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.

RNC AFTER TWO NIGHTS

A lot has been made in the media that the Republicans are trying to portray themselves as moderates with McCain, Giuliani and Arnold. I think what the media is missing is that many moderates support Bush despite the differences. And if the media wants to call these men moderates and not conservatives then they had better start asking themselves what Kerry and Edwards are. The "objective" media has refused to label Kerry and Edwards as liberals despite their voting records which indicate same. Now if McCain, Giuliani, and Arnold are moderates and Kerry and Edwards are moderates then the media should be very interested in why they oppose one another. If Bush is way off alone by himself on the Rightwing of American thought why is it that he garners the support of people that the media likens to his opponents? Something is amiss.

John McCain

The line that will be remembered was his jab at Michael Moore. I saw him trying to downplay it later that night on HARDBALL. The crowd was so reactive that he couldn't continue his speech. He kept begging them to settle, but between boos of Moore and chants of 4 MORE YEARS, McCain was helpless.

Otherwise McCain made a pretty safe speech that must have been a setup for the 2008 race. He showed strong conviction in the war on terror and support of Bush. It's nice to have him especially after he's spent most of the campaign reminding us that he's friends with Kerry. What's interesting is that he's more conservative than his moderate label. It's just that he's in opposition with the President often enough that the media has painted him as a centrist. One of his most articulate criticisms of Bush policy was the reckless expansion of Medicare.

I don't like Campaign Finance Reform, his opposition to tax cuts, or his courting of Democrats generally, but he's actually the war hero that Kerry longs to be and yet he's not the one always bringing it up. His speech did plenty of convince centrists that Bush needs 4 more years.


RUDY GIULIANI

A knockout. Giuliani is probably the most liberal of the mainstream Republicans and yet this speech was so red meat that you'd think that Barry Goldwater was back from the dead. Rudy's explanation of the methods of terrorism was the best description I have ever heard. He reminded the crowd that terrorists have been rewarded in the past for attacks. How else do you explain Arafat getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Rudy told America that Bush's tactic in beating terrorists may be controversial to some, but that it's paying dividends in ways that 1990s era policy didn't.

If he wants to run in 2008, he would be a tough opponent. He's pro-choice so he'd probably have to come out against partial birth abortion, if he hasn't already and promote civil unions over homosexual marriage. He might be a tough sell for consetrvatives, but I think he's still more palatable than McCain for many.

ARNOLD

It was nice to see him. He had a lot to say about being an immigrant American. From an historical point it was fun to hear how he wanted Nixon over Humphrey in 1968 and then by assumption Nixon over McGovern in 1972 which was the year his future wife's father was running on the McGovern ticket. Needless to say, there was a lot of hand-sitting by Maria during the speech. His memory of living close to Soviet occupied Austria was vivid as well. I hadn't realized he was so close to Communism.

He gave Bush a decent boost, but all in all it wasn't nearly as strong or moving as the speech from Giuliani.

BILL FRIST

All the talk of Bill Frist in 2008 took a big step backward with his speech tonight. He's probably a sincere and effective conservative in the Senate, but his speech lacked any passion or fire.

Lt. Gov. Michael Steele

I hadn't really heard of this guy, but he can speak and from a diversity angle he's got a future if he wants it. He wasn't given the same amount of time, but he's as significant as the Democrat, Obama.

WHERE IS GOV. BILL OWENS?

National Review has been touting the Colorado Governor as a possible President in 2008. His economic policy in Colorado was rated #1 in the country by the CATO institute and one of only two governors (with Jeb Bush in FLA) that was given an "A" rating by that organization. I don't know if Owens didn't show or if he's been relegated to one of those 5 minute speeches of no consequence that I either missed or might miss tomorrow.

PRIMARY

What a political day. I made it to the polls in the last hour of voting and opted for Mel Martinez over Bill McCollum and Mel won handily. McCollum was my congressmen when I moved to Orlando, but his Senate run in 2000 was full of the worst kind of pandering and he lost handily to Bill Nelson. Martinez was county chairman in Orange county before moving to HUD and he always seemed like an up front guy.

PROTESTS IN NY

I've been watching the protests all afternoon and they are great theatre. There's something fun about watching a bunch of people carry political signs through New York City when they could be home on the couch. The signs go from clever to infantile. The only American Flags I saw were draped over protest coffins. A few Kerry-Edwards signs could be seen, but many more were promoting Ralph Nader or the International Socialists Party. One sign said Bush+Kerry=War. There was a lot of International sentiment in the crowd. These were people interested in world government and socialism more so than America.

C-SPAN had their cameras right next to a Fox News billboard. The passing crowd chanted "Fox News sucks" as they walked by. Some protesters got out the old Vietnam signs. I saw one that protested a military draft.

There were a lot of degenerates in the crowd for sure, but also some people you could imagine playing racquetball with. It was interesting that so many Americans would turn out to protest America doing something about world terrorism. We're just so far removed from the hardships of two generations ago that there are people who think that smoking weed and chilling will solve the world's conflicts.

While they march with "Asses of Evil" and "Bush is a Weapon of Mass Destruction" signs, we are reminded that Bush isn't Hussein. The crowd wasn't gassed. We have no death camps. We live in a great free country that allows the misfits of society to march against the policies of our defense.

CARL LEWIS NO STRANGER TO POLITICS

America's biggest Olympic hero yesterday accused George Bush of exploiting the Athens Games for his own political advantage in the run-up to the presidential election.

Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals in athletics in a record-breaking career, condemned Bush for using the presence of Iraqi and Afghan teams in Athens in a television advertisement to boost his chances of re-election.

