrupted by political money? Yet we pretend that middle class cops surrounded by millions of dollars worth of drugs can be perfectly trusted and poor kids on the streets won’t choose to sell the stuff if we send a harsh enough message.

Communism that controlled every part of people’s lives couldn’t stop a black market and yet our free and open society can? Maybe it’s mean of me to say, but I care less about the fools who want to ruin themselves with drugs than I do about the damage this prohibition is causing. And self destructive people won't be stopped anyway..

THE VILLAGE (M. Night Shyamalan) Spoiler warning

I was just reading back among Roger Ebert's answer man columns and I saw this answer to THE VILLAGE:

"The Village" stirred up a lot of activity in the Answer Man's world, with 162 readers passionately defending or attacking it in about equal numbers. Some of its defenders argued that the "surprise ending" was beside the point.

Ben Angstadt of Irmo, S.C., wrote: "So did you totally miss the point that 'The Village' was about the politics of terror and George W. Bush, or did you just not care?"

And Erik Goodwyn of Cincinnati wrote -- spoiler warning: "What I mean is that even though the creatures aren't scary once their secret is revealed -- that's the point! Shyamalan is saying something very pointed about the peculiar nature of fear."

Several other readers saw the film as an allegory for terror used as an excuse for political repression. That didn't occur to me, but as a theory it doesn't make the film any more entertaining, in my opinion.

You could argue that the film was a lessor effort from a gifted director, but lessor efforts by the great ones are usually as interesting as happy accidents from medicore talents. One thing that makes the film interesting to me is that people aren't sure about the theme. How often are filmgoers confronted with thinking about movie's meaning these days?

I thought the point of the film is that evil and disharmony are a natural occurring phenomenons and you cannot simply run away from them. The village tried to create their own insulated society and yet a psycho (Adrien Brody) bubbled up within. I don't think Night was commenting on repression, but the human inclination to avoid or ignore harsh realities that will eventually find them anyway.

The village used fear the way opponents of confrontation use fear. Stay out of their space and don't make them angry and they won't bother us. Bad things happen because of action rather than inaction. The elders created an enemy that's consistent with their own fears.

Anyway, my reading is exactly the opposite of the reader who felt that it was an indictment of George W. Bush. Maybe my views are off, but I also tend to think that Night leans Right. SIGNS is about as conservative a movie as you can expect to find in Hollywood. Gibson has to confront evil in order to understand his faith. SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE both deal with redemption in conservative terms. UBREAKABLE is about struggling to find your higher purpose. SIXTH SENSE is about confronting your fears to use your abilities for good.

What did you guys think THE VILLAGE was trying to say?

BUSH’S ANGER IN DEBATE II

Pundits seem most interested in Bush's insistence on responding to a Kerry point over Charles Gibson's direction. I've seen the clip many times now and can't make out if Gibson was trying to move on or if he was going to give Bush a moment. Either way, Bush wasn't going to take no for an answer. It's supposed to say something about his temperament, I think. Bush lost control!

We're living in a culture of big organizations. These organizations seem to value temperance over truth a little too much. Professionals are supposed to conduct themselves in certain dignified ways meaning that calm liars aren't wrong they just have a different point of view. But angry men who value truth are little too scary to be trusted. The calm ones are trusted with promotion. The vocal ones are held back.

Many professional politicians like Kerry have spent their lives kissing up to the power elite to get ahead. They're much more interested in the power than policy. They can calmly argue any point that they think has traction regardless of its real merit. After all, its part of the game they play to increase their power. Kerry has the luxury of indifference because he isn’t held accountable for anything. Think about all of the things he is now proposing as a Presidential candidate. How many of these ideas did he introduce as bills in his 20 year Senate career?

Bush was a businessman that was coaxed into politics and thought he might make a contribution and go back home. He has a boss’s point of view. When something is wrong he gets angry because he has ultimate responsibility. We’ve all seen this behavior in our own bosses. They don’t suffer fools or liars gladly.

It’s the overriding reason that Bush’s response to terrorism was so dramatically different than Clinton’s. Clinton loved the power and liked to use it, but he never accepted any responsibility for his actions or the results of his policies. Clinton felt more entitled to lead because of his brilliance. You never got the idea that he was bothered by anything more than his legacy.

Does anyone think that Kerry has a burning desire to get the terrorists? The fact that his statements and voting on terrorism have changed according to the politics of the time gives me the feeling that terrorism is just another political hurdle to jump in order to get a better job.

I don’t think Bush gives a damn what historians or the Washington elite think. He has his own standards and goals, namely killing terrorists. Even if Kerry says he's for exactly what we want him to be for, can we be sure that those issues will even be on his radar by inauguration?

JANET LEIGH (1926-2004)

RODNEY DANGERFIELD (1921-2004)

Hitchcock specialized in icy blondes, but Janet Leigh's coldness didn't balance itself with enough sexiness or beauty the way Kim Novak, Tippi Hedren or Grace Kelly's did. Maybe that's why he only worked with her once. Still the shower scene is probably the most famous and parodied Hitchcock segment of them all. It seems similar to the way Fay Wray was forever known as the King Kong kidnap victim despite making nearly 100 other films.

Leigh did make two other classic films, TOUCH OF EVIL and MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I didn't find her particularly memorable in either. Her most important contribution may be Jamie Leigh Curtis. It's not to say that she wasn't talented. She just didn't have enough of whatever it was to be a legend in her own right.

Rodney Dangerfield was a funny guy and as a child of the 80s I'll always remember him from CADDYSHACK and BACK TO SCHOOL, two otherwise average films that made me laugh when I was a kid. I probably saw Caddyshack 20 times back then.

BUSH KERRY II

Bush looked life a different guy. He was clear with his facts and strong in his delivery. He even invoked Clinton. He did a much better job of contrasting himself with the typical Democrat position on things. He had passion yet better control. This is the guy I want to see for the next month.

UPDATE: Gallup has it as a draw.

If that's the case Bush needs to be contrasting his policies with the 1990s a little more. Drop the $87 Billiion argument and the flip flopping. Instead, remind voters that liberals tend to campaign conservatively on many topics to attract swing voters, but they don't have the heart to follow-up those policies in practice. Kerry won't risk American casualties in this war because it will turn off half his base. Therefore, his defense policies will have no teeth. He was most honest when he said he wanted a summit. He's much more comfortable making a show of peace like Carter and Clinton did with North Korea in 1994 than in actually enforcing the peace. Bush talked about this a little. He might be better articulating it if he gave Kerry credit for sincerity, but made the argument that those approaches have never brought lasting peace to anyone.

