Thursday, September 30, 2004


I really don't know what to look for in tonight’s debate. The debate is on international affairs so Bush has the clear advantage. Name one issue Kerry's position isn't weak on.

Iraq war – Kerry has at least 10 different positions 5 for, 5 against.

Iran - Edwards' brilliant position is to bribe the Iranians with nuclear (or as GWB says, nuculur) fuel along the lines of the North Korean model that has worked so well. – Yea, right.

North Korea - Kerry wants a unilateral approach when he hammers Bush for being a unilateralist in Iraq.

Troop redeployment's - Kerry advocated the redeployment of troops home until Bush proposed actually doing it, then he was against it - sort of an idiot's argument that goes, “The sun rises in the EAST!” “Oh, no it doesn't. Not if YOU say it does.”

Look for something totally inane along the lines of, "Sen Kerry, who is the leader of Great Britain?" "Tony Blair." "Good, now President Bush, who is the leader of the Eastern Lower Province of the state formerly know as The Federal Republic of Western Upper Kazgistan which we all know was only formally recognized by the exiled leader of the renegade state of Uzgarzitan?"

Also, I don't rule out some disturbance from the audience or major rules violation by Kerry. Look for something totally desperate. No matter what happens, even if Kerry breaks down in tears mid-way thorough the debate and runs off the stage, the willing accomplices in the press will say, "Well, now we know why they call him a great closer. I can feel the race tightening." It's all BS. People with a brain like GWB. They don't like Kerry. If 51% of Americans have brains, there is no problem. OOPS!


Here is the relevant section of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq which John Kerry voted FOR on 10 Nov 2003:

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

August 2004: In Response To President’s Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN’s "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)

29 September, 2004: In response to Dian Sawyer’s question, “Was the war worth it?” SEN JOHN KERRY: “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.”

This is the latest Iraq position that John Kerry has staked in this campaign – his 10th by some counts. You’d need an Ouija board to figure the actual number of Kerry flips and flops on this issue. Is this a flip or a flop? Nobody is quite sure. It’s sort of like trying to count rain drops on the sidewalk when you were a kid, you can count the first few, but it quickly becomes a futile exercise.

John Kerry’s bigger problem here is that this demonstrates that he doesn’t really stand for anything. And, the problem with not standing for anything is, well…you don’t stand for anything. It seems to me Americans are more likely to vote for someone who is straight-forward and honest even though they might disagree on an issue or two rather than a Gumby candidate who tries to bend his position on issues to conform to the views of whichever voting block he happens to be addressing.

The Iraq war is only the most obvious issue to illustrate this point. John Kerry’s line on the war has taken more turns over a short distance than the line on an Etch-A-Sketch in the hands of a three-year-old. I know it might be hard to stay on message with some obscure topic such as trade policy with Holland with regard to importation of wooden shoes and windmill statues. But a candidate for president ought to be able to stake out a single coherent position on what he has made THE major issue of the election.

So how does Kerry arrive at his daily positions on Iraq? Some think it’s the politicos Kerry has chosen to surround himself with. I think it’s more likely that Kerry consults a Magic 8 Ball on Iraq more than any of his political “experts”. I can see Kerry shaking the Magic 8 Ball as he gets off the bus before a speech, “Am I for the Iraq war?” The 8 Ball answers, “Yes – definitely”. But at the next stop the 8 Ball says, “My sources say no”. After three months of this nonsense, someone took the 8 Ball away or changed all the answers to “No” and pounded into Kerry’s head, “You are the anti-war candidate!”

But for Kerry it may be too late. He didn’t vote for the war before he voted against it because he had strong beliefs in liberty for the people of the Middle East. He voted for it because that is what his political calculation told him to do. He didn’t turn anti-war because of some new and significant change in the war situation. He turned anti-war to get to the left of Howard Dean in the Democrat primary. He didn’t turn back pro-war after winning the nomination because that was where his heart was but rather he thought that was where the votes were. He didn’t make his final tack left because that’s what his conscious told him to do. Kerry tacked left again because the polls told him; with the economy improving, this is the only issue remaining with which he could attack the president.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004


I saw his Orangeness this morning on Drudge and could not help but laugh - not so much at the hue of his skin, which is funny, but the idiotic explanation of how he got that way is hilarious. Drudge says this:


Just days before Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry is set to take the stage in a debate opener projected to be seen by 70 million, photos show the senator dramatically taking on color.