Criticising Bush for linking his foreign policy with the two countries being allowed to compete here, Lewis said: 'I felt that was disingenuous. It is funny that we boycotted the 1980 Games [in Moscow] in support of Afghanistan, and now we're bombing Afghanistan,' he told the Athens News yesterday.

Do you remember Carl Lewis in the 1996 games? He was a legend then and the U.S. decided to include him on one of the relay events despite the fact that he didn't qualify like everyone else. Gold Medal winner Michael Johnson was pretty angry at the decision and said that Carl Lews "finished butt naked last at the qualifiers." Lewis wound up winning the longjump event further adding to his legend. He then let the Clinton administration politicize him by parading around with Clinton a few days later. In short, he's a Democrat.

Bush can be proud that the Iraqis and the Afghans are sporting teams. Afterall, it wasn't Lewis' prized Clinton Administration that won them the opportunity. As far as the comparisons of our boycotting in 1980, Lewis forgets the context in which Afghanistan was invaded in 1980 and then again in 2001. In fact, our bombing of Afghanistan this time has ensured that they have a team.

THE NEW SOLDIER

The entire book can now be read online with Adobe Acrobat.

QUESTIONS FOR KERRY

Peter Kirsanow wonders when the John Kerry will allow himself to be interviewed somewhere other than Comedy Central. He's tried of hearing the same softball questions leveled at the man so he writes his own list and dares the media to quit fawning. This is a long list, but pretty inclusive. I think these are well done, but if you tire of reading all 20. I think the most interesting ones are #'s 2,6,7,9,10,12, and 16-17 which build on one another.

1. The Bush campaign maintains that you spent 20 years in the Senate with no signature legislative achievements. What do you consider to be the five most important pieces of legislation that you've authored?

a. What's the most important piece of legislation regarding intelligence you've authored?

b. What's the most important piece of antiterrorism legislation you've authored?

c. What's the most important piece of health-care legislation you've authored?

d. What's the most important piece of education legislation you've authored?

2. You'd agree that on paper, Dick Cheney's experience and qualifications dwarf those of your running mate. Why would John Edwards make a better president during the war on terror than Dick Cheney?

a. It's been widely reported that John McCain was your first choice as running mate. If true, why did you prefer Senator McCain to Senator Edwards?

3. Earlier this year you told Tim Russert that you'd release all of your military records, yet you've failed to do so and you refuse to release your Vietnam journal. Why shouldn't the public infer that the contents of these documents would undermine your credibility or otherwise damage your candidacy?

a. When will you release the documents?

4. You've stated that you believe that life begins at conception yet you voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. At precisely what point is a life worth protecting?

a. Is there any limitation on abortion (waiting periods, parental notification) for which you'd vote? If so, what?

5. You've promised to repeal much of the Bush tax cut and while in the Senate you voted to raise taxes an average of five times per year. If current economic trends remain largely unchanged during a Kerry presidency, would you seek additional tax increases?

a. How would you raise taxes and what are the highest marginal tax rates that you'd support?

6. You opposed the 1991 Gulf War even though Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, had invaded another country, and France and Germany had supported the war. In the current conflict no WMDs have been found, France and Germany oppose the action, and Saddam hadn't invaded another country. Yet you recently stated that knowing what you know now, you'd nonetheless authorize the use of force — even though you voted against funding it. Could you please reconcile these positions?

7. You acknowledge meeting with representatives of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970. Afterward you urged Congress to accept the North Vietnamese proposals. Please explain how this wasn't a violation of the Logan Act and, if you were still in the Naval Reserves at that time, how it wasn't a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibiting unauthorized communications with the enemy.

8. In several speeches before black audiences you've stated that a million African Americans were disenfranchised and had their votes stolen in the 2000 presidential election. There are no official or media investigations that support that statement. What evidence do you have to support the statement and if you believe a million blacks had their votes stolen, why haven't you called for criminal prosecutions and congressional investigations?

9. Do you dispute the National Journal's assessment that you're the nation's most liberal senator? If you do, which senators do you consider to be more liberal and why?

10. Why did you propose cutting the intelligence budget by $6 billion in 1994?

11. As president, would you nominate anyone to be either an attorney general, FBI director, or CIA director who had been a leader and chief spokesman for a group that had discussed and voted upon a plan to assassinate U.S. senators (even if the proposed nominee had opposed such plan)?

12. You have consistently stated that you "never, never" attended the November 1971 Kansas City meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate six pro-military U.S. senators was discussed. Several newspapers reported that when confronted with FBI surveillance reports, your campaign "all but conceded" that you were in attendance , but claimed that this was a mere "footnote in history."

a. Were you there?

b. Did you discuss the assassination of U.S. senators? What did you say?

c. Did you vote upon such a plan? How did you vote? Were any similar plans discussed by your group at any time? What were they?

d. If the plan was voted down, what steps did you take to insure that supporters of the plan didn't carry it out anyway?

e. Especially considering that this took place in an era of political assassinations and assassination attempts (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., George Wallace, etc.), did you report the discussion to any law-enforcement authorities? If not, why not?

f. When did you resign from the organization?

g. Do you dispute reports that you continued as a spokesman for the organization for more than a year after the Kansas City meeting?

h. If this was a mere footnote in history why have you repeatedly and vehemently denied you were there?

i. Did your campaign, as alleged in several newspaper accounts, attempt to get a witness to change his story about your attendance?

13. You have criticized the Patriot Act. What portions would you repeal or amend and why? What evidence do you have of any abuses of the Patriot Act?

14. As president, what would you do about Iran's emerging nuclear capability?

15. During your eight-year tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee you missed more than thee fourths of all public meetings. It's also been reported that you have skipped or delayed receiving intelligence briefings during the campaign. Why should the public believe that you're serious about this issue?