The debate agreement not letting the candidates question one another hurts Bush here. I can see why Bush didn't want this because past debates have shown Kerry is a master at the practice. He trounced William Weld with it in the 1996 Senate debate. But if Bush could ask Kerry to name a time when summits and negotiations with madmen resulted in peace rather than more war it might illuminate the subject. Of course, Kerry wouldn't answer a question like that directly. He'd say something like Bush's rush to war cost American lives. But Bush could say that the inaction in the 1990s cost more American lives on 911. Then he could remind voters that history is full of sober men that thought they could negotiate with irrational people or toothless do-gooders to stave off war. The results were always far more casualties than would have resulted if the force had come earlier.

UPDATE #2: European papers give win to Bush.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING ?

A good dissection on how the big media coddles liberals. Patty Murray is slimed by being quoted according to her local papers.

FUN WITH THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

The A.P. selectively reminds reader's of Kerry's record.

"Senator Kerry assures us that he's the one to win a war he calls a mistake, an error, and a diversion" Bush said in a speech designed to reclaim the campaign offensive midway through a series of four debates.

"But you can't win a war if you don't believe in fighting," he said of his challenger, five times a decorated Vietnam War veteran.

Wait! says that media. Kerry has all those medals from thirty years ago. No mention of his senate voting record of downsizing the military or his vote against the 1991 Gulf War.

"... Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, we must not waver," Bush added.

The president unleashed his newly sharpened attack nearly a week after a scowling, unsteady debate performance that led to a gain in the polls by the Democratic nominee and one day after the Iraq war dominated the only vice presidential encounter of the race.

Don't forget that Bush lost that debate. Please forget that Cheney won the next one.

The president also spoke as the administration's top arms inspector said he had found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. Charles Duelfer said Saddam Hussein's capabilities to develop such weapons had dimmed rather than grown in the years preceding his ouster, contrary to claims by administration officials in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion.

Don't listen to Bush because weapons inspectors contradict him. We won't mention the numerous Kerry speeches in which he claimed that Saddam had the same weapons.

Next the Democrats get to say harsh things unchallenged.

Democrats produced a list of "Top Ten Lies" they said Cheney had uttered in 90-plus minutes on the debate stage. Leading off was a claim - erroneous, aides quickly conceded - that Edwards was so neglectful of his Senate duties that the two men had never met before shaking hands on Tuesday evening.

"Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too," Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe told reporters in a conference call.

Wouldn't this have been a good time to mention that MCAuliffe didn't have much of a defense on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia lie?

The Kerry campaign released a new ad accusing Bush of "desperately attacking" in the wake of one debate in which Kerry shone and another in which Cheney did "not tell the truth" on Iraq and his ties to Halliburton, the oil services company he once headed. Officials declined to say how much air time the commercial would receive.

My guess is that it won't need much airtime if AP officials are going to parrot the charges. They could skip advertising altogether and just tell the AP what they'd like to say in an ad.

But it was Bush who delivered the strongest attack of the day.

"In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory," he said.

Broadening the criticism, he added, "My opponent's endless back and forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous."

He was no less forgiving on domestic issues. "My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal. I'm a compassionate conservative," he said.

They're calling Cheney a liar, but Bush pointing out Kerry's position is the strongest attack of the day.

These guys are "objective" journalists.

VEEP DEBATE

Game, set and match to Cheney.

Nothing happened in this debate to change anyone's mind on policy, but Cheney showed gravitas and he even refrained from smashing some easy lobs. It would have been easy to cite the Wall Street Journal article that demonstrated that high tax rates can easily be avoided by rich people like John Edwards who shielded $13 Million dollars in taxes during one year. He also didn't cite the doctors in North Carolina that Edwards put out of business with his junk science claims.

Though when Cheney was criticized on Haliburton he got a little angry and delivered his sharpest passage of the night. He pointed out how Edwards has missed most votes and committee hearings and although Cheney is the presiding officer of the Senate, it was the first time they have met. Cheney was also strong when he pointed out the sacrifice made by Iraqis to contrast the Democrats position that Americans are on their own.

Cheney also made the point that he and Bush are committed to winning this war on terror and the wannabees are following the polls. When Edwards brought up no connection between Iraq and 911 Cheney answered back correctly that Iraq has a long track record of supporting terrorism.

Edwards wasn't bad. He speaks well and articulates his positions well. But he was more like Bush was in the first debate in that he had a few talking points he wanted to reiterate. It seems like his job was to remind America that Haliburton is evil, Iraq was a mistake and we can get cheap drugs from Canada. Oh yeah, and that we'll tax the hell out of people that aren't you. I loved that little fireside chat at the end about how America was crumbling financially.

UPDATE: The "we've never met" line was too good to be true, but the fact that Edwards couldn't simply contradict it at the time showed that Edwards hasn't been around Cheney all that much. "I know I've met him but where?" the thought bubble can be seen above Johnny's head while Cheney makes the larger point that Edwards doesn't take his Senate job all that seriously. Bob Dole resigned so that he could campaign. Edwards and Kerry have taken leave with pay.

I heard Fred Barnes and Jonah Goldberg liken the situation between Edwards the showhorse and Cheney the workhorse. That about sums it up.

The newest work from the South Park Creators

But Parker and Stone have also added another element: a team of Hollywood actors who descend on Korea (I think) for a misguided peace conference. The group of air-headed puppets, led by Alec Baldwin, is dubbed the Film Actors Guild (and referred to by its unfortunate acronym).

Among Baldwin's liberal associates are usual suspects Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Janeane Garofalo, George Clooney, Ethan Hawke, Matt Damon and a few who seem like they were thrown in for no reason: Helen Hunt, Samuel L. Jackson and Liv Tyler.

I am told that none of these actors gave permission for their likenesses to be used. Most will not be amused by their depictions.

Baldwin, in particular, comes in for a lot of baiting, as he is often referred to facetiously as "the greatest actor in the world." Luckily, the real Alec has a sense of humor. Hopefully, Sarandon won't mind when she gets her head blown off.

These guys may be crass, but this is much needed parody.

UPDATE: Sean Penn has children and cares so much that . . . well. . . how dare they?

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE LAST DEBATE

It seems to me that Bush's major problem is that he was pussy-footing around the major issue in this campaign. I don't care how many times John Kerry flip flops. We all know what he really believes regardless of who he is pandering to in a particular speech. John Kerry is uncomfortable with American power. He's more worried about how we're preceived to his international friends than he is about future terrorist attacks. Someone has told Bush that the media will criticize him for attacking Kerry's patriotism. Yeah the media is going to do everything it can to give a Kerry a lifelong pass for his internationalism over Americanism. But voters might actually be worried to learn Kerry's real record.