Is it the late September Wisconsin sun during debate prep that has turned Kerry's face to rich pumpkin-colored hues? Or has he been campaigning in the rust-belt?

Kerry advisers defend the sudden deep tan transition, noting how it simply was from a game of flag football last Friday in Bedford, Mass. But the College Democrats who met Kerry were surprised by his rich tan glow -- before the game even began, the HARVARD CRIMSON reports."

Riiight, and the dog ate his homework, yea that’s the ticket. It’s idiocy like this from a serious candidate for the office of President of the United States that makes me fear for the Republic. Why does Kerry or his “people” feel the need to lie about this? Do they really think anyone with a brain is buying a two weeks in the Bahamas tan came from a 20 minute touch football game in late September in Bedford, MA? If they are willing and feel compelled to lie about this, will they tell the truth about anything? How about the simple truth, “In an effort to hide the senator’s most resent Botox injection and add a little color to his complexion for the upcoming debate the senator decided to have a tanning spray. Unfortunately, the Senator, like Ross on Friends, forgot to turnaound when the light came on. The aide who is responsible for this mess has been sacked.”

UPDATE: Sometime, when I was growing up (Given that long journey, it could have been last year.), I learned that if you are willing to lie about things that don’t really matter, like having a tanning spray, you’ll lie about just about anything. Kerry’s inability to deal truthfully with the source of his tan is a harbinger of things to come. He should have gone before the press and said, “I tried to add just a bit of color for the debate, and it got over done.” Go on and tell few self-deprecating jokes and the fowl-up could be turned into an asset. Instead Kerry’s I-can-do-no-wrong opinion of himself leads to “I know you are but what am I?” moments like this.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004


Here are ten relatively straight-forward questions for John Kerry that I hope will be answered during the debates. My take on Kerry’s honest short answer follow each question.

1. During your four months and twelve days in Vietnam, how many times were you ordered into Cambodia?
Answer: Oh, nearly once.

2. Do you still believe that American troops in Vietnam acted in manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan or, if you prefer Jinjis Khan?
Answer: No, and honestly, I never did.

3. Do believe that it is legal, ethical and wise for military officers to meet with enemy representatives?
Answer: Only if the officer is me.

4. Will you sign a Standard Form 180 to release all of your military records before the election?
Answer: No.

5. What is your current position on the war in Iraq? Remember the debate is only 90 minutes long.
Answer: I really don’t know.

6. If you are trying to broaden an international coalition, is wise to disparage the current members of that coalition?
Answer: Only if it helps get me elected.

7. If you are trying to broaden an international coalition, is it wise to send a family member to undermine the election of a foreign leader who supports that coalition in favor of one who has promised, if elected, to withdraw from it?
Answer: Only if the defeat of that leader will help make the president look bad.

8. If you are trying to broaden an international coalition, is wise to disparage the interim leader of the country the coalition is fighting for?
Answer: Again, if I can embarrass the president, I’ll do it.

9. Given the recalcitrant nature of France and Germany toward U.S. interests, how much of America’s sovereignty, treasure and leadership are you willing to bargain away for their participation in the coalition?
Answer: If elected, I’ll bargain away whatever it takes.

UPDATE: Thurs debateLEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

KERRY: If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of [United Nations] resolution [sic], to sit down with those leaders, say, What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?

This in addition to Kerry’s “global test”, and giving the Iranians nuclear fuel, while freezing our own nuclear development, makes it clear that a Kerry presidency would pretty much sell “our” farm to the French, Germans and Kofi Annan just to appear to be an internationalist.

10. What will your reaction be if Usama bin Laden is captured or killed before Nov 2?
Answer: I’ll whine like school girl stood up at the prom.


Having cast one of the 2,909,176 votes for President Bush in Florida, during the 2000 election (actually I prefer to think of my vote as one of the 537 votes that gave Bush the White House), I can attest to the ease of voting with a punch card ballot. Sure, I had to spend a minute and read the directions. I had to spend another 30 seconds to make sure I understood which number corresponded to which punch hole. Last, I had to spend three minutes actually reading the ballot and punching out my ballot. The whole process took less than five minutes but, I’m absolutely certain that I cast a single vote for Bush for president.