16. What do you think is appropriate punishment for guards (and their superiors) found guilty of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? Do you believe they should be stripped of command and receive dishonorable discharges and prison time?

17. On May 6, 2001, on Meet the Press, you stated that you had committed "the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers" in violation of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, you said you burned villages and "used 50-calibre machine guns, which [you] were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people."

a. Who ordered you to use 50-caliber machine guns on people?

b. How many people did you shoot with the 50s and how many of them were killed or wounded?

c. When and where did these shootings occur?

d. What other atrocities did you commit and when?

e. Which village(s) did you burn down and when?

f. Were any of your crewmembers present during the commission of any of these atrocities?

g. Did you order them to participate in the atrocities? Did they follow your orders?

h. Why were there no reports of these atrocities? Did you order your crew not to report them?

i. Are any of these incidents described in your Vietnam journal? If not, why not?

j. Did you observe thousands of (or any) other troops committing atrocities? When, where and what kind? Did you report them? If not, why not?

k. In light of your admitted atrocities, if Abu Ghraib guards found guilty of abuse should receive prison time and be stripped of command, why do you believe you should be considered for commander-in-chief?

18. Who among the justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court would be a model for your nominees to the federal bench? Why?

19. In a speech before Drake University Law School you characterized U.S. allies in the war in Iraq as "some trumped-up so-called Coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted,..." Do you maintain that Great Britain has been bribed, coerced, bought, or extorted? What about Italy? Japan? Poland? Please specifically identify those members of the Coalition that have been either bribed, coerced, bought, and extorted and the officials who were bribed or bought.

20. You told George Stephanopoulos that you had a plan to get out of Iraq but refused to provide details. Would you consent to having your secret plan privately evaluated by an independent, bi-partisan panel of military experts who could report the plan's merits to the electorate without divulging the details?

a. Would you also consent to privately revealing to an independent panel the names of the foreign leaders who secretly support you so that the panel can confirm your story to the electorate?

b. Ditto regarding the leaders whom you say have secretly told Senators Biden and Levin that you must win?

CAN OF WORMS

"Reporting for Duty!" said John Kerry when he gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Understanding Bush's perceived skill as a war-time leader, Kerry decided to overplay his service in Vietnam. Kerry has used his service front and center thorough his political career.

He was the one that said that Cinton's non-service should not be an issue in the 1992 presidential campaigns. in 1985, he complained of being sent illegally into Cambodia during Christmas 1968 as a part of President Nixon's war strategy. It would have been a stronger point if OOPS Nixon had been President (He wasn't inaugurated until Jan 20, 1969). Now it looks like Kerry never made the trip. Yesterday on Meet the Press, his campaign manager said that Kerry was near the border around that time. Now they weren’t really sure where they were. That's a new way of putting it.

Last week, a caller on the Rush Limbaugh program defended John Kerry because the government sanctioned every one of those medals so they must be legitimate. Rush asked what the caller knew how many medals Bob Dole or George HW Bush had. The caller said that he respected the service of both men.

"But do you know how many medals each of them earned?" asked Rush.
"No" said the caller.
"The only reason you know about Kerry's is that he keeps telling us." Rush concluded.

And that's his problem. He wants this election to be about his service in Vietnam, not his record in the U.S. Senate of weakening defense and intelligence. Anything other than a salute to his valor is dirty politics. Had he repudiated the people who were going after Bush for his National Guard service, he could have all but insured the same treatment in return. He would have elevated the campaign and Bush would have had to play along or look mean. By allowing Bush to be attacked, he opened himself up to that style of campaign.

Since he insists it be about his service he's going to have to defend that record fairly or unfairly. The Swiftboat Veterans for truth have angered Kerry and the New York Times, but they aren't the only critics. Bob Dole has recently questioned Kerry's wounds. Steve Gilbert puts together a pretty good case that Kerry violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Kerry's problem is one of firmness. He's so locked into his Vietnam era behavior and so proud of it that he has offered himself very little wiggle room. For instance, Kerry has not once said that he learned from his youthful exuberances and is a wiser man for it. This alone would allow moderates to think that maybe Kerry believes that his anti-war activity was a bit much. He has not publicly repudiated his book 1971 THE NEW SOLDIER, though he has kept it from being re-published. It gives one the idea he is very proud of it, but isn't so sure that voters will be.

Bush wasn't in Vietnam with Kerry and doesn't know what happened. But thanks to Kerry making Vietnam an issue, there are plenty of people who disagree with him about Vietnam that will raise their own money to do so.

At some point this campaign will have to get back to what Kerry did in the Senate and it will be interesting to see how he handles that. For now, he has opened a can of worms and only has himself to blame.

JOHN KERRY UNNERVED

The Swifties must be causing Kerry more pain than I would have thought. Kerry keeps asking the White House and step in and denounce these guys. I didn't hear Bush whining to Kerry about Moveon.org. Kerry shouldn't need the White House to fight his battle if he has the truth on his side.

You wouldn't know that such a group existed if you read the New York Times until today when they did a front page story trying to discredit them. The big ammunition seems to be vague and indirect ties to the Bush family. Maybe the Times has forgotten that John O'Neill has been a Kerry critic for 30 years. The Times uses the guilty by association technique all through the article. As if mere funding made something untrue. Buried at the end of the article is the controversy of whether Kerry was in Cambodia during Christmas. Although Kerry has changed his story a number of times on this point, you get the impression from the Times that he's being put upon.