Kerry continues to refer to Bush's failed policies. Bush needs to remind voters that it was the failed policies of the Clinton Adminstration that led to 911. He shouldn't do this to beat up on Clinton, but to remind voters that Kerry will bring a return to those policies. Kerry struts around bragging about his great plan that includes another ridiculous summit as if a committee could solve terrorism. He might even pass a law outlawing terrorism. But that's about as much as you can expect.

The 1990s brought us the first attack on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S. servicemen at Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Ask a Democrat to name Clinton's most significant response to terrorism during his eight years, because you can bet that Kerry's response to terror will fit somewhere within that range.

Bush is a good man who shows resolve and he's no dummy, but he's only held political office for ten years and he relies on these idiotic handlers like Karl Rove too much. It was evident from the debate that he was fed stock lines and responses and told to stay clear of contrasting himself with Clinton. If he can't stand up and make that contrast before the election he's in danger of losing.

And if Bush did lose, it would help conservatives in a number ways. If nothing else, gridlock will return to Washington. No more will Congress be rubber stamping these ridiculous spending proposals for a friendly White House. Also, Hillary Clinton's presidential asperations will be over and four years of her would worse medicine than 8 years years of any of the rest of them. But if Bush is defeated never again for a generation will a President try a bold move to end terrorism. It will be band aids and half measures from here on out. No leader will go on the offensive because they won't risk it politically. They'll become slaves to events instead of dynamic leaders.

It's easy to criticize Bush for actually doing something in a world where inaction and talk are treated as seriousness and resolve is treated as a flaw. I'm not anxious to live in an America at a time of great crisis with a leader that was more interested in expanding the welfare state than funding intelligence and defense.

There are a lot of people in the world that want to see America humbled. It's no different than the opinion many hold for the New York Yankees. But if America were the Yankees a Kerry election would be like George Steinbrenner and half the team shaving points to make the rest of the division feel better. What good is winning if we're shunned at the winter meetings?

I know Bush doesn't talk in private parsing his words like he did in the last debate. He needs to stop repeating Kerry's ridiculous phrases and start reminding America what the fight with terrorism will look like if we return to policies of the previous adiminstration.

AESOP ON THE DEMOCRATS

The Aesop fable with the dog who is carrying a bone and sees his reflection in the water is a good parallel of Middle Class voters and Democrats. You'll remember that the dog dropped his own bone in the water because he wanted to have the bone in the reflection. The end result was that he got no bone at all. The Democrats are playing the part of the reflection in recent political campaigns and we're the dog.

Any Republican tax cut they argue benefits the wealthy too much. Implied within that argument is the notion that people are better off foregoing their own tax cut because others will be receiving more money than them. Letting the government keep their money via higher tax rates means more money will be kept from wealthy people and the implied result is a government than can spend more of rich people's money on them.

What's never said by Democrats is that people who have already been removed from the tax rolls are the only ones that benefit from high taxes. Anything they get from the government is gravy. And, of course, politicians benefit from high taxes because then they can hand out special tax breaks to their friends via friendly deductions. They don't get to pick and choose special favors when tax rates are low across the board.

The rest of us pay the bills. Oh, of course, Democrats favor a middle class tax cut in theory. Bill Clinton went on and on about a middle class tax cut during the 1992 campaign and yet he never got around to proposing one in eight years in Washington. Bait and switch is illegal at Best Buy. but common in Washington.

I've heard Kerry promise a middle class tax cut in this campaign too. It's a great trick especially from a guy who spent 20 years in the Seante voting against tax breaks no matter how modest.

Don't forget that you're a taxpaying dog and Kerry is your beautiful reflection. Walk on home dog and be happy with what you get to keep. Kerry is standing by waiting for you to open your mouth.

STAR WARS DVD

There was a big controversy in the 1980s when Ted Turner began colorizing films. Woody Allen testified in Congress. Orson Welles told Ted Turner to keep his crayons off his films etc. I didn't understand the hoopla. They weren't eliminating the classic B&W versions. Colorization meant that the best prints of the the film to be colorized were brought together in one place in order to eliminate the bad frames in any one print. The result was that many classic films were restored for one reason but utilized in another. A few years later when Turner began releasing the classics on VHS, the boxes said "In Glorious Black and White." Just like New Coke made Coke Classic an even stronger brand, Turner's colorization made people think about and appreciate black and white. I read once that Casablanca sold only 1,000 colorized copies. I don't know what kind of ratings the colorized films got on TV, but it would seem that colorization was a bust financially.

I say all that to ask why no one is upset at what George Lucas has done to the Star Wars films. In some ways he has improved them. Many of the visual effects look sharper and many of the masking flaws have been cleaned up. Good idea. But other parts of the films have been altered for content or just the sake of change.

The added scene in which Han Solo meets Jabba the Hut in the original Star Wars is useless. He looks like a cartoon and acts like a Godfather parody. The way his eyes get big when Han steps on his tail would have been better suited to a Ren and Stimpy segment. His very presence in episode four ruins the anticipation of seeing him in the final film. On top of that, the bit is a rehash of the scene between Greedo and Han in the Cantina. In short, the scene is not only fivalous but cheapens the film and the series as a whole dramatically.

For as bad a choice as the added Jabba scene may be, the scene between Greedo and Han in the Cantina is even more objectionable. Lucas became bothered that Han shot Greedo the way he did. Of course Greedo has a gun aimed at Han point blank and even says that he's been waiting a long time for this before Hans pulls the trigger and saves himself. No matter, because Lucas now sees it as a cold blooded killing. Was it any more cold-blooded than when Indiana Jones pulls out his gun and kills the swordsman in Raider of the Lost Ark? Anyway, Lucas adds a ridiculous effect that shows Greedo shooting at Han first and missing, although Ray Charles wouldn't have missed from that distance. Now Hans is supposed to be justified in killing the gremlin looking monster because the monster shot first. Since this is the first scene in the series that shows Han as a take-action guy, it gives an entirely new spin on the events that are to come later.

Originally we're introduced to Han the rogue who is only interested in saving his own skin, and we gradually see him change into a guy who believes in the cause. This character has a great tradition in movie history. It's Bogie from Casblanca repackaged in space. What if Ted Turner wanted to go back and have Bogie try to save Peter Lorre at the beginning of that movie to make him look more human? Let's cut that "I stick my neck out for nobody" line. That's practically what Lucas has done here. We get the less cold and therefore more easy-to-convert Han in the new fashionable Lucas version.

Does Lucas have the right to do this? Yes. He owns the movies and can do whatever he wants. Ted Turner had the same rights to alter the films he owned. Maybe Lucas has a greater right because he created the films he's altering, but his damage is greater. Turner's altering resulted in a better version of the originals, Lucas has vowed that the original films will never be released on DVD. He wants to wipe them out.