Well, because a number of liberals have complained that they are incapable of reading and following directions, Florida has changed its ballot. This year, instead of a punch card ballot, voters receive a newly designed ballot that requires that they draw a line which completes an arrow that points to their selection. If possible, they’ve made it even easier to vote. So, having ensured that their rather large percentage of the moron constituency will be able to figure out the ballot, liberals have turned their attention to their other large voting block, felons.

In his latest “Amerika sucks” piece, former President Jimmy Carter laments the fact that felons (uh…er…alleged felons) are being given a hard time voting in Florida. My first instinct was to say GOOD. What does it say about Carter and liberals that, having secured the moron vote, they are now chasing after the felon vote? Is Kerry or the DNC going to go up with an ad like this:

MUSIC: Somber death march
SCENE: Dingy Florida maximum security prison. Two prisoners are holding mirrors out of their cells talking.

PRISONER ONE: Did you hear what that Jeb Bush is doing?
PRISONER ONE: He ain’t gonna let us vote this year.
PRISONER TWO: You sh*** in me!
PRISONER ONE: Naw man. No sh**! By the way, what you in for?
PRISONER TWO: Murdered my granny for 12 bucks.

Jeb Bush is keeping murders from voting. What’s next?

VOICE: I’m John Kerry and I approved this ad because I think most Florida felons will vote for me.
Go ahead, run the ad.

Sunday, September 26, 2004


Seeing and reading about the President’s touching visit with troops on their way to the war front made me wonder how John Kerry might have handled the visit. From what we already know about Kerry, the story may have gone something like this:

“After delaying the flight of a National Guard unit on its way to Iraq for over an hour to stage a photo op of Kerry playing touch football, – seems it was nearly impossible to get a photo of the senator catching the ball with his eyes open – Kerry sent his aide Joe Lockhart aboard the flight to convey some of his thoughts to the troops he hopes to command.

“Mr. Lockhart noted that given the current state of affairs in Iraq, brought about by the Bush administration’s ineptness, only a lucky few of the people on board the flight could hope to return home without being decapitated. He went on to note that given the weakness of the allies now serving in Iraq, they should spend their flight time to Iraq composing their “last letter home”. After encouraging the troops to seek three imaginary wounds and a ticket home, Lockhart concluded his dirge by noting that the interim leader in Iraq was no more than George Bush’s sock puppet. One of the soldiers aboard the flight was heard to lament, ‘Damn, I guess it’s up to us to turn it around.’”

Photos From Power Line

Saturday, September 25, 2004


Since I’m not running for anything and probably never will, I’ll go ahead and say it, John Kerry is unpatriotic.
1. It’s unpatriotic to volunteer to leave your shipmates in a war zone because of three imaginary wounds.
2. It’s unpatriotic to lie about the shipmates you left behind in that war zone calling them and everyone else serving there murderers and rapists.
3. It’s unpatriotic to meet with enemy representatives in Paris while holding an Officer’s Commission in the Naval Reserves.
4. It’s unpatriotic to pretend to throw away your medals in protest only to have them show up neatly framed in your senate office.
5. It’s unpatriotic to stand in the well of the senate and lie about where your military duties took you (Cambodia?) in order to score some debating points.
6. It’s unpatriotic to vilify a sitting president in time of war for using an authorization of force that you yourself voted for.
7. It’s unpatriotic to vote against the funds to support our troops put in harms way by your earlier vote authorizing the president to use force.
8. It’s unpatriotic to trash our allies supporting a war you voted for while claiming to be the candidate capable of building stronger alliances.
9. It’s unpatriotic to send your sister to influence the election of one of our strongest allies telling them that their stand with the US has made them less safe.
10. It’s unpatriotic to allow your surrogates to trash the leader of the country we are fighting for, a man with real war wounds, a humble man who wanted to come before America’s elected leaders to offer his profound thanks and gratitude for America’s sacrifice on behalf of his fledgling country. The man wasn’t done shaking hands after his speech before you rushed to a microphone to verbally give him what amounts to “the finger” stopping just short of calling him a liar.