Kerry's problem is that he's used his war experience for years to win certain political points. It seems now that he embellished in parts and doesn't have the strength to set the record straight. Until he comes clean about the exaggerations it's going to be hard to believe the true parts.

UPDATE: After reading the Times this morning, Kerry files action with the FEC. That's the closest thing to believing your own press without technically doing so.

MALKIN ON MATHEWS

Michelle Malkin has a great entry on her blog about her experiences appearing on the Chris Mathews HARDBALL show. She explains how she came to be on the show, what the producers told her and how she was immediately mischaracterized when the cameras came on. Her purpose on the show was to promote her own book. They wanted her to debate on UNFIT FOR COMMAND first. The whole appearance was a mess and Malkin is hilarious re-telling it.

As the show broke for commercials, Matthews scrambled for his producers to see if what he said was true. And I'm irresponsible? One staffer ran to the office where I had left my copy of the book, and handed it to Matthews, who--for the first time, apparently--started flipping through it. I asked for my book back and politely said thank you. After I left, he trashed me again on the air and his scurrilous charges were repeated by his MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann, who called me an "idiot."

I am used to playing hardball. I expect it. I am used to ad hominem attacks. I get more in a day than most of these wussies have received in their lifetimes. But what happened last night was pure slimeball and the unfair, unbalanced, and unhinged purveyors of journalism, or whatever it is they call what they do at MSNBC, should be ashamed.

What I take away from all this is that the Democrat Party waterboys in the media are in full desperation mode. I have now witnessed firsthand and up close (Matthews' spittle nearly hit me in the face) how the pressure from alternative media sources--the blogosphere, conservative Internet forums, talk radio, Regnery Publishing, FOX News, etc. --is driving these people absolutely batty.

I enjoy the Mathews show, but this exchange does his reputation no good.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST BUSH

From the AMERICAN THINKER. . .

The thing is, the various self-contradictory arguments are made by the same people.

• You shouldn’t tolerate dictators in other countries AND you shouldn’t try to export democracy and impose your values on the rest of the world AND you shouldn’t withdraw from the world. All of those. So there.

• Why did you rely on widely accepted and seemingly overwhelming intelligence to invade Iraq, and why didn’t you act on little unconnected scraps of information to DO SOMETHING to prevent 9/11? (We would have been right behind you on aggressive pre-emptive action then, you can be sure of that.)

• Why don’t you have a handle on what’s going on? And why did you pass a law that allows the FBI and CIA to talk to each other, and actually INVESTIGATE terrorism, as if it were Medicare fraud or something? Why are you arresting all those people? What’s happening to this country? And why aren’t we safe?

• And while we’re on the subject, why are you scaring us with these stupid color alert warnings whenever you find something out? And why do you keep everything secret and never tell us what’s happening?

• Why don’t we have any allies? No, not all those allies that support us, I mean the other ones, the ones that don’t? Why aren’t those allies supporting us, instead of the ones who are?

I'm sure President Kerry can solve this quandary.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR ASKS, "WHAT HAPPENED AT ROSWELL?"

Food for Dude

Ten years after the U.S. Air Force closed its books on the claim that a UFO crashed in Roswell, N.M., in 1947, a top Democratic Party figure wants to reopen the investigation into the cosmic legend.

Despite denials by federal officials, many UFO buffs cherish the notion that in early summer of 1947, a flying saucer crashed in rural Roswell, scattering alien bodies and saucer debris.

Now Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who chaired the recent Democratic convention in Boston, says in his foreword to a new book, The Roswell Dig Diaries, that ''the mystery surrounding this crash has never been adequately explained -- not by independent investigators, and not by the U.S. government."

To the Air Force, though, there is no mystery -- and there hasn't been for a long time. In 1994, the Air Force published ''Roswell Report: Case Closed," which asserted that so-called saucer debris was, in fact, the ruins of an unusual type of military research balloon.

HITCHENS REVIEWS KERRY BOOKS FOR THE NY TIMES

Here's my favorite part.

If Kerry is dogged and haunted by the accusation of wanting everything twice over, he has come by the charge honestly. In Vietnam, he was either a member of a ''band of brothers'' or of a gang of war criminals, and has testified with great emotion to both convictions. In the Senate, he has either voted for armament and vigilance or he has not, and either regrets his antiwar vote on the Kuwait war, or his initial pro-war stance on the Iraq war, or his negative vote on the financing of the latter, or has not. The Boston Globe writers capture a moment of sheer, abject incoherence, at a Democratic candidates' debate in Baltimore last September:

''If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat.''

And all smart people know how to laugh at President Bush for having problems with articulation.

Actually, when Kerry sneered at ''the coalition of the willing'' as ''a coalition of the coerced and the bribed,'' at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, no less, he was much more direct and intelligible. Yet I somehow doubt that he would repeat those clear, unmistakable words if confronted by the prime ministers of Britain, Poland or Australia. And how such an expression is likely to help restore America's standing is beyond this reviewer.

One thing that is never made clear to me is which leaders in the world that weren't profiting from Iraqi oil deals are angry at us. Since far more countries supported our actions than opposed them, doesn't Kerry's task of rebuilding those bridges with our opponents threaten to anger our actual allies?

Maybe even more important is why having the world on our side is such a benefit. Being friendly gets us into situations like Bosnia and Haiti. It seems to me that we did ourselves a favor with this war by identifying who are real allies are. Next time the world clamors for our aid we can go down the list and see what they've done for us. Negative two points for countries that were illegally feathering Saddam's nest before the war.