Lucas is a sad case. He made a series of classic films when he was young and ambitious. He then created the most famous special effects company in movie history. His reputation was set and then he decided to continue the Star Wars series in the late 1990s. Not a bad idea, but instead of letting someone else direct the films like he did with EMPIRE and JEDI, he decided to do it himself. The result is an incoherant mess. Too much CGI, poor acting, and weak storylines that makes it seem impossible that he can weave this third film in a way that matches what is to come in the the classic three. I think he knows he can't do it and that's why he changed the end of JEDI to place Hayden Christensen ghost where the old English actor use to reside. He's got to do everything he can to remind us that these movies go together.

I don't care that he wants to weave the six films as one. I just wish he would let the old films stand on their own as well. He should release both versions like Turner did. Let the marketplace decide which version of the films are better. Lucas is being stingy when he insists that we can only watch the version he like best today.

UPDATE: Jonathan Last goes even further than I

DEBATE 1

Bush seemed on the defensive for most of it. He missed some big opportunities to go on the offensive. I thought he did a good job explaining why we need the Chinese putting pressure on North Korea, but that also would have been a wonderful time to remind Kerry that pre-emptive action against North Korea in 1994 in the style of 2003 action against Iraq would have solved the problem. He could have made an example of how trypical Democrat policy (sign agreements instead of action) result in bigger problems down the road. He could have made the point that Democrats talk tough to win elections, but they don't have the stones to follow through once a situation presents itself.

Bush also made some good points by quoting Kerry's various positions on the Iraq war as his personal political situation dictated. It reminds the attentive voter that Kerry's real plan is trying to find a majority to join. He doesn't have a heartfelt convinction about the matter.

Kerry did a good job explaining that he made a mistake saying about voting for the $87 Billion before voting against it. It pretty much quelled the issue even though he made up a story recently that he said it at the end of a long day that turned out to be untrue.

Kerry went on and on about getting our allies back on board but neither Bush nor Leaher reminded the audience that Germany and France say that a Kerry presidency won't change their involvement in Iraq. Bush hinted that we won't get allies to join us by saying "wrong war at the wrong time" but it would have been more effective to remind voters that Kerry doesn't have any world clout.

Kerry did a good job using the strong language that he needs to convince voters that he is tough enough to lead. Now how manny voters bought it? It was good politics to say that he would hunt down and kill terrorists, and Bush didn't do enough to remind voters that a Democrat in the 1990s pretty much ignored the terrorist threat (when he wasn't being impeached).

Kerry invoked Reagan and Bush didn't retort that Kerry opposed Reagan's plan from the get go. It allowed Kerry to co-opt Reagan and remind voters that Bush isn't as dynamic in debates. Bush needed to remind voters that Reagan's ideas were great and he shares them. Kerry has been on the wrong side of history too many times.

Bush's best moments were explaining the nonsense of the Hague World Court. It's good to remind voters that most of the world doesn't adhere to our constitution nor rights. Why should we give them jurisdiction over our citizens?

Had I not watched the conventions nor the stump speeches, I would have thought that Kerry would be every bit as tough as Bush as President. Hopefully the average voter has been paying better attention.

This was the one debate that Bush should have won handily. Bush's core and 1/3 of Kerry's support actually back the Bush position in foriegn policy. Kerry probably earned a draw last night and that's a victory since he holds the minority view on the subject.

GALLUP POST DEBATE POLL:

Key Factors

***Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job Bush 54/ Kerry 37
***Likable Bush 48/Kerry 41
***Believable Bush 48 / Kerry 45
***Agreed with you more on the issues you care about Bush 49/ Kerry 46
***Had a good understanding of the issues 41/41
***Expressed himself more clearly Bush 32/Kerry 60

Who won the first debate in historically?

Sept. 30, 2004: Kerry 53/ Bush 37 (-16)
Oct. 3, 2000: Gore 48/Bush 41 (-7)
Oct. 6, 1996 Clinton 51/Dole 32 (-19)
Oct. 11, 1992 Perot: 47/Clinton 30/ Bush 16 (-17, -31)
Sept. 28, 1998 Dukakis 38/ Bush 29 (-9)
Sept. 28-30, 1984 Mondale 54/Reagan 35 (-19)

LEVERAGE ON IRAQ

Larry Kudlow dispells the convenient myth that Kerry voted to authorize the war in order to give Bush negotiating clout in the U.N.

At the heart of the resolution is section 3, “Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces,” paragraph B: “(1) Reliance of the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against a continuing threat posed buy Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

In other words, this congressional authorization for war specifically and unambiguously says that further diplomacy will not adequately protect the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.

Not only are Kerry’s newfound qualifiers not included in this resolution, his so-called diplomatic qualifier is actually precluded by the resolution. This is precisely why Kerry’s latest anti-war political offensive leading up to this evening’s foreign-policy debate has no resonance with either registered or likely voters according to virtually every poll.

Dole was on CNN today explaining that a Senator has a tough time becoming President because they have a long voting record that becomes an issue in a campaign. Kerry's record shows him as a staunch liberal which he wants to run away from that. His one conservative vote for the war also has him running in the opposite direction. Kerry is trying to win this election by convincing people that nothing in his record is indicative to what kind of President he will be. Instead, you're supposed to fall for the packaging.

THE FAR LEFT

Nothing cheers me up like reading far left media. Just when I was convinced that the leftwing media was trying to sway the election to Kerry, L.A. Weekly is sure that Conservatives rule the airwaves.

INDIAN CASINOS

Gary Bauer makes some decent points about Indian gaming as racial discrimination. But the article reminded me of something else even more interesting. A few months ago I played in a poker game with a guy who is as pale as Danny Elfman and he mentioned that he gets a share of Indian Casino money every month. He gets something like $14,000 a year for his 1/16th heritage. He lamented that his daughter won't get any money because she's too far removed. This was a good example of government do-gooderism. This was meant to help poor people on a reservation, not people who barely known their heritage. The guy could have passed for Swedish.

ED KOCH CALLS OUT THE NEW YORK TIMES

From Jay Nordlinger's Impromtus.

To the editor:

In today's article reporting the decapitation by terrorists in Iraq of American civilian Eugene Armstrong, the Times reporter wrote, "In the video of the beheading, an insurgent wearing a ski mask and surrounded by four men with assault rifles says the group is killing Mr. Armstrong because the American occupiers and the interim Iraqi government failed to meet the deadline. Much of the man's long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point."

Please note that the news article omitted an important part of the story, which was the exact phrase uttered by the executioner at the time he cut Armstrong's throat and severed his head from his body. That phrase was, "Oh, you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance."

The reference to President Bush by the terrorist strengthens the belief of many that we are involved in a war of civilizations. Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die. That awful message is part of the story, and the Times erred in not carrying that quote, which many other papers did.

Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, has said in describing Muslim terrorists, "They want to kill us." Why? Because those making up Western civilization and its ideas — which jihad is bent on destroying — are overwhelmingly Christians and Jews. I believe it is President Bush's faith that gives him the strength to stay with and implement the Bush Doctrine, which is, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Your reporter refers to the spokesman for the murderers as an "insurgent." What would it take for the Times to call someone who has just participated in the beheading of an innocent civilian a terrorist? I am sure the public would like to know.

Koch gets it. Why can't the New York Times admit that terrorists want to kill Christians and Jews? There is such a thing as terrorists and there is such a thing as Christians. After so many years of belittling Christianity, is it impossible for the left to find any sympathy with the targets of these atacks?

TRAITORS AT THE NYT ?

The Justice Department says that a New York Times reporter tipped off an Islamic Terror-Funding Charity about an upcoming raid. If true, it gives a whole new meaning to the idea of being a world news organ. I can imagine that Ann Coulter will have something brash to say about this.

We're heading in a direction where the elite no longer see themselves as Americans but Earthlings. Better to have the permission of every two bit government in the U.N. then follow a moral path -- that incidently is all subjective really.

DON'T DEPORT MY NANNY

Votes or law enforcement?

Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.

The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.

"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk."

Why would elected officials worry about what illegals thought unless they were sure that illegals are casting votes in the upcoming election? Maybe the federal government needs to look into California's selective enforcement of these laws.

WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?

Power Line, the Blogger who pointed out the Dan Rather documents as forgeries, dissects a very interesting AP article that contends that Bush is twisting Kerry's words. Interesting that no actual twisting of words is pointed out, except at the end where Kerry is shown twisting Bush's words.

On top of that, he finds that she is married to a former Clinton Administration official that's also a greeniac. And the AP retitled the article after Power Line readers voiced complaints.

IN SUDAN

David Brooks writes a sobering account of what happens when nations go the way of multilateralism.

And so we went the multilateral route.

Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.

And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.

Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.

The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.

The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!

It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.

HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG (A Movie Review)

Jennifer Connelly is depressed because her husband has left her. She lies in bed. We see that the dishes are piling up in the kitchen and the mail floods the area inside the front door. Her mother calls and she pretends that her husband is asleep next to her. She can’t get out of bed. A knock on the door and the slimy man arrives with a sheriff’s deputy to kick her out the house. Why? She didn’t pay her business taxes. What business? Exactly, she doesn’t own one, but that doesn’t keep the government lawyers from booting her out anyway.

Ben Kingsley is a former Colonel in the Iranian military. He’s dressed well at his daughter’s wedding. In fact, he lives in a pretty upscale San Francisco apartment. But all isn’t what it seems. Next we see Kingsley working at his construction job at day and a convenience store at night. He marks in a book the cost of a candy bar as he eats it. We assume this is his dinner. Kingsley sees a tax auction notice for a house and we learn the relationship between these two characters that will carry us through the film. Kingsley has been living in the fancy apartment so that his daughter could land a wealthy husband and she has. Now Ben wants to find a good investment house to get back on his feet. Connelly’s home is it.

The drama of the movie comes from these two people and their rightful claim to the property. In the production film, the director said that he was drawn to the material because there was no antagonist. Both the main characters were heroes and the victim of circumstance. That’s true if you ignore the government’s role in the whole debacle and I think that people have grown to do just that.

The government has the ability to arbitrarily take away everything you have and they pay no price for doing so. Bureaucrats are shielded from the liability of their personal actions, and therefore worry not when they make mistakes. Their mistake becomes your problem that you have to resolve before they take action against you. When you solve their problems by jumping through their hoops there is no reward other than having your life back. When you fail to solve their problems you lose things. In the course of the movie, the damage done goes further than the deed to a property, but it all started with some punk with power that made a mistake.

House of Sand and Fog may unintentionally be a perfectly libertarian movie.

ELITIST POPULISTS

Classics professor, Victor Davis Hanson, spends much of his time writing about the war. His piece on the fall of Dan Rather and CBS is interesting because he has a lot more to say about elitism than what happened at one network.

The Big Three may deride the newsreaders at Fox as blond bimbos, but millions of Americans learned long ago that there are probably more liberals on Fox than conservatives on PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, and NBC combined — and the former are honest about politics in a way the latter are not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who profess to be Democrats are reaching historically low numbers. Many prominent Democrats are hypocrites: Feminists Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were uncouth womanizers; the principled war critic Senator Byrd cut his teeth in the Klan; and the self-proclaimed moralists Senators Harkin and Kennedy have both been caught in postmodern problems with the truth. Being rich and a lawyer helps too. Most prominent Democrats and their enablers are either lawyers or multimillionaires, and now often both. Running a hardware store may explain your Republicanism; inheriting the profits from a chain of 1,000 hardware franchises will likely make you a new Democrat.

If we wonder why CBS is in trouble, why no one trusts the universities or the U.N., or why the Democrats may soon lose the Senate, the House, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, the answer has a lot to do with arrogant hypocrisy — the idea that how one lives need have nothing to do with what one professes, that idealistic rhetoric can provide psychological cover for privilege and preference, and that rules need not apply for those self-proclaimed as smarter and nicer than the rest of us. But none of us — none — get a pass simply because we claim that we are more moral, educated, or sophisticated than most.

FEEL GOOD POSITIONS

This David Broder column from last week was interesting. He found three people at a meeting in New Hampshire that have the media's prejudices at the top of mind. Two are servicemen back from Iraq and the third is the wife of a guy currently deployed. These people prefer Kerry.

Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty in Iraq, was the first. "Everyone supports the troops," she said, "and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely."

"I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength."

Of course she doesn't feel safer. The barbarians could kill her husband any minute. Add that to the media making a stink over casualties and I'm sure this poor woman is frantic. She forgets we have men like her husband volunteer to risk their lives so that the barbarians won't kill us here.

She doesn't think we can win the war through arrogance. Strength minus wisdom equals arrogance. This sort of thing plays real well into Kerry's continual use of the word "strength" without any specific action attached. Somehow Kerry will be wise and therefore liked and further strong. Bush is disliked because he isn't wise and therefore arrogant. It's all just babble really. Strength is strength. Arrogance is all perspective. Would it have been arrogant for Britain and France to stop Hitler in 1934 before 50 million people lost their lives?

Scott Lewis, an Army Reserve sergeant home after 15 months in Iraq, spoke just a few words. "We need some new ideas in Iraq," he said. "People criticize John Kerry for changing his mind about Iraq, but I think that's actually a strength. And I'm a Republican."