Thursday, September 23, 2004


Good thing John Kerry isn’t interviewing for a job as a head football coach. When interviewing for a job with a perennial powerhouse and current Super Bowl Champ, Kerry would no doubt boast that, if hired, he could bring in a couple of guys to take up the slack for what he believes is an under-manned World Championship team. Well, needless to say a guy who thinks that the Packers play at Lambert Field isn’t going to be interviewing for a head football coaching job any time soon.

Kerry is, however, interviewing for the job as Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces. The same forces which have crushed two tyrannical regimes and are now locked in mortal combat with the insurgent remnants of those regimes. Part of Kerry’s stated solution to battling these insurgents is to broaden the international coalition of the willing – fair enough.

So, if your stated goal is to broaden the coalition, how much sense does it make to disrespect those countries already participating in the coalition – calling them “window dressing”, “bribed”, “coerced”, “paid off” etc. etc.? It seem to me that if you are interested in broadening the coalition, the first place to start is by heaping great praise and honor on the coalition’s charter members – solidify the base then add to it.

Kerry’s counterintuitive plan is to trash the very counties who have done the heavy lifting to date while hoping to replacing them with French, German and Russian troops. Is this the guy we want running our foreign policy? The question Kerry must be made to answer is: “Given the recalcitrant nature of these countries toward U.S. interests, how much of America’s sovereignty, treasure and leadership are you willing to bargain away for their participation in the war on terror?”

UPDATE: Thurs debate LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

KERRY: If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of [United Nations] resolution [sic], to sit down with those leaders, say, What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?

This in addition to Kerry’s “global test”, and giving the Iranians nuclear fuel, while freezing our own nuclear development, makes it clear that a Kerry presidency would pretty much sell “our” farm to the French, Germans and Kofi Annan just to appear to be an internationalist.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004


As Russia buries some 300 of its citizens, mostly children whose heinous crime against Islam was going to school; and as we approach our own anniversary of 9-11 and deaths of some 3,000 Americans at the hands of fanatic pan-Islamic terror fascist, John Kerry drones on about “$200 billion for Iraq” tying the Iraq War to the American economy. Duh! Kerry is right but, during the primary, when Kerry was pro-war, he said we should spend “whatever billions it takes to win”. Kerry also conveniently leaves out the link between Iraq and the war against crazed Islamist.

It will make little difference who wins the presidency or what economic policies are put into place if the lunatic fringe of Islam is permitted to bring down governments, blow up trains, planes and school houses at will. Does anyone seriously believe that any economy can flourish if citizens are afraid to travel, go to work, or send their children to school? What will our economy look like if the world simply gives into the whacko terrorists and turns the clock back to the 12th century and lives under Islamic Sharia law?

Voters must realize that our economy is now inextricably linked to winning the war on terror. Fortunately, there is a clear choice between Bush who wants to take the fight to the enemy, killing them where they live and Kerry who would have us hide under the sheets while he plays “Mother May I” with the UN and the French to defend America.


John Kerry’s latest campaign ploy, “W stands for wrong” is a laugher. The alliterative value is such that when he uses it, I get a mental image of Elmer Fudd and wrong becomes wong.

While we’re on the cartoon analogy, doesn’t the whole Kerry campaign remind you of Wylie E. Coyote – super genius? Kerry goes up in a hot air balloon marked “Vietnam War Hero!” only to run into the sharp object know as Swift Boat Vets for Truth and he plummets to earth. Kerry holds up a shotgun claiming to be supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, WHAM! an anvil in the form of legislation he co-sponsored banning the very gun falls on his head. Early on, he claims to support the Iraq war and a train in the form of Howard Dean comes out of nowhere and runs him over. So he becomes an anti-war candidate and the dynamite of his pro-war words blows him up. This scenario has been repeated 10-12 times over the last few months. The result is always the same; pro-war train, anti-war dynamite, pro-war train, anti-war dynamite etc.

At last, the Acme Super New and Improved Bush Catcher arrives in the mail in the form of documents proving Bush skipped out on the Texas Air National Guard. The Rube Goldberg like contraption is meticulously assembled; a super strong spring is compressed against a giant boulder. BOING! The spring (like the forged memos) backfires, instead of propelling Kerry forward; the spring pushes the huge boulder over a cliff in the opposite direction dragging poor Wylie E. over with it.

Credit: David Burge and Rather’s experience with Acme products @