HURRICANE CHARLEY

I was mostly surprised that it hit us as hard as it did considering how far inland we were. The winds reached 100MPH and a lot of trees fell and shingles came off roofs. I lost power for only 24 hours. It seemed like we lost power in Pensacola for 3 or 4 days when we got hit by Erin and Opal in 1995. I drove downtown Saturday morning and I saw a bunch of power lines down. Big trees crashed into yards and houses.

Mom and Dad lost the screen part of their pool inclosure. Tricia's parents lost a great big tree that luckily didn't hit the house. Trish was worried about the dead tree in her backyard, but it hardly budged.

It was only this morning that I got phone and internet service back. Even with the cellphone I couldn't get my parents on the phone so I went over there on Sunday to see their damage. John said a tree landed on the car next to his.

We were pretty lucky considering what happened to the poor people on the coast.

ANNIE JACOBSEN'S TERROR IN THE SKIES REVISITED

Remember the story about the passenger on a plane full of Middle Eastern Men? Annie has since interviewed another passenger on that flight who felt the same as she did. She has also talked to the Air Marshalls again.

A few days ago, I put a call in to Dave Adams, the Federal Air Marshal Services (FAM) Head of Public Affairs. Some of you may remember that Adams and I spoke on July 9, several days before my first article was published. He and I did not speak again until a few days ago, on August 9 and August 10, when we had two rather heated phone conversations. During one of them, I asked Adams the question that Billie Jo Rodriguez had asked me: "Exactly how many other passengers on flight 327 have the FAM and/or the FBI been in contact with during the past month?"

Adams said that they had interviewed the Air Marshals on my flight as well as all the flight attendants from flight 327 -- several times.

I told Adams that wasn't my question. I specifically wanted to know how many other passengers the FAM and/or the FBI had been in contact with during the past month.

Adams said my husband and I were the only two to come forward.

I told him that wasn't true, that I now had the corroborative accounts of seven passengers in addition to my husband and myself.

This has all the earmarkings of an uncomfortable situation that the government is trying to downplay. It cuts to the heart of their flawed security policy and the danger therein.

And then, in the midst of arguing with Adams, I had an epiphany. I realized that Dave Adams is not the guy I should be focusing on. He's not the person I need to hear from. Adams' main concern is that the Air Marshals he represents are cleared of any wrong doing. All the information Adams has is second hand. He wasn't on the flight and he wasn't at the airport when the flight landed. Adams, I realized, is just a guy in an office somewhere in Virginia, whose job requires him to push forth a whole host of second-hand party lines.

It dawned on me that I need to hear from the FBI. So I asked Adams why the FBI has been silent about flight 327.

He said the FBI considered flight 327 an ongoing investigation.

If it is an ongoing investigation then the government downplayed the real danger on that flight for public relations. Now if Haliburton were in charge of the security of the United States and knew they would be run out of business if they failed, don't you think they'd be doing a better job than the justice and transportaion departments?

ARE THERE NO LIBERALS IN AMERICA?

John Kerry’s lifetime voting record registers 92%liberal (according to the Liberal rating group ADA), but this somehow makes him a moderate according to every media outlet and his own campaign. This is a derivative of Eric Alterman’s 2003 book, What Liberal Media, where Alterman claims that even The New York Times is moderate.

We know there is such a thing as liberals because candidates to the right of John Kerry like Lyndon Johnson and Walter Mondale called themselves liberals. I grew up in Indiana and I remember when Dan Quayle was running against incumbent Birch Bayh for the U.S. Sentate. Bayh’s campaign ad trumpeted the fact that he was a liberal. This was when Conservative was a scary word and Reagan had no chance to win the election. Reagan won and Quayle won. In 1984, Mondale called himself a liberal because it had never hurt in the past. He was roundly defeated. Michael Dukakis was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Forget it. Bill Clinton was a member of the somewhat less liberal Democratic Leadership Council and rode that to victory shying away from the “L” word.

The lesson learned by Liberals was that they’d better give themselves a fresh coat of paint and start using the word “moderate.”

There are a few moderates in the Democrat Party. Joe Lieberman, John Breaux, Ben Nelson are among them. John Kerry is not one. To be a moderate you have to do something moderate, and hopefully in a non-election year.

Since calling John Kerry a liberal or citing his voting record is considered negative campaigning, conservatives are somehow supposed to ignore the philosophy that is contrary to their own.

The media complains that these campaigns lack substance and become beauty contests, but until they are willing to identify leftist beliefs as well as rightwing beliefs, reporters will have nothing to contrast except the amount of tears each candidate can conjure up talking about their humble upbringings or the plight of the uninsured.

Since any ready voting block will find a candidate to take their cause, you would have to assume there are no liberal voters, because there are no liberal candidates. Or maybe liberal voters aren’t fooled by the media and the candidates.

KEYES AND OBAMA

The most famous Senate race in history was the 1858 contest between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in Illinois. The debates between those two men were legendary and they centered on race and slavery. So how interesting that the same state will hold the first Senate race between two Harvard educated blacks.

Obama is the future star of the Democrats and the politics in Illinois is such that I think Keyes is a big underdog. Still, Keyes is the best conservative debater in the country and this battle will be watched by the entire country. The uniqueness of the race will bring language and positions that candidates have been afraid to touch in the past.

Republican Alan Keyes ripped into Democratic rival Barack Obama's views on abortion Monday, calling them "the slaveholder's position," as the U.S. Senate race roared back to life in Illinois.

"I would still be picking cotton if the country's moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence," Keyes said. He said Obama "has broken and rejected those principles-- he has taken the slaveholder's position."

Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes is outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.

Asked specifically about the phrase "slaveholder's position," Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."

Keyes bold statement is what makes him an interesting candidate to watch. He's not shy.