Kerry has a great idea. It was Clinton's before him. Denounce terrorism when it comes and then otherwise ignore its rise.

Doug Madory, a recently discharged Air Force captain, was the last. He spent four months in Iraq, but most of his deployment was spent in Italy. He spoke of the way Italians embraced American servicemen in brotherhood after Sept. 11 and said, "President Bush squandered a good deal of that support all through Europe by rushing headlong into Iraq. George Bush should be held accountable. . . . People around the world are with us, but are not with George Bush."

What exactly were we gaining from that outpouring of emotion and what exactly did it cost us when we decided to take action?

A bully punches you in the nose and all your classmates gather around you and denounce the horrible act. You decide you've had it and want to beat up the bullies. Suddenly your classmates see you as less sympathtic. Did it matter what they thought either time? What other than ridding the school of bullies should matter to you? Oh, that's right, peer pressure. You shouldn't beat up the bullies because you won't be popular anymore. If you aren't popular you'll have to eat lunch with Poland and Slovakia. Only a President with self-confidence could do that sort of thing. Is that arrogant? Maybe to the people who need to get their self value from the opinion of others.

When John Kerry says we have alienated our friends we have done no such thing. Your friends always stick by you. We've alientated nations that had a self-interest in cozying up to us. Once that self-interest came into conflict with a bigger self-interest, they abandonned us. These kinds of situations help weed out who are real friends are.

The kinds of leaders that are willing to go it alone if neccessary are the ones that will get the real respect from nations looking for leadership. The leaders that plead with the world for their permission are the ones who will become insignificant.

Celsius 41.11

Check out this movie trailer.

WHO VOTES?

The media seems to think our democracy is in peril because only half of the Americans eligible to vote do so. These same media observers never think our democracy is in peril when judges make arbitrary decisions that go against the wishes of the people. Instead of centering on how democratic institutions have been usurped they focus on superficial data like voter turnout.

People tend to vote in larger numbers when they perceive the country moving in the wrong direction. Abstaining usually means that people are pretty comfortable with the way things are or not so sure that a candidate is really going to change things significantly.

I saw a bumper sticker this morning that said, “Spread Democracy – VOTE.” Now, any fool can vote. And maybe that’s what they want. Fools voting on the foolish issues brought up by political candidates to avoid the real issues. Instead of imploring people to understand their government processes and how it effects them, they simply want people to open their eyes every two years and guess which candidate is going to be the most effective leader.

I’d like to eat dinner in an expensive restaurant with someone who is bothered that so few people vote. I would ask them this question – “Would you pay these same prices if I picked anyone here in the restaurant at random to head to the kitchen and cook your food or would you rather have a chef that went to some trouble to understand the finer points of cooking?” It doesn’t matter what the turnout rate is if many people vote for superficial reasons. In fact, superficial voting is much more dangerous to our democracy than abstention.

Many people will never bother with learning the kinds of issues that are important in any election. It’s our gift that they aren’t compelled to vote anyway. If they ever do take the time to become informed they will surely vote. Are there really a great many people who take trouble to understand the system who don’t bother to vote?

Why not let the rest of them enjoy the meal, but give the chefs some education first.

CLINTON STYLE

In earlier conversations with USA TODAY, Burkett had identified the source of the documents as George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague who works for the U.S. Army in Europe. Burkett now says he made up the story about Conn's involvement to divert attention from himself and the woman he now says provided him with the documents. He told USA TODAY that he also lied to CBS.

Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez.

When Burkett gave copies of the documents to USA TODAY, it was on the understanding that his identity would not be disclosed. USA TODAY honored that agreement until Burkett waived his confidentiality Monday.

"I didn't forge anything," Burkett said. "I didn't fake any documents. The only thing I've done here is to transfer documents from people I thought were real to people I thought were real. And that has been the limitation of my role. I may have been a patsy."

Burkett's own doubts about the authenticity of the memos and his inability to supply evidence to show that Ramirez exists also raise questions about his credibility. Burkett has strong anti-Bush views. He has posted comments on Internet Web sites critical of Bush and has chastised Sen. John Kerry's organization for what he called its inept campaign.

When the lie is found out, change it. Continue to change it all the way up to the election. No reason to think the media will question your future credibility as long as you are on the correct political side.

Oh and it doesn't hurt to play the victim. Clinton was the "victim" of a vast right wing conspiracy.

Burkett's emotions varied widely in the interviews. One session ended when Burkett suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair. Earlier, he said he was coming forward now to explain what he had done and why to try to salvage his reputation. In the past week, Burkett was named by many news reports as the probable source of the documents.

"It's time," Burkett said. "I'm tired of me being the bad guy. I'm tired of losing everything we've got," a reference to his financial and health struggles since he left the Guard. Turning to his wife, Nicki, he said: "We've lost it all, baby. We've lost everything."

Piling higher and deeper.

He said Ramirez claimed to possess Killian's "correspondence file," which would prove Burkett's allegations that Bush had problems as a Guard fighter pilot.

Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted.

"I didn't even ask any questions," Burkett said. "Should I have? Yes. Maybe I was duped. I never really even considered that."

After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic.

"This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said.

That would have a been a great line for Clinton when they discovered his DNA on Monica's dress.

The Dan Rather mess is best summed up here. Money Quote:

Rather admitted last night that CBS approached Burkett, instead of the other way around, and described him as someone who was "well-known" for having been trying for years "to discredit President Bush." Yet Rather last week insisted the documents came from "an unimpeachable source."

No word on whether the 200 odd SwiftBoat Vets have approached the kind of respectability that CBS News is willing to give one single Bush hater.

WAS RATHER SET UP?

Liberals and the mainstream media have been recently pumping up this idea that these documents were planted by Republicans to discredit CBS News and John Kerry. CBS knows who gave them the documents. All they have to do is name the source and we can all decide for ourselves who he was working for.

The thing that's not being said by any of these media outlets is that this is not going to do CBS any harm. The public doesn't hold them up to some great standard. People are comfortable with the fact that the mainstream media has a bias and they expect it. This will just make it harder for them to keep a straight face as they speak of themselves as the "objective" media.

Further, we're going to see more of this kind of reporting in the future, not less. TV news has become pretty drab. This has given CBS more attention than they have had in years.

BLOOM COUNTRY ON RATHER. . . 20 Years ago -
And a Herblock political cartoon about Joe McCarthy could go for Dan Rather.
Jim Geraghty says what I said, but better.

POLITICS OF HATE

Next time you hear Democrats talk about how Republicans are poisoning the political system with negative campaigning and cynicism read over this article.

John Kerry suggested Saturday night that Republicans may try to keep black voters from casting their ballots to help President Bush win in November. "We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election," the Democratic presidential nominee told the Congressional Black Caucus.