But I think Obama's calm reaction is even more interesting. Obama's call for Keyes to "look to members of his own party" is eerily like asking Keyes to check with his masters for permission to be himself.

Obama would have enjoyed facing Ryan where the race subject was in his hip pocket to be used by him and him alone. Now he's got to remind Keyes that Republicans are not allowed to use slavery allusions too. So much good that will do him.

OTHER THOUGHTS - Jonah Goldberg has a different take on Keyes attempt in Illinois.

Interesting News Items

Ebay Criminals get smarter

Steinbrenner creates ingenius plan to have MLB fund his new stadium.

Does Al Qaeda have an election terrorist plot?

The President's Christmas gift list.

I didn't see the CNBC Russert show, but Donald Luskin said that Bill O'Reilly harpooned Paul Krugman.

KING KONG'S screaming babe, Fay Wray, dies at age 96. Who knew she was alive?

McCAIN GROWS IN THE OFFICE

E Head's theory that McCain is vying for the middle ground to capture the 2008 Nomination is bolstered by this revelation from NEWSMAX. McCain may be disgusted with the Swiftboat Veterans allegations versus Kerry, but McCain wrote a piece in 1973 for U.S. News & World Report saying that the anti-war movement did a great deal of harm to the POWs still overseas.

In piece he wrote for the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report, the POW-turned-senator charged that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."

The Reconcilliation

McCain biographer Paul Alexander chronicled the Arizona Republican's anger toward Kerry during their early careers in the Senate together.

"For many years McCain held Kerry's actions against him because, while McCain was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry was organizing veterans back home in the U.S. to protest the war."

In his 2002 book, "Man of the People: The Life of John McCain," Alexander says that the two Vietnam vets finally reconciled in the early 1990s after having "a long - and at times emotional - conversation about Vietnam" during a mutual trip to Kuwait.

The swiftboat veterans didn't get that touchy feely moment flying to Kuwait. Maybe McCain could sponsor a group hug between Kerry and John O'Neill.

THE CULT OF LEBOWSKI

As a fan of the Coen Brothers, it was interesting to read this article.

Joel and Ethan Coen's 1998 hyperintellectual stoner noir bowling comedy "The Big Lebowski," starring Jeff Bridges as Jeff (The Dude) Lebowski, has the requisite exclusivity of a cult classic: it bombed at the box office; it was met with shrugs by many critics who had arguably overpraised the Coen brothers' Academy Award-winning "Fargo" (1996); and it has amassed an obsessive following on cable and video and by word of mouth. Nowadays, quoting its intricate, absurdist, often riotously profane dialogue earns you coolness points in widely disparate circles. Some would even say that the cult of "The Big Lebowski" is going mainstream.

It has a rolling national convention, for starters: the Lebowski Fest, which in June attracted 4,000 followers in Louisville, Ky., and on Friday arrives in New York City. For two days, Lebowski fans (referred to as Achievers) will dress up as their favorite character (or prop, like a severed toe), dig some far-out rock bands at the Knitting Factory, bowl in far-out Queens, imbibe White Russians (and maybe less licit substances) and spend a lot of time shouting lines at one another like:
"This aggression will not stand, man."

"You're entering a world of pain."

"You want a toe? I can get you a toe. Believe me, there are ways, Dude. You don't want to know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon, with nail polish."

And, of course, the Zen-like sign-off, "The Dude abides."

SWIFT BOAT VETERANS

Most of the guys on Kerry's boat like him. Most of his contemporaries on other boats do not. Add them together and a larger group disapproves of him.

John McCain cries foul and asks that Bush do the same thing. But nobody was so very upset when people were speculating that Bush was AWOL in the National Guard, least of all McCain.

Political campaigns are about distinguishing yourself from your opponent. Since Kerry had a war record compared to Bush's National Guard record, Kerry has made that a very big issue in this campaign.

Kerry has removed Vietnam from an air tight container and used it all through his life in order to achieve certain goals. In the early 1970s, he used the experience to prove that he was a peacenik and that the horrors of war were far worse than the American people knew. In 1992, he used his Vietnam experience to say loudly that Bill Clinton's draft dodging record was unimportant. He's also used his Vietnam experience to be a leader in the normalization of relations with Vietnam and to give the Vietnamese a pass on the number of POWs that they never released.
Kerry's Vietnam experience before this election was used to attack fellow soldiers, go soft on cowards and play nice to the enemy.

Now, Vietnam leaves the airtight container to tell us that Kerry is a warrior. Kerry told us at the Democrat Convention that he was a better warrior than Bush. It's our job as voters to decide if he’s indeed the better warrior. We don't know what happened in Vietnam and Americans were more than willing to ignore his service there, especially since he begged us to ignore Clinton's past service. But since he decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece, it's perfectly fair that some people tell a different story. We've gone through the politicizing of the 911 commission hearings. Michael Moore has made 100 million dollars calling Bush a war criminal. Kerry wanted Vietnam to be an issue not Bush.

I once heard that the inventor of the Guillotine was later executed with it during the harshest period of the French Revolution. Kerry was a leading spokesman for Vietnam atrocities, and the fact that he is now accused of the same atrocities is interesting. The American people will get to decide if the Swift Boat Veterans are more or less trustworthy than Michael Moore.

I think it will matter little to people whether he torched huts and did those other things. Conservatives already don't trust him and Liberals will look the other way. The important thing that transpired here is a reminder that Kerry is anti-military. He did serve when his country called, but he has never stood up for the thousands of veterans that served with him nor the military personnel who came after him. He can't expect those people to pat him on the back now.

BLANKLEY READS THE BOOK.

FOOTBALL

I haven’t been much inspired to write about politics since the Dem Convention and I’ve been busy writing stuff for work. We did our annual Bucs coverage again this year. I’ll share a few thoughts.

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

This is the third year the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have held their training camp here. They lost some pretty good players last year and in the offseason. Keyshawn Johnson split mid year and Mike Alstott missed most of the season with a scary neck injury. John Lynch bolted for Broncos and Warren Sapp went to Oakland.

I still can’t figure out why they let John Lynch go. Lynch might have been the smartest guy on the team. He graduated from Stanford and he answers questions so well you’d think he wrote them himself. Lynch was the first player I interviewed when they came in 2002. I asked him some half-ass questioned about the facilities and he answered me with the same seriousness I heard him use with Dan Patrick a few months later. Lynch could retire tomorrow and get a booth job. I wouldn’t think he’d have much trouble becoming a GM either.

Keenan McCardell is still holding out and it was a shame, because he was always good for a soundbyte. I wasn’t sure what angle I was going to take with the story back in 2002 and he went on and on about how much he liked Celebration and wanted to eat at the pizza joint there, only he couldn’t remember the name and stumbled over it on several tries. It added some levity to a piece that needed it.

Keyshawn Johnson never did talk to us. We did see him walking to the bus as the Bucs PR guy was imploring him to turn around and meet us.

Warren Sapp is plain full of himself. I’d been doing the sports pieces for the show, but last summer Dan asked if he could have the 2002 Bucs piece. He interviewed Jervicious and Lynch and McCardell and despite early butterflies was doing pretty well. When Warren Sapp walked by Dan called him “Warren” and asked if he would talk to us. Sapp said, “I didn’t know we were on a first name basis, Cuz,” and walked away. It was much ruder than it sounded and I was immediately sour on Sapp.

This was the first year we tried the morning practice and we were more successful with interviews than in the past. We got Brad Johnson right off the bat. He’s really a classy guy. Martine Gramatica hopped off the field as we were talking to Brad and we missed him.

So I asked the new punter, Josh Bidwell if he had a moment. Bidwell had been punting in Green Bay and he was a college teammate of Joey Harrington and since I follow the hapless Lions I asked him if he still kept in touch with old teammates. Bidwell was so happy to talk about Oregon. He said that it was a small school and that the guys who made it to the NFL keep in touch and watch each other’s games. Then as coincidence would have it, Bidwell lets out that he lives in Eugene, Oregon which is where Grandpa’s brother Uncle Jim lives. I told him that Uncle Jim retired to fish there and Josh started in with the fly fishing stories. It ended with Josh suggesting we go fishing if I were ever out visiting Uncle Jim. It was reminiscent of Ernie Banks from last summer.

Chris Simms was next and he’s worked with a personal trainer since last year. He looked every bit the college kid last summer and is now fitting in with the pro team. The most surprising thing about pro quarterbacks is how lanky many of them are. Brad Johnson and Simms look more like tennis players than quarterbacks, the former backup QB Rob Johnson even more so. Brian Griese looked the part better than any Buc I’ve seen. Still, when you think of football players you picture these gargantuan linemen, and since everyone wears pads it gives you a false impression of how big they are. Derrick Brooks was the last guy I talked to and he wasn’t tremendously bigger than I am – just enough bigger to earn millions.

We talked to Michael Pittman and Mike Alstott and they both surprised me. Pittman had that domestic trouble last year that resulted in the cops, so I was expecting attitude. Instead, he was very gracious and jovial. Alstott was very nice, but he had nothing whatsoever to say. When I asked whether he was happy to see that his former Boilermakers beat Georgia on New Year’s Day, he simply answered that he didn’t have a chance to go to the game. He did say a couple of things about how it was an important year coming off the injury and that his favorite rides are the kiddy ones with his family. But all in all I can see why he isn’t interviewed much. He just isn’t that introspective.

Derrick Brooks went to Washington High School in Pensacola so I asked him if he hangs out at McGuires when he visits, but he doesn’t seem to. It’s a shame that Sean wasn’t around. He went to Washington. They may have had a better conversation.

This was the first year that we got to talk to Gruden, and we were only given one question so I sneaked in two questions in one sentence about how he likes training here and his favorite attraction.

That’s the bulk of what these stories wind up becoming. We always talk about the team’s chances and hopes but we always try to get the company angle in there somewhere. It’s a nice mix and it promotes the training camp to employees. There’s plenty of free fruit and water and even the occasional bagel.

Interesting Reading

Bobby Fischer is stewing in a Japanese jail.

A technicality might cost Michael Moore an Oscar.

Greg Easterbrook writes an interesting piece about private planes. He takes on egotistical politicians and celebrity environmentalists.

Democrat Congressman Jim McDermot blames Bush for his legislation.

Media Research Center tackles the question of how the media is handling the recent terror warnings compared to the media's handling of Clinton's 1998 bombings around the impeachment vote. They think the media may lean to the Left on this one.

Convention Thoughts on the Night of Kerry

The Democratic convention is well choreographed save for the audience. Remember those Bugs Bunny cartoons in which they would simulate total silence not by silence but by the presence of crickets? That's what I was reminded by tonight anytime a speaker mentioned Kerry's commitment to strong military. If the topic was Bill Clinton they were on their feet. If the topic was another giveaway program they were dancing. If the topic was the war on terrorism they were as interested as Michael Moore would be with a diet book.

These guys can talk the talk tonight, but their base of supporters are speaking even louder that they won't support military action. The Democrats aren't going to risk alienating their base to prosecute this war. If the Dems strategy is to get centrists then someone should be telling the audience to play along by hooting and hollering at these lines too, otherwise we might get the idea that they have no stomach for it.