"We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression, and we're hearing those things again in this election."

Black vote supression is right up there with OJ was framed in the black community. No one has ever brought about any substantive evidence, but it certainly plays good to that crowd. Democrats are always wondering why race relations are so poor in this country. Could it be that Democrats are constantly poisining blacks with this sort of thing?

Another point. Ron Reagan said Bush's politics behind stem cell research plays to the most uneducated people in the country. Oh, but conspiracy theories like this must lift the debate to the firmament.

THAT REMINDS ME. . .

Dan Rather's defense of those forged National Guard documents brings to mind the Clinton White House response to anything negative. You continue to scream louder that you've done nothing wrong. As evidence piles on that makes your case harder to believe, you stand defiant. When finally, you're the only one left to believe it, you simply pretend you were a victim too. The story will then just disappear, you won't be held accountable, and your integrity won't be questioned the next time a similar thing happens.

Mark Steyn had a genius column that demonstrates that standards of credibility usually coincide with the liberal media's own prejudices. Just compare the Swiftboat Veterans with Barnes.

Unfortunately for CBS, Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up so much of the budget that there was nothing left for any fact-checking, so the ''60 Minutes'' crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ''CYA'' that Bush's commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ''This was too hot not to push,'' one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that's way too cold to push; we'd want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry's second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative -- that meets ''basic standards'' and we gotta get it out there right away.

This should at least put this "objective" media nonsense to rest. Why don't the unreconstructed Great Society media liberals just admit that they're pushing an agenda? It's becoming the Emperor’s New Clothes.

911 Remembered

When I see the footage again I want to inflict pain the same as I did that day. President Bush and our troops have done just that. If the price they had to pay was a tisk tisk from Europe then it was a small price. The idea of a President Gore trying to explain to the American people that the terrorists hate us because we didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty would have been depressing. In fact, that attitude would have Gore losing in the polls now to Republican Nominee, Rudy Guiliani.

Being an American is a great blessing. It's a shame that so many people take it for granted and that so many politicians would rather be citizens of the world.

FRIENDS DONT LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN

Someone sent Trish this spam and I decided to post my own retort in italics.


Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

We shared a common enemy with him in the 1980s. Would the author of this blame FDR for arming Joseph Stalin against Hitler? They Cheney did business with him is a myth. Getting Saddam was no diversion. Bush said shortly after 911 that Iraq was part of the axis of evil.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

It’s not that simple. We oppose Cuba because of the Monroe Doctrine. It’s the same reason we ran the communists out of Central America. America is opposed to communism everywhere, but prohibits it anywhere in this hemisphere.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest <>
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq. <>
The reason the United States should get out of the United Nations is that they won’t enforce their own resolutions. We gave them a chance and they were left wanting. It’s a corrupt body that allowed Saddam to illegally trade oil for kickbacks. But the most dangerous thing about the U.N. is that it’s ruled by people who weren’t brought up in a free country and therefore have no respect for the individual. Libya is on their Human Right’s committee for crying out loud.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
These don’t really go together. The real question is why is it that Democrats only believe in personal choice when it comes to abortion. Why can’t we choose where we send our kids to school? Why can’t we invest our own social security money? Why can’t we keep more of our own money and make our own decisions? In short, Democrats only believe in choice when it comes to ending pregnancy. All other choices are left up to the government. <>

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

I don’t know about homosexuals, but even Bill doesn’t like Hillary.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

It was John Kerry that voted against the $80 billion to fund the troops in Iraq. What benefits have the Republicans slashed?

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

It’s not about whether they will have sex, but whether the school system is set up in a way to promote it. Condoms in schools are a lazy way for parents to get out of confronting their children about their behavior. Would you have sex with a person you knew to be infected with an STD because you had a condom? Why give our children condoms and pretend like we’re saving their lives when we’re only promoting the kind of behavior that puts them at risk?

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.
Which allies? The allies that were protecting their illegal oil deals with Saddam Hussein? <>

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

We’re providing health care to tortured and injured Iraqis. It’s a war zone. And why can Americans afford big houses, eating out, going to the movies, automobiles, vacations, and lots of others luxuries, but have no money to keep themselves healthy.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Republicans know that HMOs and insurance companies are trying to make a profit. It’s the profit motive that keeps prices low. When companies are trying to compete against one another they have to do things better to make money. If a company does something you don’t like you can cease doing business with them. A bureaucrat in Washington need not worry about how good his service to you is, because you have no choice but to deal with him if so ordered. Ironically, it’s the self-interest that companies have that insure that you will get what you want. The supposed altruism of government gives it to you they way they want.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

No one doubts the earth is getting warmer. Scientists have not proven that it’s a phenomenon caused by mankind. And if they could prove that mankind was the cause, they couldn’t prevent it without wiping out the human race. No one doubts that tobacco can lead to cancer. It’s just that Republicans think that if women can kill their own babies they might as well be allowed to have a cigarette.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Every congressman that voted for war had an opportunity to see the same evidence Bush was given by the CIA and British intelligence. And don’t forget, CIA Director, George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton. And speaking of Clinton, he was impeached for lying to a grand jury and trying to obstruct justice by coaxing witnesses to lie about what they knew. It doesn’t matter what the lies were about, but that the man in charge of executing the laws of the land would shirk his duties to for personal protection.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. <>
Republicans have been in charge of Congress through the entire internet boom. They have not censored the Internet. In fact, they have kept it a tax free zone so that it could sustain growth. As far as gay marriage, if Republicans thought that the Constitution disallowed it, they wouldn't be seeking an amendment. It's pretty novel idea since Democrats get the constitution changed by appointing more liberals to the bench.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's driving record is none of our business.

I suppose this is witty. Bush was a fool for covering up his DUI. Hillary, on the other hand, was using the cattle futures market in order to take a bribe. In other words, one mishap was due to poor judgment, the other to corruption.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a <>
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Even Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Clinton support the stupid drug laws. They can hardly be considered Republican. Rush has yet to be charged with a crime and he has never called his own problem with painkillers a disease. He blames himself for being weak.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
This didn’t start with Ashcroft. California voted by referendum in the 1990s to legalize medicinal marijuana and Janet Reno said she would prosecute any who tried it.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

If Bush did something in the 1980s that would hamper his ability to be commnader in chief, then I’m ready to hear what it was. Clinton’s behavior in the 1960s was so peculiar at the time because he was our first hippy president.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people,
we're likely to be stuck with Bush for 4 more years.

I couldn’t imagine paying fewer taxes and whipping the Islamo-fascists for another 4 years. When are we going to get back to giving out money for special interest complaint groups?

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
No, they insist.