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

Did they actually make a short film about John Kerry attending a funeral?

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

After accusing Bush of getting us into a fraudulent war and accusing Cheney of making secret deals with polluters, John Kerry asked that President Bush join him to make this a positive campaign. It reminds me of a guy who hits someone in the nose and then implores the victim that their conflict can be worked out through a peaceful dialogue.

Otherwise the usual apple pie and motherhood were paraded out. Kerry mentioned God a couple of times and the crickets came back. He's got a great plan for protecting us before another attack without an ugly pre-emptive strike. A neat trick what details will be released in his memoirs, maybe.

I learned that 4 months in Vietnam over 3 decades ago trumps voting against military and intelligence spending. Hillary can forget about running in the year 2008. Democrats just don't have faith in a candidate that hasn't served in the military.

Kerry said maybe the most honest thing in this campaign. He said that John Edwards is the embodiment of the American Dream. It's true, Edwards has proved that anyone can get rich in this country if they can find a deep pocketed defendant.

John Kerry is an optimist who believes in America although he has his hands full with rich people, corporations, HMOs, homophobes, racists and pro-lifers.

And if it weren’t for this campaign I would have never learned about the miraculous healing power of stem cells. Once they work the kinks out, stem cells will cure Alzheimers , stop jobs from being exported overseas, and make your mother-in-law call before coming over.

John Kerry’s America is Popeye with a case of spinach. John Kerry’s America is Mariano Rivera pitching and Haliburton batting. John Kerry’s America is Microsoft Internet Explorer without the cookies. In short, John Kerry’s America is finally the heaven that FDR, Johnson and Clinton only dreamed of.

JOHN EDWARDS SPEAKS

Last night I heard John Edwards promise that they had a plan to solve all of our worldly problems. He's going to reform health care and bring down the costs, although his kind of lawyering is what caused high malpractice premiums and high costs to begin with.

Edwards promised that he and Kerry would create more jobs, stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, raise the minimum wage, expand access to health care, lower health insurance premiums and reorient the tax code to help working Americans. "We're going to reward work, not just wealth," he said.

Private companies create jobs and the reason they are going overseas is because they're tired of government regulations and strangulations. Clinton promised in 1992 that he was going to give the people a middle class tax cut. He had 8 years to do so and 6 years with a Congress that was all for the idea. Even when the budget deficit became a surplus, Clinton couldn't bring himself to lower taxes. On the other hand, John Edwars has proved by his actions that rich people can and will get out of the taxes regardless of tax rates. We're better off with lower marginal rates for everyone than the fiction that we're soaking the rich.

I found his proposal to raise minimum wage interesting when he complains that a family cannot sustain itself on minimum wage. Even if we doubled minimum wage, Democrats could make the same points about people barely sustaining themselves, so why even bother to raise it? The better question that Democrats never ask is, "Why are people choosing to start families when they do not have the skills in order to provide for them?" Many of my friends that make a decent living are childless or started having kids later once they began earning enough money to pay for them. Should people who are sacrificing in their own lives feel sorry for people who won't?

The biggest laugh of the night came when John Edwards says we should ask the people who served with John Kerry whether or not they trust him. Of course, he has a small core of people he parades around verifying his heroism. What's not given attention is the much bigger group that doesn't like him. Now his fellow commanders have come out against his campaign.

Republicans "are doing all they can to take this campaign for the highest office in the land down the lowest possible road," he said. "This is where you come in. Between now and November, you -- the American people -- you can reject the tired, old, hateful, negative politics of the past. And instead you can embrace the politics of hope, the politics of what's possible, because this is America, where everything is possible."

Democrats have had a field day bashing Bush for months and now they tell us they want to unite America. Let's get something cleared up right now. America is going to remain divided regardless of who wins the election. The two Americas will continue because no election is going to change how people think.

Some people think that we have to go to war to fight terrorism and the other side cannot abide by the casualties that result from it. It doesn’t' matter that we've uncovered Sarin Gas or Mustard Gas, half the country clings to the idea that there were no WMD. It's been said enough times now that no amount of actual evidence will change anyone's mind -- not even the media's. The Left needed a way to oppose Bush and when the evidence of WMD didn't immediately turn up it became their reason to stamp the war as illegitimate. When they couldn't find a letter from Saddam Hussein wishing Osama Bin Laden Godspeed in his plans to hit the World Trade Center the Left's conclusion was that there were no links between the two powers despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. This also became a black mark on Bush although he was less worried about direct connections and more focused on the fact that both powers were supporting terrorists. Discoveries of suicide bomber vests in Baghdad after the fall never got the kind of attention from the media that it deserved.

Neither of these politicians can unite these two sides. If Bush wins, half the country will be convinced he’s leading us to peril. If Kerry wins, half the country will be convinced that he isn’t serious about fighting the war. The Two Americas will continue.

USA TODAY REJECTS ANN COUTLER

Drudge has been running this all day. Coulter's column was her usual go for the jugular sarcastic look at the left. I wasn't going to link it until Drudge posted the actual line by line criticism from the USA Today editors. These are funny.

Coulter: A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it’s a real mystery why cops wouldn’t like Democrats.

USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

COULTER: As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it’s because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it’s no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

USA Today: NOT FUNNY, I DON'T GET IT.

Coulter: Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We’ll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he’ll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

USA Today: I DON'T GET IT.

Coulter: I’d say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don’t. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

USA Today: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THE FRENCH PARTY"? I DON'T GET IT.

Michael Moore is going to write a similar commentary for the Republican convention. Coulter says, "My guess is they will ‘get’ his humor."