BUSH AND THE GUARD

Byron York lays out Bush's flight record in chronological order. He reveals some interesting things I haven't seen anywhere else. He then brings up an interesting point in the Kerry-Bush service feud.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Interesting because Kerry now says that whatever the official govt. records says about his medals have to be accepted as the last word, while Bush's honorable discharge from the same government is incomplete data.

On a ligher note, Scrappleface reports Kerry's Honorable Discharge.

MUD SLINGING

After hearing the media decry or ignore the Swift Boat charges for weeks, they have no trouble cozying up to Democrats that have harsh allegations against President Bush. Dan Rather is going to interview the former Democrat Lt. Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, about how he secured preferential treatment for W in the Texas National Guard. And though he admits that he never actually had any contact with the Bush family, they're guilty just the same of the favors granted.

What exactly are their standards of objectivity? Remember that the Swift Boat ads were discredited simply because pro-Bush individuals funded them. The media didn't make much of the fact that the Swifties have Republicans and Democrats within their ranks. Now here is an actual Democrat politician making claims and he's given a 60 minutes interview.

In essence, what you're supposed to know about Kerry's service is that it was beyond reproach. Don't ask to see his military records and don't believe people who have another story to tell. What you need to know about Bush's service is that it was a cake walk and he has a lot of skeletons that we need to uncover.

Oh, yeah and the way Clinton secured favors to stay out of the draft is not an issue of whether he'd be a good commander in chief. Get this straight, because if you go on one of these news interview shows and get the talking points wrong you'll be treated as a conspiracy theorist.

MAN OF THE PEOPLE. . . FOR 60 MORE DAYS

Drudge reports that Kerry was carrying around a shotgun that he voted to ban. Kerry was given the gift as he portrayed himself as a regular guy to some West Virginians.

Kerry campaign responds:

"Let's do some straight shooting on the gun issue. John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter.

"The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will. John Kerry was proud to receive this union-made gun at the United Mine Workers Labor Day picnic in Racine, West Virginia.

Who does he think he is fooling?

THE MYSTERIOUS BIN LADEN

The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

An interesting question is whether a bin Laden capture is good for the president's re-election. I don't think it does.

Capturing bin Laden this close to the election will bring cries from some liberals that Bush timed it purposefully. And although the press didn't see any coincidence in Clinton's bombing of Iraq during the impeachment vote, they will keep this charge in the public mind not by endorsing it, but by asking conservatives over and over again whether voters should have reason to wonder. The conservatives will say that it's nonsense, but the purpose will be met.

While some liberals decry a setup, other liberals will rally that the war on terror is now a sham, because the only real harmful terrorist has been captured. The long national nightmare is over they will explain. Now it will be time to patch those frayed relations with the world and focus on all of those domestic problems that have been ignored in the last 4 years while Bush prosecuted an "unnecessary" war. The media will help to spread this talking point as well.

Now how much either charge would hurt Bush is debatable, but the media has a way of directing the attention where they want the attention. For instance, the Swift Boat Vets are given no credibility simply because someone who likes Bush gave them money for their ads. They don't mind giving air time to people who doubt Bush's National Guard service record, but they don't want Kerry questioned in the same way. Even if the accusers are as highly decorated as the accused.

The only way I see the capture of bin Laden helping the president is if it happens a few days before the election. The capture will leave Bush as the man of the hour, before the public has an opportunity to filter in the media's conventional wisdom. The revelation on the Friday before the 2000 election that Bush had been arrested for drunken driving didn't give Republicans enough time to counter and it helped Gore close the gap.

THE BOUNCE

 Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent; in a Three-Way Trial Heat,

                Bush/Cheney Receive 13-Point Margin Bounce



Bush Approval Rating Rises to 52 Percent; First Time Above 50 Since January;

    Majority (53%) Wants to See Him Re-Elected-Highest Since May 2003



27 Percent of Registered Voters Think Bush/Cheney Campaign Is Behind Swift

                                 Boat Ads

ZELL!

From Jay Nordlinger:

You may want to hear a little more from Zell Miller — this is from the Imus radio program: "A 73-year-old man doesn't have any business coming to New York and getting involved in all this stuff. He ought to stay down in Young Harris with his two yellow labs, Gus and Woodrow, and let the world go by, I guess. I had just been holding one" — just been holding one! — "for Chris Matthews ever since I saw him browbeat Michelle Malkin on his show that night. He wouldn't let that little 5'2", 95-pound girl say a word, and I just said to myself, 'If he ever gets into my face like that, I'm gonna pop him.'"

I missed the Zell tirade on Mathews. I tuned in at the very end where Zell was wrapping up and Mathews spent the rest of the night stunned at what happened. Mathews kept saying, "Maybe he misunderstood my question." Now it all makes sense. Zell was thinking about what happened to Michelle Malkin. I posted her experience on August 20th.

Nordlinger points out that David Gergen among others have called Miller's adress a "hate speech." If you hate to see your country return to the appeasement of the 1990s, I guess it was. How would those Democrats upset with Zell reconcile it with the stuff that Sen. Robert Byrd has been saying (in the same accent) about Bush these last two years?

It also gives me a big smile to hear all those people who saw Jim Jeffords defection as growth and maturity, treat Miller as some sort of turncoat.

FOLLOW-UP: Andrew McCarthy does a great job of breaking down the reality of the Mathews/Miller confrontation.

Matthews’s attack-dog line of questioning was entirely reasonable . . . for a partisan. If this had truly been an objective news program, however, Matthews would have been sitting in a debater’s seat with a different, neutral anchor between him and Miller. Then, it would have been fine for him to press Miller — who was more than up to responding — because Matthews would have then been reciprocally grilled on his own baggage, not fraudulently portrayed as if he didn’t have any. But Matthews, in the shameless mainstream network practice, was slated as both partisan and anchor, prosecutor and judge. When he didn’t like Miller’s answers, he stepped on them. He snidely suggested that Miller had attacked Kerry’s love of country, though Miller had insisted — and the rhetoric bears out — that he was challenging Kerry’s judgment, not his patriotism.

HOW MANY TERRORISTS ARE LEFT?

E Head sent this interesting article about the kind of terrorists we face. It's hard to quote a short portion because the article builds on itseld nicely. But here's the opening idea.

It seems reasonable that if Islamist terror organizations had a couple thousand potential suicide bombers at their disposal they would launch them. Just think of what Hamas could do with even 500. If they started launching 100 a day against Israel for five days they could bring the Israeli government to its knees within a week. Since there is no reason to believe they have any moral constraints preventing them from conceiving such an operation, it seems to follow that the pool of potential suicide-bombers is pretty shallow. Al Qaeda may have a lot of emotional support in the Muslim world, but that does not seem to be translating into hundreds of recruits prepared to launch themselves on one-way missions.